| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 97 === The objectivity of science is sometimes characterized by an overly idealistic picture, and the claim of its “objective professionalism” is only nominal and subordinate to political demands. The decision making process of Taiwan’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) paints a picture of how the Government uses the seal of “science” and the popular branding of professional procedure without having actual knowledge and expertise to evaluate environmental risks.
During the 1980s, a grassroots environmental protest movement swept through Taiwan and with the combined effects of many Parliament members and environmental lobbyists, the EIA was finally enacted. As the democratic process in Taiwan matured, the enacted EIA also became more professional and powerful, as preferred by environmentalists, to meet the proclaimed standard of “science and objectivity” as politics lurked in the disguise of objectivity.
EIA regulations strengthened the tendency to blur of the distinction between science and politics. In contrast to EIA legislation in the United States, that sets out only procedural requirements, Taiwanese legislators intended to empower the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to veto ecologically unsound projects, and strengthened its accountability by creating an independent special commission to undertake the EIA examination. The special commissioners, nominated by the academy and civil society, can even reject the development plans proposed by the Executive Yuan, the highest level of executive branch according to its Constitution.
However, even with the creation of the special commission, this empirical research found that EIAs conducted in the past fourteen years have not been accountable. More than 87 % of the developments plans passed the Taiwanese EPA’s review without raising any serious environmental concern, including the Su-Hua Highway, which passes through 17 ecologically sensitive areas, 11 faults, a national park and several important habitats for endangered species. By conducting surveys and in-depth interviews with the EIA commissioners, some commissioners reported they usually underwent political pressure during their evaluation and this research also found that certain language was used to describe of adverse environmental impacts so that the environmental assessment documents avoided provoking any tangible response.
By Su-Hua Highway case study, my research also showed that while commissioners do acknowledge potentially adverse environmental effects of development projects, they do not have enough competence to question the developer’s assessment without participation from society at large. What’s more, political intervention is not avoidable for such a sensitive case, the authority can adopt new administrative orders and manipulate the “Rules of Order” during the decision making process to pursue their preferred outcome.
The conclusion of this research provides several suggestions to improve the EIA including to increase the credibility of environmental assessment reports, enhance the capabilities and resources of commissioners, enlarge the public participation, and empower the judicial power to balance the inappropriate decision making.
|
|---|
