Fate of the Chiku lagoon is hanging in the balance

The proposal for the Pinnan Industrial Complex passed the second stage of the EPA's environmental impact assessment review process in mid-December.

The speed of passage and the big turn in the results took many people by surprise and gave rise to numerous controversies.

The main reason for the controversies was that the EPA reached a conclusion inconsistent with those reached at the previous review meetings of the committee.

For example, the Chiku lagoon, a wetlands area with rich resources and high productivity -- and Taiwan's only wetlands area to remain largely unpolluted -- had come to the attention of both local and international environmental organizations during the second phase of the EIA review.

At the time, most committee members and experts were not in favor of using the lagoon.

But the EPA has now concluded that "only a maximum five percent of the lagoon's area should be used, and the rest of the area cannot be used for the time being (暫不得使用)."

The conclusion gave rise to doubts as to what "for the time being" might mean. The conclusion at previous review meetings had been this: "Model simulations for different proportions of the lagoon area used for the project (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 percent) have all shown to have a significant impact on the lagoon's ecosystem. A 5 percent usage system will result in the northern tideway (北潮口) being blocked up. It is suggested in principle that the project do its best not to use any of the lagoon area." [Excerpt from minutes of the special task force's initial review meeting on July 9, 1998.]

Also, the passage of the EIA has revealed many problems in related laws and regulations. The third working guideline for the special task force says: "The task force is to be set up with eight to 14 members, consisting of members of the EIA committee as well as experts and scholars, depending on the characteristics of each individual project."

The ninth guideline says: "No decisions shall be made at the review meetings (including special task force meetings) if fewer than four members of the committee (including members of the special task force) are in attendance."

In other words, decisions can be made with four people attending a meeting.

There are 30 experts and scholars on the Pinnan project's review task force. Attendance was less than 50 percent at all of the 14 previous review meetings and three special task force meetings.

How can such a small number of members represent the opinion of 30 people?

The justification for these rules is doubtful. In addition, the EPA's EIA guidelines also stipulate clearly in the third and fifth articles of policy assessment: "Those (projects) violating the requirements of international environmental regulations, and those impeding sustainable environmental and ecological development shall undergo policy environmental impact assessments."

Indeed, the Pinnan project needs to undergo a policy EIA because it runs counter to the trend of the Climate Change Convention. The project will also seriously affect the ecosystem of the Chiku lagoon as well as the sustainable development of fishery resources in southern Taiwan. In addition, the black-faced spoonbill, which winters in the Chiku lagoon, has been listed as an endangered species on the Ramsar list of Wetlands of International Importance.