Fourth-stage expansion of Central Taiwan Science Park permit revoked

Yesterday, the High Administrative Court revoked the development permit issued for the Fourth-stage expansion of the Central Taiwan Science Park for Erlin in Chunghua County. The project threatened the tradition way of life of the rural peoples of Erlin. The project also would cause extremely high levels of pollution and environmental damage. According to the Taipei Times, the court said, “The development [in Erlin Park] will cause serious waste of the nation’s land and resources, compromise food safety and affect the nation’s sustainability.” “Revoking the permit will not contradict the public interest. Rather, the ruling would safeguard a major public interest.”

Read Farmers elated as science park’s permit is revoked in today's Taipei Times:

Toxic Cocktail: who's pickin up the tab?

"Taipei Times
Firm under fire over plant blaze

PUBLIC RELATIONS MELTDOWN:Formosa Petrochemical, owner of the Sixth Naphtha Cracker, has faced criticism over suspicious animal deaths after a major fire at the plant"



The headline and plurb kind of just sizzle and pop. There's no real bang in this. It looks a little hot but as soon as you get into the text of the article you soon realise there's no spice in it. Probably just a weak attempt to cover the story without rattling the cage of the corporate ogre in the story. The string of fires down at the Formosa Petrochemical Corp’s Sixth Naphtha Cracker in Mailiao, Yunlin County are no secret but the article just mentions one fire in July 2010. There were two around then actually but I guess our reporter saw fit not to mention the other fire or the ones which came after. The article waffles on about activists and EIAs and dead ducklings but never really gets down to the issue of Formosa Plastics needing to take responsibility for the toxic landscape it's created down in Mailiao.

Just over a week ago we were told that Premier Sean Chen (陳冲) would become involved in the disagreement between the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) and Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) regarding an EPA decision that could lead to Formosa Petrochemical Corp’s withdrawal from an investment project. And what might that mean? Is Premier Chen going to smooth the ruffled feathers of the corporate ogre and insure that it will be business as usual for the petrochemical giant asap?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that those grey smoke-filled skies around Mailiao aren't healthy. Local folks might lack the funds and resources to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the sudden deaths of fish, ducklings and other animals following fires at Formosa are a result of the toxic fallout from the fires but that doesn't make Formosa right and excuse what is happening down there.

Lawyers, unethical politicians, rich corporations, corrupt officials. These might keep the debt collector from the door in the short term. But somewhere, sometime in the not too distant future the tab for this toxic cocktail is going to have to be paid! And it will be paid in the currency of poor health, disease and death. It will be paid by the environment and all those who live in it; human and non human. It's legacy will run generations and it will be our legacy.

Another shocking wounded Pink Dolphin photo!

TW-111, seen on 21st July with a new open wound probably from entanglement in a fishing net.*



Another shocking Taiwan pink dolphin injury photo has been forwarded to us by researchers. The photo shows dolphin (TW-111) photographed on July 21 with a very serious injury. The injury would likely have been caused while pulling itself free from entanglement in a net. The wound is very deep. You can clearly see where the epaxial muscles (lighter colour in this photo) and the blubber layer (the thin darker layer) are separated.

This animal was last photographed on July 6 and did not show the wound at that time so the injury must have been between that date and July 21st.

Another very disturbing thought is the open wound in those nasty waters.

At the 2007 international workshop on the pink dolphins scientists identified five major threats to the Taiwan pink dolphins:
- by-catch in fishing gear;
- reclamation of estuarine and coastal regions for industrial purposes;
- diversion and extraction of freshwater from major river systems of western Taiwan;
- release of industrial, agricultural and municipal effluent into rivers and coastal waters;
- noise and disturbance associated with construction, shipping and military activities

There is overwhelming evidence that by-catch and entanglement are happening. If the issues isn't addressed immediately then it would appear that these critically endangered dolphins are doomed to be lost through by-catch and entanglement within just the next few years.

Also see:
Shocking Truth: The fatal reality of entanglement and bycatch for the Taiwan Pink Dolphins


*Photo courtesy and copyright FormosaCetus.

Cancellation of KK gets mention in the IUCN's Species Magazine

The Dacheng Wetlands which was to be the site of the Kuokuang Petrochemical project.


The cancellation of the Kuokuang Petrochemical project in April last year has made it into the the latest edition of the IUCN's bi-annual magazine, Species Magazine issue 54. There is a brief mention in the Cetacean Specialist Group report on page 41. The Kuokuang Petrochemical Project would have seen the Dacheng wetlands (Changhua County) destroyed through a land reclamation project to house the Kuokuang Petrochemical Refinery. The Dacheng Wetlands on the west-central coast are an internationally listed IBA (important bird area). The loss of the wetlands and construction of a petrochemical plant would have effectively divided the habitat of the critically endangered Taiwan Pink Dolphins in two.

And the name games continue...

Yesterday, a different version of Friday's post, It's all in a name appeared as a letter in the Taipei Times. A copy of the Taipei Times letter appears below. In Friday's post we pointed out how the media can subtly influence the perception of something by their choice of name. The old story of story of what some call hero others call villain.

On Friday we pointed out how the Taipei Times seems to box anyone who speaks out over, or protests over an issue linked to the environment as an "environmentalist" or "activist" or "conservationist" or some other "ism." Create the impression that just greeny-hippie-bunny-hugger-types are up in arms. The lunatic fringe again! When in fact it is Joe Citizen and it's civic groups, concerned residents, teachers, academics, parents, farmers and so the list could go on. They are people we relate to. They are everyday regular folk. They are us. And they've had enough of polluted skies, fields and waterways. They've had enough of greed and corruption and they want it to stop.

Yet again today we see another Taipei Times article (Petrochemical project slammed by protest group) about a protest over the fourth expansion project at Formosa Plastics Corp’s sixth naphtha cracker complex in Mailiao Township, Yunlin County. And once again we learn that was those pesky "local environmental activists" again. There's that subtle boxing to create the impression it's the lunatic fringe again. Yes, they do name some of the groups represented at the protest. And right at the end, almost as a footnote, we learn that there actually were more than 30 civic groups from across the country. But in those all important opening paragraphs we read "protest" "small" "local environmental activists."

We learn nothing really about what they are protesting about beyond the most obvious. Some of the seemingly dirty underhanded ways the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was passed are touched on but no mention of Formosa Plastics horrendous environmental track record even gets a mention. No mention of all the recent fires. No mention of how they have attacked freedom of speech with their recent SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) where two Formosa Plastics affiliates filed a lawsuit against Professor Tsuang Ben-jei (莊秉潔) of National Chung Hsing University’s (NCHU) department of environmental engineering because they claim that he said emissions from FPG's sixth naphtha cracker plant in Yunlin County’s Mailiao Township (麥寮) resulted in a higher cancer occurrence rate amongst nearby residents which has injured FPG's reputation. Yeah, the criminal suit brought by two Formosa Plastics affiliates that are also investors in the Mailiao off shore facility has been dismissed – i.e., non indictment. FPG can “appeal.” However, a civil suit is still pending.

None of this makes it into the article. No mention of the threats that the likes of the Mailiao plant pose to local residents both human and non human like the critically endangered Taiwan pink dolphins.

Why? Why is the article so selective in what it reports? It's obvious that the protesters aren't getting a boost from the media for their cause. So who is?


Taipei Times letter- July 30, 2012.
It’s all in the name

What one calls a terrorist another calls a liberator. It is all in the name; how those who hold power or desire power wish the masses to perceive something. The media obviously plays its part in all this.

Take the Taipei Times article “Environmentalists protest over EIA” (July 26, page 3). Environmentalists? Images of long-haired hippie types stuck in a 1960s mindset rambling on about free love and Mother Earth come to mind. And I am pretty sure that is just what some politicians, developers and corporations want you to think. “Yeah, the lunatic fringe up in arms again causing disruptions!”

The first paragraph of the article read as follows:

“Environmentalists yesterday protested against an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for an expansion project at a naphtha cracker complex that failed to include fine particles.”

You would be forgiven for thinking it was just those pesky environmentalists that have a problem with an environmental impact assessment for the fourth phase expansion project at Formosa Plastics Corp’s sixth naphtha cracker complex in Yunlin County’s Mailiao Township (麥寮). Some group of crazy green bunny-huggers whining about fine particles not being listed.

Now, let us delete “environmentalists” and give a more accurate description of those that typically are present at these protests against the expansion projects down in Mailao:

“Concerned local residents, civic groups, fishers, farmers, workers, teachers, academics, parents, lawyers, doctors, conservation and environmental groups yesterday protested against an EIA for an expansion project at a naphtha cracker complex that failed to include fine particles.”

OK, it is a bit long, but you get the point. It sounds different, doesn’t it? It changes things. We relate to these people. They are us. They do not sound so loony.

However, the Taipei Times so often boxes these regular folks and organizations as “environmentalists” or “activists” or some other “ism.” I am sure the so-called developers must smile at this subtle eroding of Joe Citizen’s image and credibility.

You see. It is not just environmentalists that are pissed off with Formosa Plastics and its toxic hell down in Mailiao. After all the pollution, fires, greed and lack of ethics, after soaring cancer rates, dirty air and smokey gray skies, people have had enough. They want to know why the Environmental Protection Agency allows this toxic nightmare to continue.

However, others would have you believe it is just some nutty environmentalists who have a problem with it.

T.W. Sousa, Yunlin County

It's all in a name

Formosa Plastics at Mailiao in Yunlin County in all its toxic glory.


To the Nazis they were terrorists, subversives and a host of other evil sounding names. The Allies called them resistance fighters, partisans, patriots and freedom fighters. And so often through history what one calls a terrorist the other calls liberator. It's all in the name; how those that hold power or desire power wish the masses to perceive something. The media obviously plays its part in all this.

Take this story from today's Taipei Times. The headline reads "Environmentalists protest over EIA." Environmentalists? Images of long-haired-hippy-types stuck in a 60s mindset rambling on about free love and Mother Earth come to mind. And I'm pretty sure that that is just what they want you to think. Yeah, the lunatic fringe up in arms again causing disruptions.

The first three paragraphs of the Taipei Times article read as follows:
"Environmentalists yesterday protested against an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for an expansion project at a naphtha cracker complex that failed to include fine particles.

The EIA for the fourth expansion project at Formosa Plastics Corp’s sixth naphtha cracker complex in Yunlin County’s Mailiao Township (麥寮) did not list PM2.5 (fine particles less than 2.5 micrometers) as an item in the evaluation.

Before the impact assessment meeting, environmentalists gathered in front of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) and called on committee members to reject a proposal to once again expand the plant."

You're to be forgiven for thinking it was just those pesky environmentalists that have a problem with an environmental impact assessment for the fourth phase expansion project at Formosa Plastics Corp’s sixth naphtha cracker complex. Some group of crazy bunny-huggers on about fine particles not being listed.

Now, if you would allow me, let's change a few words in just the first paragraph of the article to read:
"Concerned local residents, civic groups, fishers, farmers, teachers, parents, lawyers, doctors and conservation and environmental groups yesterday protested against an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for an expansion project at a naphtha cracker complex that failed to include fine particles."
Sounds different doesn't it. It changes things. We relate to these people. They are us. They don't sound so looney.

You see. It's not environmentalists that are pissed off with Formosa Plastics and its toxic hell at Mailiao in Yunlin County. After all the pollution, fires, greed and lack of ethics. After soaring cancer rates, dirty air and smokey grey skies people have had enough. They want to know why the EPA keeps allowing this toxic nightmare to continue. But others would have you believe it was just some nutty environmentalists who have a problem with it.

Shocking Truth: The fatal reality of entanglement and bycatch for the Taiwan Pink Dolphins

Summer is here and once again researchers are out collecting data on the critically endangered Taiwan pink dolphins. In a few short years we've watched as best estimates have gone well below 99 for the total population with the likelihood of around 70 individuals being where this unique population is now at...or should we be saying, "was" because obviously that data is based on data from previous years.

At the 2007 international workshop on the pink dolphins scientists identified five major threats to the Taiwan pink dolphins:
- by-catch in fishing gear;
- reclamation of estuarine and coastal regions for industrial purposes;
- diversion and extraction of freshwater from major river systems of western Taiwan;
- release of industrial, agricultural and municipal effluent into rivers and coastal waters;
- noise and disturbance associated with construction, shipping and military activities.

We know what the threats and problems are. They are obvious and you really don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that unless something is done about these dolphins now they are going to become extinct very quickly. The extinction of the Baiji in 2007 shows just how fast a dolphin species can become extinct. There is more than enough evidence to show that the situation is critical. If we don't act now it will be too late! But the powers-that-be aren't acting. They demand more evidence and data in what can only be seen as a stalling tactic and the only beneficiary of that are those milking the resources of the west coast; heavy industry and fisheries.

We know that entanglement and by-catch is taking a grim toll on these dolphins. Two dead pink dolphins have washed up on the west coast since September 2009. There are rumors of other instances where dolphins have been killed through by-catch but I hear you say, "Ah, those are rumours! Where's the proof?" But do we need such proof as that of a rotting carcass? We have two. There is overwhelming evidence that by-catch and entanglement is happening. The evidence is there for us to see. Because this occurs at sea there isn't always going to be a rotting carcass washed up on the beach. We can look at the the collected data and see that by-catch is happening and that unless something is done about it these dolphins are going to fall victim to the threat of by-catch so quickly that it would be unlikely they will survive another decade under the current onslaught. And it's happening so quickly that the data isn't going to show the trend until we are well and truly beyond the point of no return.

Here are some photos from this year:

TW-04 (aka "Humpy") was seen on 1st July sporting a new large scar on its tailstock (the deepest cut visible) probably from entanglement with gillnet.

This calf was seen in early June with the entangled line and hasn't been seen since).

TW-88 was seen in early July in the Yunlin/Chiayi area. The lines on the two animals look like monofilament lines (most likely from gillnets).

Given these and all the other photos collected over previous seasons do we really need to use collecting more data on by-catch and entanglement as an excuse for not acting now?

All photos are courtesy and copyright FormosaCetus.

Also see:
Another shocking wounded Pink Dolphin photo!

Nuclear Safety: Taiwan Dawdles Behind the Philippines

(Controlled explosion: Wikipedia)

From the Hanji Chinese Language Liberty Times 24 June 2012


Nuclear Safety: Taiwan Dawdles Behind the Philippines
By TSAI Yain

Recent news reports picked up on Prof. CHEN Zhenghong’s warnings that an eruption of the Datun volcanoes could result in two to three meters of ash falling on the nearby first and second nuclear plants. CHEN, former deputy minister of the National Science Council is currently a professor of geology at National Taiwan University. In response, Atomic Energy Council Minister TSAI Chunhong has said if we really were to encounter such a scenario he has no idea how to handle it.

CHEN’s warnings bring to mind the 1990 film “Dreams” by Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, where the sixth “dream” describes an eruption of Mount Fuji and the resulting molten lava spills onto six nearby nuclear power reactors. As the people flee from the exploding plants, a person cries: “Japan is too small; we simply have nowhere to hide!” Finally they flee to the beach, and with nowhere to escape, they jump into the sea. Even the dolphins can’t escape the disaster. Meanwhile, nuclear power personnel, in their protective suits and ties look on as the sky fills with highly toxic plutonium 239, strontium 90, cesium 137 and other deadly isotopes forming radioactive clouds. They exclaim how the folly of humankind surpasses all imagination. Given their understanding of immense pain and suffering in store for those exposed to high doses of radiation, the “suits” apologize to the people around them before taking their own lives by jumping into the apocalyptic ocean.

This 20-year-old film is now seen as somewhat prophetic in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. While these words of warning failed to prevent the Fukushima nuclear disaster, perhaps it is not too late for Taiwan to heed the warning? Could Taiwan prevent a nuclear catastrophe if the Datun volcanoes erupted?

Taiwan’s first and second nuclear plants, with a total of four reactors are built next to the Datun volcanic group. An eruption would surely lead to nuclear disaster; and with Taiwan being much smaller than Japan, we would have even less chance of escape. With the Atomic Energy Council’s minister admitting that he does not know how to deal with such a disaster what are ordinary people expected to think or do?

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in the Philippines was built close to volcanoes and faults. Although the construction was completed, for security reasons, the plant has never gone into operation. The first and second nuclear power plants in Taiwan lie on active faults near the Datun volcanoes. Their proximity to metropolitan areas means that a serious nuclear incident would affect millions of people. It is absolutely imperative that the government moves now to decommission these plants and remove this insanely cataclysmic threat to the people of Taiwan.


Yain TSAI is a lawyer with the Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association, Taiwan and also chairs the Environmental Law Committee of the Taipei Bar Association.


核安 菲律賓比下台灣

◎ 蔡雅瀅

報載前國科會副主委、台大地質系陳正宏教授警告，大屯火山群一旦噴發，厚達二、三公尺的火山灰，可能會對核一及核二廠造成災害。原能會主委蔡春鴻對此表示，萬一真的碰到這種災害，他也不知道該怎麼辦。

這 則新聞令人想起一九九○年日本導演黑澤明拍攝的電影「夢」，片中第六個夢「赤富士」，描述富士山岩漿噴發時，核電廠的六座反應爐接二連三地爆炸。民眾紛紛 逃難，其中一人說：日本太小，我們根本無處可逃。最後逃到海邊，發現無處可逃的人們都跳海，連海豚也逃走，穿西裝的核電人員看著空氣中充滿劇毒的鈽 239、鍶90、銫137等輻射雲，感嘆：人類的愚行真是匪夷所思。了解暴露高劑量輻射後果的核電人員，不願忍受未來漫長的病痛折磨，向周遭的人道歉後， 跳海自盡。

這部二十多年前的老電影，在福島核災後，被稱作「預言」片，可惜警世預言未能阻止福島核災，但能否阻擋台灣核災？能不能讓火山與核災齊發「赤色大屯山」的悲劇，不會在台灣真實上映？

台灣將核一、核二廠建在大屯火山群附近，一旦火山爆發，可能造成核災；而台灣面積狹小，比日本更無處可逃。連原能會主委都坦承他也不知道該怎麼辦的災難，豈能讓民眾承擔？

菲律賓的安達巴核電廠，鄰近火山與斷層，興建完成後，基於安全考量，從未運轉。台灣的核一、核二附近有大屯火山群與山腳活動斷層，且位於人口稠密的首都圈，一旦出事便是數百萬人受害，政府實應儘速除役該二座核電廠，不要再讓民眾承受核災風險。（作者為台灣蠻野心足生態協會專職律師、台北律師公會環境法委員會主委）

Update: FPG-Tsuang lawsuit

In what many believe to be a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) where two Formosa Plastics affiliates filed a lawsuit against Professor Tsuang Ben-jei (莊秉潔) of National Chung Hsing University’s (NCHU) department of environmental engineering because they claim that  he said emissions from FPG's sixth naphtha cracker plant in Yunlin County’s Mailiao Township (麥寮) resulted in a higher cancer occurrence rate amongst nearby residents which has injured FPG's reputation. The criminal suit brought by two Formosa Plastics affiliates that are also investors in the Mailiao off shore facility has been dismissed – i.e., non indictment. FPG can “appeal.”  However, a civil suit is still pending and this could be different. It is good to see that the courts dismissed the criminal suit where it seemed that the motive was nothing more to silence and scare anyone who dares to speak out against Formosa Plastics. Lets hope the civil suit is seen as nothing more than an attack on academic freedom and the right to free speech.

Also see:
Formosa (FPG) suppressing academic freedom and freedom of speech?
Let’s All Pick a Fight with Formosa Plastics 

Huben Epitaph

Hushan's Yucing valley before it was dug out to make way for the highly controversial Hushan Dam.


Yucing valley when the earth-movers got busy.


Pleasantries exchanged on the roadside. “Lunch?” “Yes, that would be lovely.” And so I found myself sitting down to dumplings in a typical Taiwanese dumpling joint making polite small talk. “See anything good at Augu this morning?” “No, it was very quiet. Not much around.” “Don’t know how you can spend so much time looking at those black and white waders. Hit the forests more. Colourful birds there and it’s so much prettier than the West Coast.” And then it happened! “Been to Huben lately?” “Yes, last week.” I feel my blood stirring. In an attempt to gain control of my run-away emotions I blurt out, “Saw two Pitta. Heard a Maroon Oriole.” And at that point the wave of anger held inside broke on the shores of my heart. “Huben’s fucked!” There was no disguising my feelings in the way I spat out those words.


Yucing valley being put to the grader.

All my intentions to remain calm and not to get emotional went out the window. I could see the look in his eyes; the judgment. He didn’t need to say anything. It was written all over his face. “Too much time in the sun. Irrational. Emotional. Unstable.”


And the forest is cleared to make way for the water demands of heavy industry.


So smooth. So controlled. And with calmness etched onto his face with perhaps just a hint of a condescending smirk he replied. “That bad? I don’t think it’s that bad. I mean it’s still a good birding spot.” I reply, “Compared to what it was, it’s finished; trashed!” “Oh, I don’t know about that.” And that level of anger within rocketed. “In 2006 there were forty pitta around the village. This year there are four! Four!!! In just six years forty to four. Huben is dead! Everywhere they’re doing the same. They’re concreting every bloody mountain stream they can. Before our eyes they’re destroying what’s left. On Saturday I saw those pitta and it struck me like a hammer. These are very likely the last of Huben’s pitta. What is a certainty is that my infant son will never enjoy seeing a pitta there by the time he’s six.”


Stripped and bleeding. The forest is no more.


My companion then continued calmly. He emphasized the need for a calm balanced approach and how he needed to find his niche in all this. I retorted, “The calm balanced approach has resulted in the loss of Huben. It hasn’t worked. Only when we say enough and get angry and take to the streets is there any hope of the destruction stopping.” For the first time the calm façade of Mr. Calmness showed a hint or irritation. “Taking to the streets has never helped anyone. It’s not going to save Huben.” Indignant I replied, “How would you know? It hasn’t been tried! It’s too late now. Huben is gone!”


Another stream disappears under concrete. Fairy Pitta nest on stream banks. This spot was a known Fairy Pitta nesting site.


I had had my say. Mr. Calmness wasn’t looking so calm anymore. It was written on his face. A change of topic. Dignity. A stiff upper lip was what was needed to selvage this most unfortunate lunch. I obliged.


Deforestation before our eyes. This happened just a few weeks ago.


Later as I reflected, I couldn’t help wondering if we’ve been so wired by our present environment and education system that even for people who clearly feel something for the natural world we have been so conditioned, programmed, to put the alleged need for what we’ve been taught is “progress” over that of the natural world. In the case of Huben it translates to, “I care about the Fairy Pitta but I mustn’t let that get in the way of progress.”

We need to be honest and we need to reflect. What does Huben represent? Huben isn’t just about Fairy Pitta and a dam. It represents the choice of irreversibly proceeding with development of the petrochemical industry at the expense of Taiwan’s natural environment or halting the damage and turning towards a more sustainable future before it was too late. This was about the tipping point on the West Coast.


And more concrete for the rivers.


The first thing we need to do is acknowledge that we failed miserably in protecting the Huben-Hushan IBA (Important Bird Area). Huben is lost. At one point there were scores of NGOs under the umbrella of the Taiwan National Coalition against the Hushan Dam. How many remain today? The issue was very much about protecting the Fairy Pittas' globally most important breeding area. There were several other less prominent but equally important other threatened species residing in the Huben-Hushan IBA.

The reason for the construction of the Hushan Reservoir is largely to supply the water needs for the expansion of heavy industry on the West Coast. Considering the toll that heavy industry takes on the environment it begs the question, “Do we want to go on polluting at even greater levels than we are now?” Apart from the corporations that stand to make even more money in the short term is anyone else going to benefit at all from greater levels of pollution and the destruction of what remains of the natural environment? The Fairy Pitta and Co in Huben aren’t. The critically endangered Taiwan pink dolphins on the west coast aren’t. The farmers aren’t. The fishers aren’t. Our health isn’t. So then why the hell are we doing this then? Because of so called “development!” Because despite all the damage that we know is going to take place we have been conditioned to allow corporations to do whatever they like to make a quick buck.

So what went wrong? Why have we allowed this? We need to ask these questions. Those scores of NGOs need to look at where we went wrong and how this was allowed to happen. If we fail to do that then not only have we allowed Huben to be lost but then we have also gone and spat on its grave and that of the entire West Coast. Our only redemption is to learn from this. If we don’t then we have failed our children and future generations of Taiwan, human and nonhuman, utterly and entirely.


A Huben Fairy Pitta.

More press coverage of the FPG-Tsuang lawsuit

In addition to the article that appeared in this morning's Taipei Times other English articles have appeared in the English-language press.

See:
Talk of the Day -- Formosa group sues academic over pollution study

Formosa Plastics urged to drop lawsuit against professor

Formosa Plastics urged by academics to drop lawsuit


Also see:
Formosa (FPG) suppressing academic freedom and freedom of speech?

Let’s All Pick a Fight with Formosa Plastics

Let’s All Pick a Fight with Formosa Plastics

We received the following which was circulated before the press conference by academics in support of Professor Tsuang Ben-jei (莊秉潔) of National Chung Hsing University’s (NCHU) department of environmental engineering who is being sued by Formosa Plastics Group for comments he made at an Environmental Protection Administration EIA meeting regarding cancer rates around FGP's Mailiao Plant in Yunlin County.

讓我們卯上台塑吧
文／吳明益
Let’s All Pick a Fight with Formosa Plastics

WU Ming-yi

A few days ago I received a letter from JHOU Gui-tian and CHEN Ji-jhong asking whether I could join in a petition against Formosa Plastics for having filed a lawsuit against Professor TSUANG Bing-jie.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Formosa Chemicals & Fibre Corporation and Mai-Liao Power Corporation. On closely reading the civil complaint that was attached to the letter I discovered that the Formosa Plastics affiliates and their lawyers accused Professor TSUANG of having injured the reputations of the companies by having cited or transmitted information contained in a study and report that the [Taiwan] Environmental Protection Administration had retained Chung Hsing University to conduct and produce concerning factory emissions of heavy metals and dioxin. I recalled having seen the news on these reports last year but never guessed that Formosa Plastics, rather than taking to heart the numerous incidents of worker and environmental safety, would instead take this drastic legal action against the professor seeking the unimaginable sum of forty million New Taiwan dollars (approximately 1.3 million US$).

I was reminded of that book about Diane Wilson; An Unreasonable Woman.

Diane Wilson lives in Calhoun County on a bay in Texas where fishers and shrimpers are everywhere, a town where there isn’t even a stoplight. She had a fishing operation and had been noticing that the catch was constantly decreasing. Then one day she read a report that said the US EPA ranked her county as the most polluted in all the USA. Then it started to make sense – the dead dolphins, the inedible contaminated shrimp, the wetlands that were choking, and birds gone extinct and all the while the cancer rates shooting up. Something had happened in Lavaca Bay.

The chemical plants thought Diane. Based on her own observations the pollution coming from the Taiwan-based petrochemical manufacturers in the bay was becoming more and more obvious.

It was just around this time that the people in Yilan County rejected the Sixth Naphtha Cracker plant, so Formosa Plastics took its three billion US dollars and went to Texas announcing expansion of its plant there into a modern technologically advanced zero pollution plant. When Diane organised environmental groups to stop the expansion plan many local people suspected that she was taking money from people who wanted the plant to locate in their country, or that her data was faulty. There were those who sang the mantra of “high tech” and those who lambasted Diane for speaking out when so many people were out of work. There were even those who said the Formosa Plant would help reduce the incidence of mental illness in the area…….

In order to attract “The Pearl of Texas” and alleviate unemployment in the area, Calhoun County spent two hundred and fifty million dollars to dredge the bay so that Formosa’s ships could get to their port while extending to Formosa Plastics all kinds of favorable tax treatment. To what end? Well, WANG Yong-cing, according to one reporter mentioned in the book, was just a pirate aristocrat who would get up early in the morning, go for a run, do his pushups and pass the days in relative austerity. In the meantime he basically let all of his factories pollute like crazy, dumping their waste into the harbour or into the ground and emitting vinyl chloride and ethylene chloride poisoning the bodies and souls of the employees and the people living around their plants.

So why didn’t the officials get to the truth about Formosa’s operations? Because Formosa covered up the test results, falsified records, bought off officials and paid off scholars to produce favorable reports. Diane wrote: “their spokesperson appears to be sincere and so does Formosa, it was as if they thought the dirty air they were emitting, the big stinky fuel warehouse, the transfer pipes, they made it all, just as though they were manufacturing rotten bananas….”

Diane Wilson was only sued, she also received death threats, her lawyer was bought off, but she fought on for years. She went on several fasts in protest of the plant and was able to force Formosa to sign a “zero pollution” agreement. From this time Formosa Plastics gained enormous negative publicity in the US, while Diane, “the woman who was as unreasonable as the ocean” began winning all manner of awards for her work. Clearly, the Earth had ruled in Diane’s favor.

So, with all its record of destroying the land, with all its reputation as a louse, now this company is suing Professor TSUANG for “spreading information that is damaging to Formosa Plastics’ reputation”? If Formosa Plastics has any reputation still intact, then surely it must be worth more than a bunch of rotten bananas!

If it were not for scholars like Professor TSUANG standing up to these giant polluting monsters, these companies without a conscience would be free to go on spinning lies and squeezing the land for every bit of wealth they can leaving behind a legacy of devastation, while all the time making pretensions of being a charitable company.

No doubt Formosa Plastics will be able to find scholars to support them and they may be able to win a symbolic victory in the courts. But there is no question that Formosa’s substitution of the courts for scientific research and adding such a huge claim of damages, while perhaps only a small symbolic victory, its intended effect is to “chill” any thing that may come out of the academic community that could be construed as critical of Formosa. To be sure Professor TSUANG is a target, but the intention is to instill fear into the hearts of all scholars who might come up with research results that are anything but complimentary to Formosa.

When Formosa Plastics denies the truth, “they don’t have any guilty conscience,” Diane Wilson says in her book An Unreasonable Woman [called The Woman Who Dared to Stand Up and Challenge Formosa Plastics in Chinese edition]. And the way Yilan County rejected plans by Formosa Plastics to build the No.6 naphtha cracker in their county is a testimony to Taiwanese spirit:
"Three years ago, Shih said, Wang had promised them that his plants would be so clean that goldfish could be raised in the wastewater from his Yilan plants. Wang Yung-Ching said he wanted the wastewater from his plants safe enough to drink. But what have been the results? The Lung De plant in Tapei has received the most fines ever by the government. Every worker in Yilan knows that Formosa emits illegal pollution in the night and that it shuts off its wastewater pipes before inspection by the Public Health Agency. So they could not trust them to deliver what they promise."
(An Unreasonable Woman: chapter 28 “Island of Fire and Solidarity” pg 344.)

Naturally, I joined the petition and I also decided to return to Taipei to join the press conference on 29 April. We plan to initiate a movement at the press conference that will spur a movement of “I too will stand up to and pick a fight with Formosa Plastics” so as to let Professor JHUANG’s value become 100 million, a billion, ten billion, 100 billion --- to become the incalculable value of a life, the incalculable value of a clear blue sky.


讓我們卯上台塑吧
文／吳明益

幾天前我收到周桂田、陳吉仲教授的來信，問我是否願意參與一個連署運動的發起。原因是，台塑控告了中興大學的莊秉潔教授。

⋯⋯ 提告者是「臺灣化纖」與「麥寮汽電」，我仔細讀了莊秉潔教授寄來的民事庭通知寄達信，看著台塑這個心是塑膠做成的企業聘雇的律師，指控莊秉潔教授以引用環保署委託中興工程的調查報告，所進行相關工廠排放重金屬與戴奧辛煙塵的研究報告，涉及「指摘或傳述足以毀損原告公司名譽」。我記得去年就曾看到這則新聞，沒想到近年屢屢發生工安事故的台塑不但不思檢討，還厚顏地付諸行動，向莊教授求償不可思議的四千萬元。

這讓我想起黛安威爾森(Diane Wilson) 那本《卯上台塑的女人》。

黛安威爾森所居住的德州灣卡杭郡到處都是漁夫跟捕蝦人，她和她的朋友都沒有在任何有掛交通號誌的地方開過車，經營一個漁屋頗為自得。只是海灣的漁獲似乎愈來愈少，狀況愈來愈差，有一天她發現，卡杭郡在當年環保單位的報告中，是全美最毒的地方。這裡牡蠣無法食用、捕不到蝦、海豚死亡，濕地上鶴、塘鵝絕跡，居民罹癌率高居不下……絕望的拉瓦卡灣究竟發生了什麼事？

化工廠。黛安這麼想，隨著她的自主調查，這間來自臺灣化工廠的排放污染物的證據愈來愈顯明。就在此時，被宜蘭反六輕拒絕的台塑，帶著三十億美元來到德州灣，宣稱要擴建高科技無汙染的廠房。黛安組成環保團體出面阻止，只是當地居民或懷疑她收了別郡的錢只為趕走台塑，或質疑她的資料的正確性，或搬出「我們才科學」的咒語，或以高失業率的痛苦來反駁她，甚至認為台塑設廠可以減低罹患精神病的人數…….。

為了仰賴這個「德州灣之珠」來解決失業的困境，卡杭郡就先花了兩億五千萬來疏浚航道讓台塑船隻可以進入，給予稅務優惠。結果呢？王永慶就像一個「強盜貴族」（書中一位記者的用詞），每天清晨起床健身、慢跑、伏地挺身，節儉度日，然後放任他的工廠把重金屬汙染的汙水倒到海灣，或滲透到土層中汙染地下水，讓氯乙烯、二氯化乙烯飄浮在空氣中，傷害居民與員工的肺跟靈魂。

那麼為什麼官員查不到台塑汙染的事實？因為台塑會掩蓋偵測井、捏造樣本、買通官員、雇用學者自製完美的觀測報告……。黛安寫道：「佛瑞德（台塑代表發言者）看起來很誠懇，台塑也是，好像他們排出來的髒污廢氣，他們又大又臭的油庫，他們成千上萬根輸送管，他們製造的一切一切，只不過是在製造爛香蕉……。」

威爾森不只是受到控告而已，她受到死亡威脅，律師被金錢收買策反，仍堅持和台塑纏鬥數年，絕食明志，硬是讓台塑簽下零排放的協議。台塑自此在美國聲名狼藉，而這個「跟大海一樣不講理的女人」則獲獎連連。地球已然判了黛安勝訴。

這樣傷害土地、形象惡質的工廠，竟然有顏面控告莊秉潔教授「意圖散布於眾……指摘或傳述足以毀損原告公司名譽之事項」？如果台塑仍有名譽存在，那必然是比爛香蕉更廉價的事物吧。

如果沒有像莊秉潔教授這種挑戰巨大汙染怪獸的學者，這些無責任感的公司只會更從容編織謊言、從土地上榨取財富，甚且擬態成慈善家。台塑大可尋求學界支援，以學術挑戰學術，若官司勝訴取象徵性的賠償即可。但台塑以官司取代研究，加以巨額求償，說穿了目的只有一個，就是引發學術界的寒蟬效應。他們要的不只是莊教授停止研究，更要其他正在默默以專業對抗他們的學者感到恐懼。

莊秉潔教授以他的專業揭發台塑的廢氣排放可能致癌，對他而言獲得什麼利益？唯有勇氣的名聲而已。台塑這場控告，證明了對抗粗野的、惡質的企業是有價值的，那就是價值四千萬的勇氣。

黛安威爾森說台塑的人否認真相時，「沒有一點心虛」，在〈熱情團結的島〉這章裡，提到宜蘭如何擊退六輕的，她說那是一種台灣的精神，「存在於他們的靈魂中，那股純粹的熱情，不是因為憎恨王永慶、中油，或是國民黨而產生，這股熱情的源頭和生命，仰賴東北角南雅奇石區中的峭壁險礁和一路延伸至龍洞、鹽寮的岩岸，福隆海灘的海水，蔚藍得讓人忘記其他顏色，彷彿只是簡樸的卯澳漁村上方，另一片晴朗無雲的天空。」(p.361)

我當然在第一時間就回信加入連署的發起，也決定回台北參加周日（4/29）的記者會。我們希望在之後，能激發出另一個「我也要卯上台塑」的運動，讓莊教授的勇氣增值到一億、十億、百億、千億……乃至無價如你我的生命，以及一片晴朗無雲的天空。


Also see:
Update: FPG-Tsuang lawsuit

Formosa (FPG) suppressing academic freedom and freedom of speech?

Formosa Plastics at Mailiao in Yunlin County. In the foreground is recently reclaimed land in known pink dolphin habitat.


Has petrochemical giant Formosa Plastics Group (FPG) embarked on a campaign against some of the very principles that define democracy and basic human rights? Whether or not FPG ascribes to these hallowed values of common humanity isn't known. What is known, however, is that FPG has filed a lawsuit against Professor Tsuang Ben-jei (莊秉潔) of National Chung Hsing University’s (NCHU) department of environmental engineering because they claim that in a report that he said emissions from FPG's sixth naphtha cracker plant in Yunlin County’s Mailiao Township (麥寮) resulted in a higher cancer occurrence rate amongst nearby residents which has injured FPG's reputation.


Lets be honest! What reputation does FPG have? Go ask the good citizens of Taiwan what FPG's reputation is and you'll undoubtedly hear the words "pollution," "fires," and "cancer rates" in the majority of answers; if not all. Lets call a spade a spade. How many fires have they had down at FPG in Mailiao over the past two and a half years which have emitted huge uncontrolled toxic clouds of smoke into the surrounding area? Folks have last count. The latest one was on 17 April, wasn't it? It would seem there's always some drama going on at FPG. Lets face it! The folks at the top of FPG weren't the winners of the infamous Black Planet Award in 2009 for nothing. According to ethecon, the organisation which presents both the Blue Planet and infamous Black Planet Awards, "the Black Planet Award condemns individuals (people) who have contributed to the destruction and downfall of our Blue Planet in an outrageous way." Thus, many folks must be scratching their heads this morning trying to figure out how last year during a meeting of the Environmental Protection Administration’s (EPA) environmental impact assessment committee in which Professor Tsuang Ben-jei reported that hazardous heavy metals and carcinogenic substances contained in the exhaust gas emitted by the company’s sixth naphtha cracker plant in Yunlin County’s Mailiao Township in a higher cancer occurrence rate for nearby residents has so harmed FPG's reputation. Come on? Hasn't the the No.17 Highway which passes FPG in Mailiao been nicknamed the "Cancer Corridor" for years? Didn't FTV do a program on the high rate of cancer around the Mailiao FPG plant in December 2009? Compared to national TV, how many folks watch the proceedings of EPA meeting? Like it or not, isn't FPG's reputation linked to high levels and pollution whether they like it or not. That is the perception folks in Taiwan and a great many other places have of FPG.


So if what Professor Tsuang Ben-jei is saying is nothing new why has FPG filed a lawsuit against him claiming NT$40 million for damages to its reputation? Could it be that FPG wishes to intimidate? No, surely not! Can you think of another reason? Oh, I'm sure those clever FPG lawyers can think of many. But there are a great many very clever people that aren't buying FPG's reason. They see it as an attack on academic freedom and the right to free speech. FPG using fear to silence criticism. Using the old "kill one and scare a thousand" tactic. A large group of very prominent academics yesterday rallied behind Tsuang pledging their support. Some has even said FPG can sue them, too.


When a big rich corporation starts attacking basic freedoms it tends to leave a bad taste in the mouths of the average good citizen. Early last year those good citizens made such a fuss about the Kuokuang Petrochemical Project in Erlin just across the Jhoushui River from Mailiao that Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou was forced to step in and cancel the project. Never had the good citizens of Taiwan got quite so worked up over the petrochemical industry as over Kuokuang. And probably a lot of that anger wasn't directly against Kuokuang but rather against the petrochemical industry as a whole. FPG's string of fires likely helped drive the outrage in that one. FPG should note that. Formosa should also not forget the McLibel case. Even with money and lawyers things don't always go your way.

See Academics rally to support defendant in today's Taipei Times.

Update: FPG-Tsuang lawsuit

New paper on the problems faced by the Taiwan Pink Dolphins

A new paper has been published on the problems faced by the ETS Sousa (aka Taiwan pink dolphins) in the Oceanographic Environmental Research Society's Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology. The paper is titled A review of the impacts of anthropogenic activities on the critically endangered eastern Taiwan Strait Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) by Sarah Z. Dungan, Kimberly N. Riehl, Ashley Wee, John Y. Wang. The paper can is available in the online version of Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology.

Click A review of the impacts of anthropogenic activities on the critically endangered eastern Taiwan Strait Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) to read.

EPA's new system to tackle illegal dumping; is anything really going to change?

Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) announced it has established a new Illegal Dumping Management System to combat the ongoing problem of illegal dumping in Taiwan. This hi tech system will use GPS on garbage trucks, security cameras on waste treatment facilities and satellite remote sensing technologies to combat the illegal dumping problem.

Sounds like a step in the right direction but is this just more tech about nothing? Illegal dumping is a major problem in Taiwan. It happens everywhere. It's so common that much of it happens in plain sight. Is the root of this problem not the lack of enforcement? If this is happening in plain sight why aren't the police seeing it? The answer is simply they are but don't do anything about it. The will to tackle the issue is simply not there. There are cameras all over but how often does the footage actually get checked? Obviously not that often.

Taiwan's police are still caught up in the government thug mentality from the Marshal Law era. Until the police are made to start actually policing as officers of the peace, illegal dumping and all those other countless social and environmental issues are not going to be solved with hi tech band aids.

See EPA inaugurates system to impede illegal dumping in today's Taipei Times.

Any hope for cross-party environmental protection?

Today's Taipei Times editorial comments on the rarely seen spirit of cross-party cooperation between three legislators over environmental protection of wetlands. The environment should be one area where parties should be able to find common ground. But as the editorial notes, it's more likely going to be cooperation on "secret opposition to environmental policies to protect the corporate interests of their constituents."

Taipei Times Editorial: Cross-party spirit only goes so far

The rarely seen spirit of cross-party cooperation made its presence felt in the legislature on Sunday when lawmakers concerned about protecting the environment joined forces despite their otherwise insurmountable mutual antipathy.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chiu Wen-yen (邱文彥), Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Tien Chiu-chin (田秋堇) and People First Party (PFP) Legislator Chang Show-foong (張曉風) led by example as they called on their peers to quit bickering along party lines when it comes to the environment.

The main focus of the lawmakers was the remaining wetlands along the west coast and coastal areas that have not yet been concreted over.

Their call for cooperation was admirable, but given the track record of lawmakers, whether they be pan-green or pan-blue, the public should not expect a new era of eco-detente to be embraced any time soon.

What seems more likely is that a small number of legislators, such as Chang of the PFP, who is noted for opposing — but not stopping — the construction of a biotechnology center in Taipei City’s Nangang District (南港), will make regular calls on their peers to put aside partisan interests in the name of protecting the environment for future generations.

Such a call cannot be completely ignored, because it is generally accepted by the public, if not by politicians and corporate bosses, that protecting the environment is a good idea. However, most lawmakers are likely to remain silent when Chang and her colleagues call for huge infrastructure projects on wetlands or coastlines to be halted.

They will agree wholeheartedly when called on to do their civic duty and keep the nation clean, but then most likely vote down any proposals that might hurt their corporate constituents, while working to undermine any cross-party agreements made by Chang and like-minded lawmakers.

This is probably one of the few issues that could unite pan-green and pan-blue politicians — secret opposition to environmental policies to protect the corporate interests of their constituents.

Chang is a true environmentalist and appears determined to push policies that protect what is left of the nation’s already besieged natural environment. However, it is doubtful that she can achieve much on her own in the Legislative Yuan.

If, by some miracle and collusion of interests, Chang does get lawmakers from the KMT and DPP to agree to rules that keep developers away from wetlands and coastal areas, the rest of Taiwan will owe her a huge debt of gratitude because no other lawmaker has focused on the goals she has set out for herself.

It is a huge task. She would have to change the legal code regulating industry in those zones, amend the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例), strengthen the Environmental Protection Administration so that it is not simply a rubber stamp for corporate interests, and stop local politicians and business leaders from simply ignoring central government decisions. It would also be necessary to ensure rules were enforced nationally and not just for photogenic famous wetlands like those near Wugoushui Village (五溝水) in Pingtung County’s Wanluan Township (萬巒).

Chang is going to need a clear idea of the challenges that lie ahead if she is to protect Taiwan’s environment for the use of future generations.

Taipei Times, 14 February 2012

Also see:
Lawmakers seek multi-party push to protect wetlands

Lawmakers seek multi-party push to protect wetlands

Today's Taipei Times reports that three lawmakers are seeking a multi-party push to protect Taiwan's wetlands. Such news is always welcome and it is encouraging to see that one of the lawmakers is Legislator Tien Chiu-chin (田秋堇) who does have a pretty good track record in helping with coastal issues that threaten the Taiwan pink dolphins.

Taiwan urgently needs concrete legislation to protect its fragile coast and wetlands. Lets hope this is a genuine effort to do something and not just another "green-washing" gimmick.

See Lawmakers seek multi-party push to help wetlands in today's Taipei Times.


Also see:
Any hope for cross-party environmental protection?

Top environment news revealed

A poll on the Taiwan Environmental Information Association (TEIA) Web site showed that the top three domestic environmental issues for 2011 were the plasticizer contaminated food scandal, the resurgence of the anti-nuclear movement and the halt of a naphtha cracker complex construction project by Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology in Changhua County. With a legacy of advancing industry at the expense of the environment it was not surprising that almost half of the issues voted on were to do with farmland and the impact of industry on the environment.


The Kuokuang Petrochemical project threatened to destroy the internationally important Dacheng wetlands in Changhua county and the project posed a major threat to the critically endangered Taiwan pink dolphins. The MFCU was a major player in causing the project development in Dacheng to be halted.

See the article in yesterday's Taipei Times titled "Top environment news revealed".

Misguided Talk of “Hotspots” Threatens Taiwan’s Humpback Dolphins

The following is a translation of a letter by Allen C. Chen that appeared in the China Times on 29 December 2011.


China Times
29 December 2011

By Allen C. Chen

Taiwan’s Environmental Protection Administration yesterday held a meeting to review research on the environmental impact of expanding the Formosa Plastics Group’s Sixth Naphtha Cracker complex located on Taiwan’s central-west coast. The meeting addressed the findings of a study conducted by a team of researchers from National Taiwan University and National Sun Yat-Sen University commissioned by Formosa Plastics. The researchers found that wastewater discharged by the plant is likely to adversely affect the endangered Taiwan humpback dolphins* and cause their population to dwindle. This finding surprises no one.

The humpback dolphins are not the only victims of pollution by the Sixth Naphtha Cracker plant. Residents of the neighboring area suffer increased mortality from air pollution emitted by the plant. The local humpback dolphin population, already struggling to find enough food in the area’s over-fished waters, must breathe the same polluted air, and swim in seawater that is acidified by effluent from the plant. This harsh treatment of the critically endangered humpback dolphins calls to mind the recent eviction of homeless people from a Taipei park in wintry weather by city workers armed with water hoses. Do we really need more costly studies when the plight of these dolphins is already plain to see? Furthermore, in taking a close look at the team’s research, this author has found it contains an alarming and misguided proposition that may prove to be the final twist of the knife for the Taiwan humpback dolphins. The problem is a serious misuse of the concept of “hotspot,” creating a skewed picture of the humpback dolphin ecology.

The term “hotspot” is rigorously defined in the field of biology. Wikipedia, for example, defines “biodiversity hotspot” as a “biogeographic region with a significant reservoir of biodiversity that is under threat from humans”. An example of a generally recognized biodiversity hotspot is the Coral Triangle region between Indonesia, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea, a region with over 800 species of tropical coral and 1,500 species of fish and shelfish. The Formosa Plastics research team’s arbitrary use of the term “hotspot” to describe the frequencies of appearances by members of a single humpback dolphin species is a fundamentally mistaken analogy.

The concept of hotspots has been misused and bandied about to mislead the general public ever since the environmental impact assessment for the Kuokuang Petrochemical project, and has even given rise to absurd claims that the Taiwan humpback dolphins are capable of “steering their own way” out of danger. This flawed research adopts the false premise that the humpback dolphins reside only in the “hotspots” and merely “transit” through other areas of the waters they inhabit. This has led, in the research and planning of protection zones, to a misguided focus on defining the “hottest hotspots.” The researchers have accepted successive rounds of funding from the public and private sectors to conduct study after study based on the same old false premise.

Accumulating data by observing cetaceans in the wild is a long and time-consuming process. This research team has declared its data on the distribution of the Taiwan humpback dolphins to be “classified” and has denied other groups access to the data for comparative study. It has not submitted its findings for review by any international scholarly publication. By taking this approach, it has continuously postponed the formulation of follow-up conservation policies. The result is that efforts to save the dolphins are being snuffed out with the passing of time.

By contrast, a number of papers by other experts already published in rigorously reviewed international publications show that the full range of the humpback dolphins’ habitat off of Taiwan’s west coast is one integral territory that cannot be divided up into zones, and certainly not into so-called “hotspots.” Yet these facts have been entirely disregarded by the government authorities in charge of conservation, to the dismay of the international community of cetacean experts. Even though half a year has passed since the suspension of the Kuokuang Petrochemical project, the conservation authorities have not taken any action. They remain in thrall to the absurd “hotspot” theory that has never been subjected to peer review, and that is killing the humpback dolphins. The present author and numerous international experts have written directly to President Ma and to the Minister of Agriculture to stress the crucial point that the humpback dolphin habitat cannot be divided up, but our voices have been ignored, and the false concept of “hotspots” has continued to spread.

The Taiwan humpback dolphin faces five devastating threats: disappearing habitat; declining inflow of fresh water, affecting food sources; domestic wastewater and agricultural and industrial chemical pollution; underwater noise; by-catching in gillnets. This conclusion, backed by ironclad evidence, was confirmed by international cetacean experts back in 2007, and published in an international journal and a book, but 5 years later the Taiwan government has yet to listen to the admonitions of these experts. In the face of this snail-paced bureaucracy and flaw-ridden local research, this author must pessimistically predict that the eastern Taiwan Strait subpopulation of humpback dolphins will be stricken from the “critically endangered” category on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species within the coming few years—not because we will have succeeded in our conservation efforts, but because the dolphins will have disappeared forever from the Taiwan Strait. When that day comes, there will be no question about who killed the Taiwan humpback dolphins.


Author Allen C. Chen, PhD, is a Research Fellow of the Biodiversity Research Centre Academia Sinica, Taiwan, a member of the Eastern Taiwan Strait Sousa Technical Advisory Working Group, and a specialist on working groups of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

*Taiwan humpback dolphin commonly called Taiwan pink dolphin.