The Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association, a Taiwanese environmental organization, has been taking the government to task for a number of legal issues related to various permits issued to wind farms based on what it alleges are “deeply flawed” environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and other legally required procedures.
Wild at Heart has said that the project — which is one of the world’s largest energy development projects, with investment in the billions of US dollars — is certain to have severe ecological consequences, including the likely extinction of one of the world’s rarest cetaceans, the Taiwanese white dolphin (Sousa chinensis taiwanensis),Taiwan’s only endemic dolphin species.
The so-called “thousand turbine project” (3 gigawatt target for offshore wind by 2025) is just one of many planned infrastructure projects in Taiwan that are officially deemed environmentally sound, despite posing serious risks to the Taiwanese white dolphin, as well as a number of other unassessed or underassessed social and environmental impacts.
For example, construction is being proposed for more fossil-fuel facilities both in newly discovered “suitable” white dolphin habitat in coastal Taoyuan — along the northwestern coast of Taiwan — as well as in the confirmed dolphin habitat around the Taichung harbor.
The Taoyuan habitat is shared with a planned liquefied natural gas facility, as well as being adjacent to the ancient and extremely fragile algal reef that has raised public ire over the “incomplete and incompetent” EIAs, as well charges that the government (including state-owned developers/proponents CPC Corp, Taiwan and Taiwan Power Co) has ignored the relatively recently enacted Coastal Zone Management Act (海岸管理法).
All along Taiwan’s west coast the government has approved plans for other companies to expand petrochemical facilities, power plants, all at the expense of fishers, the Taiwanese white dolphins and countless other long-term inhabitants of the area.
According to marine acoustics and conservation experts, the EIAs that were carried out for the Taiwan coastal wind farms significantly underestimated the impact on this declining population of dolphins (fewer than 70 remain); in fact, no assessment was done on noise impact on their behavior.
In addition, whatever baseline noise data that might exist has not been made public and thus the estimated impacts and mitigation proposed by the developers cannot be independently assessed by third parties.
This is a dangerous trend and it could unravel the biodiversity and ecosystem services given the trophic significance of the Taiwanese white dolphin and the failure to date of the government to adequately address the other major threats to the dolphins, including gill net fisheries, lack of fresh water flow (impacts the dolphins’ prey) and one of the most seriously polluted coastal areas on the planet.
Apparently the government is just going for the investment and ignoring the environment with billions of dollars expected to be invested in the wind farms and other habitat-challenging projects.
While urgent action is needed to ensure that investment decisions account for projects’ real environmental consequences, developers understandably believe that the government’s EIA approval means they can go ahead without worry.
However, even for the meager “mitigation” offered by the wind farm developers, the government seems to have neither resources nor resolve to monitor and enforce.
While the parties to the UN Economic Commission for Europe agreed in 1991 to a convention on strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) in transboundary contexts and the majority of investment in Taiwan’s offshore wind farms is coming from Europe, one must wonder whether Taiwan is such an attractive place for European wind farm developers and investors on account of our lack of UN membership?
Taiwan did conduct a local SEA on this wind farm project, however, the SEA proponent, the Bureau of Energy under the Ministry of Economic Affairs, is the very government entity promoting the wind farm development; the SEA was simply a ploy to hasten the review of the individual development projects, which had been given a deadline of December 2017 to complete the EIA review — so the Bureau of Energy was basically dictating to the EIA agency, the Environmental Protection Administration, how long it could take to assess the development project.
So, once again, form over substance prevails. The reasoning behind the Taiwan SEA process was no different than that adopted by the UN: a recognition that SEAs are needed to ensure that the decisions taken by governments and companies do not cause undue damage to the natural environment or the people who depend on it.
However, as the examples cited above reveal, the Taiwan SEA for the wind farm project did fulfill their intended purpose under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (環境影響評估法). This is largely because the technical specialists relied on in the SEAs and EIAs are hired and paid for by the project developers and the government agencies promoting the development — a practice that, as advocates have repeatedly pointed out throughout the world, is grossly unethical.
With the assessors frequently basing their conclusions on only a superficial appraisal of the ecological and market value of the affected ecosystems, it should be no surprise that damaging projects are often approved, despite failing to adhere to broadly agreed green development guidelines.
To play an effective role in protecting the planet and its people, SEAs must be rigorous, credible and transparent. This means that they must be conducted by well-regulated, impartial professionals.
To some extent, the laws and institutions needed to make this happen already exist: SEAs are legally required in many jurisdictions, and the International Association for Impact Assessment could provide self-regulation.
Robin Winkler is the founder and a board member of the Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association, Taiwan.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS