only to a future industrial harbor project, which had not yet been formally
approved.
(3) The site for the Binnan project was nine kilometers away from the
black-faced spoonbill habitat, and thus would not cause harm to the species.
(4) In compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, Taiwan would set tentative
targets to keep carbon dioxide emissions at year 2000 levels by the year- The Binnan project would be reviewed in accordance with these
principles. According to the EIA review, carbon dioxide emissions for the
Binnan project had to be cut by at least 8.5 million tons per year, and
emissions quantities would be approved by the EPA based on scheduling
and zoning. The Binnan project had also been instructed to make use of the
best available clean technology.
(5) According to allocations of MOEA’s water resource bureau, the Binnan
project could obtain a maximum of 80000 tons of water per day. This
allocation would not cause water shortages for residential and agricultural
use, or for the Tainan Science-Based Industrial Park (TSIP). In fact, the
TSIP would receive the major portion of allocated water supply, with the
remainder going to the Binnan project.’^27
Based on the preceding statements, the EIA review further indicated that EPA
was not the designated agency in charge of national land planning,
determination of protected areas (PAs) for the black-faced spoonbills,
determination of industrial policy, or the distribution and conversion of water
resources. However, the EIA was designed to play an important role in
preventing or mitigating environmental impacts. The EIA report also launched
an attack on ENGOs:
‘Every time a development project involves controversial issues, some NGOs
continue to censure EIA review authority and ignore any positive review
conclusions. To these criticisms, one should ask, is the forestallment of all
development projects the only way to protect our environment? Or, rejecting all
economic development, how would we maintain current standards of living?’^28According to Su Huanzhi, the review committee approved the EIA in order to
satisfy money interests and KMT local factions. The KMT-dominated central
government rushed through two postponed national projects during the
election season to win votes at the local level. As the presidential election
approached, the government approved the EIA to show local factions that the
KMT looked after their interests.^29
Post-2000 development of the Binnan proposal
Since the resolution of the second stage EIA, the focus has shifted to the
implementation of the Binnan project. One of the major points of controversy
Politics and biodiversity conservation 205