The Cabinet has initiated a debate about the environmental impact assessment (EIA) system and the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) has begun public hearings to discuss possible amendments to regulations in response.
However, at a meeting on Tuesday, Taiwan Water Conservation Alliance director Jennifer Nien (粘麗玉) quarreled with EPA Deputy Minister Chan Shun-kuei (詹順貴), a former environmental lawyer, who put an abrupt end to the meeting by storming out.
This situation will do nothing to help the public understand how the assessment system works, nor will it allow for a thorough discussion of environmental organizations’ demands. There is no doubt that conflict is a bad thing for all parties as it blocks further progress.
Taiwan is a small nation of about 23 million people. The need for environmental protection is undisputed. However, what is appropriate legislation to manage development is an important policy question. This is why Taiwanese first and foremost need rational debate.
Only if the government is confused should people resort to brinkmanship and emotional suasion to force the government to give in. Prioritizing rational debate would protect the interests of the majority of Taiwanese, who are working to promote public welfare. It would not benefit the minority who want development for the sake of development or protest for the sake of protest.
The clash between non-governmental environmental protection organizations and Chan shows why the whole nation must face up to the issue of consolidating democracy.
The protesters’ main accusation was that exempting certain urban construction projects from assessments was a step backward and that it was a matter of influence-peddling by private businesses.
The EPA’s explanation was that the amendment to EIA legislation included tighter restrictions for certain items, while previously exempt projects would now require assessments, and that some items would be exempted because restrictions are already included in the Urban Planning Act (都市計畫法) and other pieces of legislation, which would be enforced by the authorities charged with overseeing the concerned industries.
Who is right?
Examination of the amendments shows that two new items now require assessments — the extension of mining rights and new natural gas storage tanks.
In addition, there are four items for which EIA standards have been raised — defining agricultural areas, mining developments, natural gas and petroleum product storage tanks on urban land and fish farming pools.
Regulations for two items that used to require an EIA have been relaxed — renewable energy sources smaller than 2 megawatts for personal use no longer require an assessment and geothermal energy generation only requires an assessment if generation capacity exceeds 10 megawatts.
Five items were exempted from assessments: some types of development on urban land, deliberate use of wetlands, factories or industrial parks located on parcels of land smaller than one hectare and belonging to Taiwan Sugar Corp, reuse of waste products and reassignment of factory land to non-factory use.
In sum, some regulations would be tightened while others would be loosened and that cannot all be explained by accusations of “influence peddling.”
Focusing on the more sensitive issue of urban development, the EPA’s draft exempts the development of communities, renewal of old communities, exhibitions, fairs, exhibition venues, underground shopping streets, high rises, hotels, nursing institutions, social welfare institutions, integrated industrial and commercial areas and shopping centers from assessments.
The main reason is that urban planning reviews already include environmental protection measures and requirements with regards to landscaping, traffic impact, sunlight and wind shear, which would overlap with EIAs.
In other words, these items are already regulated by law. At the same time, high-rise developments, hotels, integrated industrial and commercial areas, large shopping centers located on hillsides or in water conservancy areas would in the future require EIAs. Again, there is no evidence of influence peddling.
For a long time, the main criticism of the EIA system has been that the government does not take the responsibility for decisions, instead passing the buck to experts and academics.
While academics could serve as neutral reviewers of assessments, the government must not shirk its responsibility to govern and this is an issue that the current government should address.
Another issue is the procedural inefficiency of the system. When investment projects were submitted for an assessment in the past, nothing would happen for years.
An assessment is a scientific issue: If a project can be approved, it should be approved; if it cannot, then it should not be. There is no reason to delay a decision and leave room for speculation. The government should focus on results and always be transparent in whatever it does.
The EPA has said that the result of the deliberations is to be announced within six months and the whole issue is to be concluded within one year.
Some observers said that this process should be cut shorter if possible, and they are right.
If Taiwan’s development is to be built on a foundation of environmental protection, that requires expertise, knowledge and understanding — expertise to come up with the right solution and knowledge and understanding to implement it. If everyone realized this, there would be no need for quarreling or slander.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under