By June Tsai
For Taiwan’s environmentalists and community activists, April was an encouraging month as several contentious developments were brought to a standstill. The controversies themselves, however, highlight the urgent need for a formal system to review the social impact of development projects.
On April 22, President Ma Ying-jeou called a halt to the Kuokuang petrochemical project in the coastal wetlands of western Changhua County. Ma’s decision came after a two-day marathon environmental impact assessment meeting could not resolve the Kuokuang case, despite a total of 24 hearings and 600 days of protests by residents, scholars, civic groups and students opposed to the naphtha cracker plant.
Earlier in the month, Tainan City stopped the construction of a landfill, which had been conditionally approved 10 years ago, but local nongovernmental organizations had exposed falsified data and irregularities in the developer’s EIA.
Later, the Ministry of the Interior’s Regional Planning Commission rejected a Miaoli County proposal to expropriate prime agricultural land in Wanbao, Houlong Township, for a science park. Wanbao farme blew the whistle on the land expropriation plan, on which they had never been consulted.
In a workshop on social impact assessment organized by National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of National Development April 15, scholars and NGO representatives examined current EIA and land planning practices, and called for a change to the expert-centered approval process.
“The existing EIA review system in Taiwan looks at the environmental and health risks of a development, but ignores long-term social changes and effects on people’s lives,” said Hsu Shih-jung of National Chengchi University’s Department of Land Economics.
The participation of citizens affected by or concerned about proposed developments, moreover, have been largely overlooked in practice. For example, Hsu said, public hearings are not mandatory under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Environmental Impact Assessment Act includes clauses on public participation, “but most practices aimed at including the public are formalities at best,” he said.
It has become the norm for protesters to take to the streets, as those affected by development projects lack access to policymakers and transparent information, he added.
Lin Tzu-lin, secretary-general of Wild at Heart Legal Defense Foundation, pointed out how the social impacts of development have been ignored by the powers that be.
“Facing flawed implementation of the law or even failure to enforce the law, local NGOs have worked to monitor development projects undertaken by the government or private developers before potential negative impacts become a reality,” she said.
According to Chou Kuei-tien, a GIND professor, expert meetings convened by the Environmental Protection Administration on the Kuokuang case proceeded with a cost-benefit analysis for the petrochemical industry, including effects on the life spans of individuals in the local population and prevention of land subsidence.
“But that’s not social impact assessment, nor are questionnaire surveys conducted with people in the area,” he said.
“In a valid SIA, the impact on oyster farmers, tourism and national food safety, and the effects of a changed ecology on health should all be taken into consideration,” Chou said. If these factors had been analyzed in the Kuokuang case, he added, the plan would never have got off the ground.
SIA has been institutionalized in several countries, becoming an integral part of the EIA procedure, according to David Fu-keung Ip, an associate professor at Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s Department of Applied Social Sciences.
In Australia for example, Ip said, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 incorporates principles of ecological sustainability, implying that the social consequences of development plans must be factored in.
According to practices Down Under, SIA covers the geographical boundaries of a development plan, impacted regions and stakeholders—the developer and affected individuals, groups and communities and their participation in the assessment process—as well as comparison of desirable and adverse impacts and measures for minimizing negative effects.
Ip, an experienced SIA practitioner, explained that SIA should be applied to development, policy changes and the consequences arising at different stages of a project.
Yet in practice, manipulation is still possible, Ip said. Governments, developers and campaign organizations outsource SIA work to consultancy firms or individuals with SIA expertise. But assessment methods vary, and professionals are not without their own biases with regard to development, he noted.
“SIA practitioners, mostly social scientists, must realize that SIA is not just a technical exercise, but involves ethical questions and value choices,” Ip said. “The credibility of SIA lies in their professional ethics and conscience.”
In Taiwan, Lin said, many social scientists have chosen to side with affected communities and NGOs in recent controversies, but some of their peers involved in assessment and approval processes have tended to hide or downplay problems in favor of developments, “so that they can be given more research commissions.”
Lin stressed that scholars have professional knowledge and access to information beyond the reach of ordinary people. “We expect them to play a greater and fairer role.”
Chou worried that SIA could become a tool of the state, as has already begun to happen with EIA, if it is institutionalized and becomes a task the government is allowed to outsource. In addition, stakeholders with sufficient power and money may still disregard decisions to halt or modify development, whether they come from review committees or courts of law.
Scholars at the workshop were quick to point out that Taiwan’s academic bureaucracy and civil service system are inclined to put the needs of the state first.
Both academics and officials tend to cite the role of objective science in decision-making, claiming everything has been done in accordance with the law, said Liao Pen-chuan, a professor of urban planning at National Taipei University and social activist. “Yet expert opinions and legal interpretations are steered toward satisfying what their superiors want,” he said.
Liao argued that the incessant drive for development is the source of recent disputes. Sadly, he said, the development projects have not been based on any master plan for national land use or a sound vision for the country’s development.
“If there were an overall national plan, and we decided to go ahead with a specific project, the first thing to do would be to talk about locations and alternatives. Then an EIA would be conducted, focusing on measures to mitigate adverse impacts,” Liao said.
“The last issue, and one preferably avoided at all costs, would be the expropriation of people’s land,” he said. “In recent cases, however, that whole process has been reversed.”
With this situation in mind, Chou proposed that SIA play a reforming role in the country’s decision-making processes, as well as in the approval and monitoring of policies and projects.
“This will help effectively solve conflicts involving the state, private industry and the people, creating and maintaining a balanced relationship among these parties,” he said.
This article first appeared in online Taiwan Today May 6, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment