Governance of Biodiversity Conservation in China And Taiwan

In December 1999, the EIA committee resolved to ‘conditionally pass’ the
second stage EIA on the Binnan project. Review at this stage had included
more pro-development professionals and scholars in committee deliberations,
and voices from ENGOs were muted. Hsieh notes that the EPA made its
decision in accord with its ‘pre-existing position’.^25 Then, on 26 April, 2000,
one month before the inauguration of the new DPP government, the EPA
convened the last meeting on the Binnan project to confirm its decision.
Protests of ENGOs and legislators caused the EPA to postpone this meeting
until after the change of government and the formation of the new DPP
cabinet.
In May 2000, ENGOs issued a five-point statement to question the validity
of the second stage EIA conclusion:

‘(1) In addition to a strict review of materials used to inform the

conclusions reached at the 66th review meeting, the EPA should also

require developers to provide further information and detailed evaluations

of alternative sites, industrial port alternatives, and mitigation measures for

the black-faced spoonbills;

(2) The EPA should require the project to undergo a ‘Policy Environmental

Impact Assessment’ in order to demonstrate the legitimacy of EIA laws and

the credibility of the EIA system.

(3) The industrial harbor should be included in the scope of the project’s

EIA.

(4) The EPA should set a clear figure, instead of imprecise estimates, for

the maximum area in the Qigu lagoon that the project is allowed to use.

(5) The EPA should require developers to submit a written statement of full

responsibility for risks the project poses to the ecology as well as the lives

and properties of residents in and around the area. Also, land for the project

should only be leased, not sold outright, so that developers could not

engage in land speculation in the name of industrial development.’^26

In response to ENGOs’ attacks on the EIA process, the EPA counterattacked
and contended that:

‘(1) The EIA review process was not careless, rough, or hasty. Participants

in the review process included 29 committee members, scholars and

experts, 41 related institutions and agencies, 25 concerned groups, and one

legislator. Since 1993, 66 review meetings had met to discuss the Binnan

project.

(2) A ban on private use of the lagoon required concrete scientific proof of

negative influences. The EIA review conclusion limited maximum use of

the lagoon to 5 percent. This usage did not apply to the Binnan project, but

204 Governance of biodiversity conservation in China and Taiwan