First Fines for Off Shore Wind Farms Failure to dispatch marine mammal observers during piling; EPA fines 1.5 million

12 September 2019 

Taiwan Environmental Information Center editor Chen Wen-tze

The Ocean Zhu-Nan (Formosa I) Offshore Wind Power Plan (Formosa I), located in the coastal waters outside Miaoli County, entered its trial operation phase in September https://e-info.org.tw/node/220055[1] , expects to be completed by the end of the year to become the first commercial-scale offshore wind farm in Taiwan. However, when the underwater foundation piling operation was carried out on June 21, July 8, and July 10, the Environmental Protection Agency discovered that it did not send enough observation vessels and cetacean observers thus violating its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) commitments. On August 28, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formally issued a disposition, and in what is the first such action against offshore wind farms, levied a fine in the maximum amount of NT$1.5 million [approximately Euro 43,000] in accordance with the EIA Act. 

The EPA said that more wind farms will begin construction next year. The EPA has already discussed with the Coast Guard, the Ocean Conservation Administration, and the Bureau of Energy setting up a specialist team for inter-agency matters so that the developers will not treat lightly the ability of the EPA to monitor the EIA.

Piling noise impacts cetaceans’ hearing; developers’ “bounced checks” fail on committments

The Formosa 1 project passed environmental impact assessment [EIA] review in 2013. In order to mitigate the danger from piling noise on cetaceans, the developer committed in its EIA to dispatch ten observer vessels with marine mammal observers onboard. The observers must first confirm that there is no cetacean activity for at least 30 minutes in the warning zone before piling can begin. If cetaceans are discovered in the warning zone, the construction unit must stop piling [1].

The EPA said that Formosa 1 originally committed to send 10 observation vessels but on June 21, only two vessels were dispatched during the piling, and on July 8 it was also two vessels and on July 10, no vessels were dispatched, all in violation of the EIA commitments. When the EPA discovered the first violation by the developer, it issued a warning and collected evidence, however, the developer continued its violation and being a serious case, in accordance with article 17 of the EIA Law, the EPA imposed the maximum penalty of NTD1.5 million.

Chiang Tzu-nung, deputy head of the EPA’s Supervision Team, said if the developer disagrees with the disposition, within three months of receipt of same it may file an appeal and administrative lawsuit.

He explained that poor weather cannot be used as an excuse for not dispatching observer vessels. The industry knew of this possibility when it made its EIA commitments. If the weather is not good, the industry can stop the construction, but if construction must proceed, then they must dispatch the observers.

Chiang Tzu-nung said that this is the first time the EPA has punished offshore wind development and the penalty is the highest. In addition, this case will also let other offshore wind developers that they must comply with the commitments made during the EIA process.

Construction of wind farms begins next year; EPA plans to establish an inter-agency platform

At present, the offshore wind power piling part for Formosa 1 has been completed, but other aspects of the construction also implicate matters relevant to EIA supervision. More than 700 wind turbines are expected to be built before 2025. The next wind farm is expected to enter the market next May, so the enforcement capacity of the EPA is in for a test.

Chiang Tzu-nung pointed out that the EPA has no vessels and it is difficult to enforce the law at sea. In order to strengthen supervision, the EPA has already called on the Ocean Affairs Administration, and is looking for cooperation from the Coast Guard Administration, the Bureau of Energy, and the Fisheries Agency to form an inter-agency platform. The Coast Guard has vessels and the Bureau of Energy has the responsibility, Ocean Conservation Administration has authority and the Fisheries Agency has fishing vessels, all of which in combination with the EPA will form a special task force.

Chiang Tzu-nung said that the Formosa 1 project is a wind farm that is relatively close to the shore and future wind farms will be relatively further from shore, making supervision be more difficult. The EPA will step up it's planning for an inter-agency task force, which when confirmed, will be announced and in addition to letting the public and the environmental groups know about the government’s conduct, and also let the developer know that just because the EPA has no vessels, does not mean the EPA will not catch violators.

In addition to the EPA, environmental groups are also tracking these violations. On 28 June the media ran an op-ed https://e-info.org.tw/node/218761 by Kurtis Jai-Chyi Pei, Professor at National Pingtung University of Science and Technology and Robin Winkler, chair of the Taiwan Matsu’s Conservation Union.[2] In mid-July, the environmental group filed submitted a "Citizens Notice" with the EPA https://e-info.org.tw/node/219068 asking for strict enforcement and punishment of the developer for its violations.[3]

Taiwan Matsu’s Fish Conservation Union Chair Robin Winkler criticizes the selection of off shore wind farm sites for the piling noise and say’s there is no “win win”scenario. Photo by Sun Wen-lin.

Footnotes

1.     Content of Formosa 1 EIA Commitments on observer vessels and cetacean observers:

[translators notes – (a) each of the nine blocks are two km sq with (b) the center block showing a radius of 1 km for the warning zone and (c) showing the trajectory for the observer vessels underneath which the legend shows:

Red spot: turbine piling location
Orange spot: warning zone
Purple spot: monitoring area within warning zone block
Blue spot: monitoring area
Monitoring vessels
Broken line indicates navigation course of monitoring vessels
Arrows indicate main direction of travel of Chinese White Dolphin

The caption to this chart reads:
8.1.1.1-3 Position chart for location of observer vessels and underwater microphones during piling

Formosa 1 during piling has a warning zone with a radius of 1 km, and an observation range of 2.8 to 5.3 km (Note: different developers have different commitments and methods). Sourced from the Formosa 1 EIA Report.

3 The number of observation vessels should be calculated according to the total monitoring area and the observation range of the trained cetacean observers, which is about 1 km; and assuming that the piling noise can be transmitted everywhere in the deep waters, two vessels located at the corners around the warning zone are located at 2 km of the rectangle cruising on clockwise or counter-clockwise trajectory; with each vessel traveling at a speed of 6 knots on an 8 kilometer route it will take 43.2 minutes, and in the monitoring area there is a vessel every 4 square kilometers and each vessel travels at a speed of 6 knots so the 7.5 km route takes 40.5 minutes; the total monitoring area is 36 square kilometers and a total of 10 observation vessels are required (as shown in Figure 8.1.1.1-3).

4Before starting piling, the observers must first confirm that there is no cetacean activity in the warning zone for at least 30 minutes and when the piling has commenced, as soon as a cetacean enters the warning zone, the construction unit should immediately stop piling, wait thirty minutes after cetaceans have left the warning zone, and then resume with a soft start piling gradually working up to the normal piling force to continue the engineering. If dolphins are found in the monitoring area, observe and record the sighting data and movement direction, and confirm that the dolphins are no longer moving toward the warning zone.

Formosa 1 EIA commitment flow chart and description for marine mammal observers (Note: different developers have different commitments and methods). Sourced from the Formosa 1 EIA Report.

Original at https://e-info.org.tw/node/220014

---

[1] This links to a report from 9 September 2019 台灣首座離岸風場試運轉 海洋風電第二階段首支風機開始發電 (Taiwan’s first offshore wind farm commissioned; the second phase of Formosa 1 begins to generate electricity)

[2] This was an article published on 28 June 2019, “Win/Win Wind! Does the EPA Care?” 雙贏風電！ 環保署Care嗎？

[3] Referring to the article of 15 July 2019 covering the press conference at the EPA “Environmental groups charge offshore wind developers with violating the law during piling and ‘blinding’ the white dolphins” 環團檢舉離岸風機違法打樁 批督察失靈恐害白海豚「失明」

New paper provides evidence that critically endangered Taiwanese white dolphin is distinct, endemic subspecies

It was already clear that the pink-coloured dolphins living off Taiwan’s west coast were different from other nearby populations of the same species (Sousa chinensis, also known as the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin). But a new paper has now revealed that the Taiwanese population also meets the criteria for being recognised as a subspecies.

The authors, John Wang, Shih Chu Yang and Samuel Hung*, who have been researching the critically endangered Taiwanese dolphins since 2002, propose a new scientific name for them - Sousa chinensis taiwanensis, to recognise their special local status.

The findings are the result of a study that compared pigmentation patterns in the Taiwanese population with those of neighbouring populations in the Jiulong River Estuary and the Pearl River Estuary, in the coastal waters of China. Dolphins in all three populations are born grey and gradually become pink or white with age, with the grey pigmentation becoming spots, and sometimes fading away altogether. However, examination of the spotting on individuals shows that the patterns on dolphins from the Taiwanese population are distinct from those in the other two regions.

In such situations, if at least 75% of the population is distinct from more than 99% of other provisional populations, it is commonly accepted as a subspecies. The study found that 94% of the Taiwanese population could be seen to be different from more than 99% of the other two populations, easily meeting this criterion. Further evidence of their uniqueness includes behavioural differences between the Taiwanese dolphins and other populations, and the fact that they are geographically isolated by the deep waters in the middle of the Taiwan Strait; Sousa chinensis are usually only found in shallow, coastal waters.

Recognition as a subspecies would make protective action for the Taiwanese dolphins even more urgent than previously thought, because their extinction would mean not only that Taiwan would lose this charismatic and ecologically important creature from its waters, but also that the world would lose a kind of dolphin that exists nowhere else. This subspecies may even be on a path to becoming a distinct species if the separation is sufficiently long to allow greater differentiation.

Local non-governmental organisations continue to call for official government recognition of the dolphins’ habitat, and for long-delayed action to reduce the five key threats to their survival – bycatch in fishing equipment, air and water pollution, noise and disturbance, loss of freshwater flow into their habitat, and land reclamation. Little has been done to address these threats over the thirteen years that researchers and concerned local groups have been drawing attention to them, and they continue on a trajectory towards extinction.

The full scientific paper about the subspecies recognition can be accessed freely (without subscription) at the website of the journal Zoological Studies at http://www.zoologicalstudies.com/content/54/1/36.

*While Hung has contributed to research on the Taiwanese population, he has also spent many years researching the Pearl River Estuary population from his base in Hong Kong.

100 dolphin vision vs 100 year extinction: Taiwan’s choice for white dolphins

Following a workshop in Taiwan in May, where experts proposed a recovery target of 100 for the critically endangered population of Taiwanese white dolphins, new research has painted a clearer picture of the alternative: their path towards extinction.

In a paper published recently in the journal Endangered Species Research, Claryana Araújo and colleagues describe what is likely to happen to the dolphins, currently numbering no more than 74, in a range of scenarios that could occur over the next 100 years.

Using a simulation programme, they first show what is likely to happen to the population if there is no change to the current serious threat of injury and entanglement in fishing gear – the subject of the May workshop. According to the results, in this baseline scenario the population declined and, in 66% of the simulations, became extinct in 100 years or less.

Unsurprisingly, when the researchers then looked at other future scenarios in which the impact from fishing gear increased and the size and quality of the dolphins’ coastal habitat declined, the likelihood of the their extinction within 100 years also increased, with up to 92% of the simulations giving this result.

Araújo said, “The results of this study confirm the very delicate situation of the Taiwanese white dolphins, and that the population is declining.”

Indeed, the fact that the dolphins are critically endangered is already no longer a matter of debate. However, the results of the study confirm that simply stopping the situation from becoming worse will not be enough to save them: the existing threats need to be reduced and, where possible, removed.

This message will be important as the government sets about responding to the situation. Thanks to campaigning by Taiwanese NGOs, the dolphins are already considered in Environmental Impact Assessments for major new projects. Now, with the proposed designation of part of their habitat as ‘Major Wildlife Habitat’ under the Wildlife Conservation Act in May, there could soon be an even stronger mandate both at the national and local government levels to address their plight.

A rapid, coordinated effort will be needed to address the existing threats, which, in addition to fishing gear, also include water and air pollution, underwater noise, land reclamation, and the loss of freshwater flowing into the dolphins’ habitat, due to the damming and diversion of rivers along western Taiwan.

Compared to the threat from fishing gear, less information is available on these other factors, which, the researchers point out, means that they probably underestimated their impact in the study. This suggests that the danger to the dolphins may be even greater than the results show, and their extinction more imminent if action is not taken.

“Based on the data available,” said Araújo, “the mortality due to fisheries interactions is the most serious, immediate threat for this population. And even with uncertainties regarding the level of the other threats and the exact mortality rate, the population shows a decline. This tells us that urgent conservation actions are needed.”

Reducing the number of dolphin deaths from fisheries interactions will not be as straightforward as simply monitoring fishing boat activities and enforcing penalties for catching dolphins.

According to the researchers, thousands of fishers, many of them small scale artisanal fishers, operate along Taiwan’s west coast, making it impossible to effectively observe all their activities and prevent dolphin deaths.

The only feasible solution would be to implement a total ban on gill nets and trawlers within the dolphins’ habitat, they say, echoing the findings of the May workshop.

The workshop also explored ways to work with fishers and fishing authorities to achieve adequate protection for the dolphins while also addressing the issue of overexploitation of fish, and working towards more sustainable long-term fisheries.

Interview with Dr Louella Dolar on protected areas, fisheries and fishing communities in the Philippines

Dr Louella Dolar, of Silliman University in the Philippines, talks about the establishment of protected areas with restrictions on fishing activities, and how this has helped marine ecosystems recover and brought benefits to fishers in the Philippines.

This interview took place at the workshop on Sustainable Fisheries and the Conservation of the Taiwanese White Dolphin, from 28 April to 2 May, 2014, in Taiwan.

Dr Peter Ross: three recommendations on Taiwanese white dolphin fisheries impacts

Dr Peter Ross* on the three recommendations of the international expert group after a week-long workshop on fisheries impacts on the critically endangered Taiwanese white dolphin population.

*Chair of the Eastern Taiwan Strait Sousa Technical Advisory Working Group and Program Director at the Vancouver Aquarium in Canada.

Taiwan’s White Dolphins and fisheries can benefit from dolphin-friendly fishing, says international expert group

Scientists propose target of 100 dolphins by 2030

Taiwan’s critically endangered and biologically distinct White Dolphins (Sousa chinensis) and its fishers could both benefit from a switch to dolphin-friendly fishing gear, concluded scientists at an international workshop yesterday in Taipei.

The workshop participants, from Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the United States, were invited by the Biodiversity Research Centre at Academic Sinica, the Marine Biology and Cetacean Research Center of National Cheng-Kung University, and Matsu's Fish Conservation Union. The workshop was held under the auspices of the Eastern Taiwan Strait Sousa Technical Advisory Working Group, an international group of scientists established in 2007 to provide conservation-based scientific advice to recover the Taiwanese white dolphins.

The Taiwanese white dolphins, which inhabit the nearshore waters of Taiwan’s west coast, number approximately 74 individuals. They face numerous threats, including entanglement in fishing nets, particularly gillnets. Dolphins can drown if they are unable to break free from a net, and such an impact may jeopardize the survival or recovery of the population.

More than 30% of the dolphins bear the scars of previous entanglements, and some dolphins still have nets wrapped around their bodies. This causes terrible suffering and impairs their ability to feed and reproduce.

Workshop participants suggested that Taiwan could set a target to increase the number of dolphins to 100 individuals by 2030.  This would improve the population from the IUCN ‘Critically Endangered’ listing to the ‘Endangered’ listing.

“The Taiwanese white dolphins are suffering from terrible injuries associated with fishing nets. The best hope to reduce this threat, and recover this critically endangered population, would come from banning gill nets in their habitat, and encouraging fishers to switch to more selective fishing gear,” said Dr. Peter Ross, Chair of the Eastern Taiwan Strait Sousa Technical Advisory Working Group and Program Director at the Vancouver Aquarium in Canada.

Switching to alternative, more selective fishing methods can also bring significant benefits to fishers, with recovering fish stocks leading to increased income for fishers.

The international expert group welcomed the recent announcement by the Forestry Bureau that it will soon designate Major Wildlife Habitat for the dolphins.

The expert group encouraged the Forestry Bureau to consider increasing the Major Wildlife Habitat area from Longfeng Harbour (Miaoli County) in the north to Jiangiyun Harbour (Tainan City) in the south, and increasing the offshore boundary to 3 nautical miles from the shore.

The designation of Major Wildlife Habitat represents a management tool, but it will only be meaningful if accompanied by actions to reduce the threat from pollution, freshwater diversions, noise, habitat destruction and fisheries impacts.

Fisheries bycatch must stop to avoid extinction of Taiwan’s humpback dolphins

Fishing activities pose the most serious, immediate and obvious threat to Taiwan’s critically endangered humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis), but can be addressed most easily, according to researchers.

In a study published in the journal Endangered Species Research, Dr. Elizabeth Slooten and colleagues say that the impact of fishing gear on the small population of dolphins, also known as the Eastern Taiwan Strait (ETS) humpback dolphins, must be reduced in order to avert their extinction.

Taking action to switch to more dolphin-friendly fishing equipment would require short-term investment, but the benefits both for the dolphins and for the fishing industry could be significant and lasting.

There are estimated to be fewer than 75 dolphins in the population, and more than 30% show signs of having been caught in or injured by fishing gear. Some can be seen swimming with lines still attached to their fins and around their bodies, while others bear deep, lasting scars from previous entanglement.

Surveys of fishing activities within their habitat reveal widespread use of the kinds of fishing gear most likely to cause humpback dolphin ‘bycatch’ - death from fisheries interactions. Of most concern are the thousands of gillnets along the west coast of the island, which are designed to catch fish by their gills but are also known to kill humpback dolphins, as well as most other kinds of cetaceans.

One kind of gillnet, called a trammel net, consists of multiple (usually three) layers of netting, some more slack than others, which makes it particularly easy for marine wildlife to become entangled. This is the most prevalent kind of gillnet in the dolphins’ range.

Trawling, another kind of fishing that can cause Sousa bycatch, has been banned in much of the dolphins’ near-shore habitat, but continues illegally nevertheless, often in plain sight.

The study shows that, in order for the population to survive and recover, levels of bycatch must be reduced to less than one dolphin every seven years. It is not known how many dolphins are killed or have a reduced lifespan due to fisheries injuries, but photographic evidence and bycatch reports suggest that the mortality rate is higher than this.

To prevent the extinction of this unique population, the researchers recommend halting the use of gillnets and trawling within the humpback dolphins’ habitat. This would include strict enforcement of the existing trawling ban, and adopting alternative fishing methods which are more selective, and less damaging to cetaceans and other marine life and their habitat.

Converting to these methods will cost money in the short term. But in addition to giving the dolphins a good chance of recovery, the benefits for the fisheries themselves could be significant as populations of higher value fish species recover and grow, the entire ecosystem improves, and the fishing industry becomes more sustainable.

 

The study notes that bycatch is only one of five major threats to the dolphins: habitat loss from land reclamation, pollution, loss of freshwater flow from rivers, and noise and other disturbance, are also contributing to their decline, and all need to be addressed. But in the short term, argue the researchers, because of the immediacy and seriousness of fishing impacts, stopping the use of certain fishing practices would be the ‘single most effective conservation measure for ETS Sousa.’

New Taiwan Pink Dolphin paper published

A new paper on mark-recapture analysis of the ETS Sousa (aka Taiwan Pink Dolphin) by John Y Wang et al has been published in the Bulletin of Marine Science (Volume 88 Number 4). The abstract is given below. To access the full paper see the Bulletin of Marine Science website or here.

MARK-RECAPTURE ANALYSIS OF THE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED EASTERN TAIWAN STRAIT POPULATION OF INDO-PACIFIC HUMPBACK DOLPHINS (SOUSA CHINENSIS): IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION. BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE. 88(4):885–902.

 

John Y Wang, Shih Chu Yang, Pedro F Fruet, Fabio G Daura-Jorge, and Eduardo R Secchi.

 

Abstract

 

Accurate and precise estimates of abundance and survival rates are important for assessing the conservation status of cetacean populations. Mark-recapture analysis of photo-identification data of the critically endangered eastern Taiwan Strait (ETS) population of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765), was conducted on data collected between 2007 and 2010 to refine a preliminary, and the only available, abundance estimate for this isolated population (n = 99; CV = 51.6%), as well as to provide survival rates. About 14,000 good quality photographs (about 2100–6300 yr−1) were used to estimate both parameters for marked animals under Pollock’s Robust Design model. The total population size (NT) was determined by correcting for the proportion of the population possessing long-lasting marks (i V ). The annual point estimates were lower, varying from 54 to 74, and had much better precision (CV varied from 4% to 13%) than previous estimates, suggesting that mark-recapture is a suitable method for estimating abundance of this population. These estimates also further supported the precarious state of the ETS population under another criterion of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. As expected for long-lived mammals, annual apparent survival rate was high at 0.985 (95% CI = 0.832–0.998). Continuing to monitor the ETS population of humpback dolphins with such high precision and accuracy will allow examination of the population’s trends over time and to better understand its future persistence.

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.