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.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
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."
Also see:
Lawmakers seek multi-party push to protect wetlands
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
Monday, February 13, 2012
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?
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?
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
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".
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.
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.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Study: Naphtha cracker is driving away dolphins
An article in the Taipei Times titled Naphtha cracker is driving away dolphins: Study on 27 December 2011 reveals nothing we don't already know. The article stated "The meeting was to review a project investigating the ecology of an endangered dolphin species that was commissioned by Formosa Plastics Group. Environmentalists have long questioned whether the Formosa Petrochemical’s Sixth Naphtha Cracker plant in Mailiao might cause harm to dolphins in the nearby area." So-called environmentalists [Ah, I hate the way the TT loves to brand anyone who happens to show any concern for what is happening to our planet as an 'environmentalist. It's so belittling, condescending and demeaning and makes it sound like we're some strange crazed revolutionaries.], which include some of the greatest cetacean experts on the planet have long pointed out that the FP plant at Mailiao is causing problems for the dolphins. Pollution was one of the five major threats to the dolphins identified in 2007!
All that can be concluded from this "study" is that things are so bad that the researchers that are accepting funds and grants from Formosa Plastics can no longer hide from the fact that their benefactor is amongst the foremost of reasons that the Taiwan pink dolphin is on the very brink of extinction.
It's time these experts stopped keeping their data "classified" and made it public as well as publish some real peer-reviewed work instead of clouding the waters of a very clear-cut issue; Formosa Plastics and other such corporations are harming the dolphins and us humans with their pollution.
Update: See Misguided Talk of “Hotspots” Threatens Taiwan’s Humpback Dolphins for more comment on these so-called studies.
All that can be concluded from this "study" is that things are so bad that the researchers that are accepting funds and grants from Formosa Plastics can no longer hide from the fact that their benefactor is amongst the foremost of reasons that the Taiwan pink dolphin is on the very brink of extinction.
It's time these experts stopped keeping their data "classified" and made it public as well as publish some real peer-reviewed work instead of clouding the waters of a very clear-cut issue; Formosa Plastics and other such corporations are harming the dolphins and us humans with their pollution.
Update: See Misguided Talk of “Hotspots” Threatens Taiwan’s Humpback Dolphins for more comment on these so-called studies.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Protected Hawk Owl trapped in illegal net
Bird trapped in a mist net. This one was already dead. We were able to rescue a few others.Today's Taipei Times reports a protected Brown Hawk Owl Ninox scutulata was on rescued from an illegal bird net set up in the forests in Miaoli County’s Manapan Mountain (馬那邦山) area on Friday and sent to the Endemic Species Research Institute in Nantou County for emergency care.
Finally something about the rampant trapping of wild birds on Taiwan makes it into the press.
While the Brown Hawk Owl is protected under Taiwan's Wildlife Conservation Act the species isn't listed as threatened internationally on the IUCN's Red List of threatened species. However, locally on Taiwan the threat to the Brown Hawk Owl is such that it is listed as protected. The article goes on to say that two Mountain Scops Owls Otus spilocephalus and two Taiwan Hwamei Garrulax taewanus [Taiwan Hwamei is listed as 'Near Threatened' on the IUCN Red List] and other wild birds as also being found in the net which measured 200m-by-10m. The article also says that among the birds caught, only the Brown Hawk Owl was still alive when discovered by Forestry Bureau patrol officers.
The article then goes on to say, "the bureau said many people set up bird nets in mountainous areas to catch pigeons for ransom before the pigeon-racing season, but they often kill many wild birds in the process."
"The Hsinchu Forest District Office said that according to Article 19 of the Wildlife Conservation Act (野生動物保育法), it is illegal to set up nets or traps to capture wild animals and the capture or killing of protected species could result in a fine of NT$200,000 (US$6,570) to NT$1 million and a maximum sentence of five years in jail."
The article then ends by saying "The office said it would continue to crack down on illegal nets and traps in the area to protect the safety of wild animals in their habitat."
All very good claiming that it is illegal to trap wild animals but what's being done about it. The trapping of wild birds is rampant and takes place all over Taiwan. It's not hidden out of sight. It happens openly. Just take a trip on a TRA train down the island and you'll see the nets at regular intervals in rice fields, in fruit orchards, in vegetable gardens and even when there appears to be no apparent reason for placing a net there. This is taking place openly in just about every village across the island. Birds of all species are exterminated to protect produce. It doesn't matter if the species caught don't even eat what is being protected. All birds that fly into these invisible nets are destined to die a slow lingering death.
It's not just the farmers that net birds. You get the trappers that trap racing pigeons and then hold them for ransom. But countless wild birds also get caught in these nets and just get left to die. Others might be rescued and sold for release to religious groups. Birds being trapped for release by religious groups is big business in Taiwan. But we are told about 60% of these birds don't live to be released. They die.
Birds are also caught for the cage bird trade. About three years ago the protected status of many wild birds was removed and many endemic bird species can now be openly caught and sold. Just visit the local bird store. Each year in Taiwan countless wild birds fall victim to trapping. It is really time that something is done but don't count on it. Just like all the illegal trawling along the coast in full view of the coast guard. Forget the threat it poses to Taiwan's critically endangered pink dolphins. I hope we can hold the Hsinchu Forest District Office to their word that they are going to crack down on trapping. I'm sure if they put their mind to it they could bust several trappers in a morning. What's the bet that a month from now they've done nothing?
Mist net set to supposedly protect crops but such nets are indiscriminate in what they catch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)