White Egrets or Biotech Parks?

White Egrets or Biotech Parks?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 13, 2010

Arsenal Number 202 has made 25 hectares of land available to the Academia Sinica for the construction of a national biotechnology park. Author Chang Hsiao-feng however, penned an article entitled "Mr. President, Why can't I have two lungs?" He argued on behalf of the research park site ecosystem, hoping to discourage its construction. His article touched off another wave of debate over development vs. conservation.
President Ma, Premier Wu, and several cabinet ministers recently made several trips to Arsenal Number 202, in an apparent effort to win over Chang Hsiao-feng. Actually they ought to make an effort to communicate with and win over a diverse community holding a variety of views. They ought to provide the community with complete information, approach the problems in a rational light, reach a consensus, and solve them.

In 1985, residents of Lukang campaigned against DuPont. In 1989, residents of Ilan protested the Number Six Naphtha Cracking Project. In 1991, people in Taichung County organized large scale environmental protests against Bayer and others. Unfortunately the biotech park controversy has dragged on for almost 30 years. A price has been paid. Foreign capital has long refused to enter. Formosa Plastics fled to the U.S. and mainland China. But members of the public on Taiwan have never learned to engage in rational debate over development vs. conservation. They still resort to emotional appeals or government resources to get their way. They still attempt to force the other to back down. This approach makes it difficult to make use of society's collective wisdom.

It is hard to say how the 25 hectares of the Biotech Park and the 160 hectares of Arsenal Number 202 should be used. But our polarized society must learn civility. A sufficiently mature civil society will allow members to voice their opinions, to respect other's opinions, and to respect the final decision of the majority. Only then will the social price of the current controversy be worth it.

How should the arsenal land be used? What use will benefit the public the most? The answer is not that difficult. The three principles for the use of public resources are quite clear. Advanced nations have long-established procedures. Is not that difficult to examine the two parties' conflicting viewpoints, and to arrive at a decision.

The first of the three principles is that alternatives must be considered. If alternatives can be found for precious resources, the alternatives should be used first. Only if alternatives cannot be found, should valuable resources be used. The second principle is rarity. For example, gold is rarer than copper. Although its electrical conductivity and ductility are superior to copper's, we still use copper conductors. We do not rush to use gold wires. The third principle is that resources must be renewable. Taroko Gorge should be appreciated first for its natural beauty, which is inexhaustible, sustainable, and self-regenerating. It should not be exploited for its minerals. It should not be mined for its limestone to manufacture cement. Such uses are non-renewable.

The three principles for the use of public resources are clear. The public can examine Arsenal 202 land, arrive at decisions on which of the two uses makes the most sense, then reach a society-wide consensus. A biotech park? Or "lungs of the city?"

First consider a biotech park. The government should explain how biotechnology is the fourth industrial revolution. Biotechnology involves high value-added knowledge industries. It is an industry that can enable Taiwan to rise from the ashes. It is a "test-tube industry." Taiwan's ecosystem has a limited capacity to withstand environmental impacts. Petrochemical plants, cement plants, or steel refineries have far larger environmental footprints than biotechnology laboratories. That is why the development of biotechnology must be given priority. But the government must also explain why it must build on Arsenal Number 202 land? Many industrial areas on Taiwan are idle. Why can't they be used for a Biotechnology Park? Why can't one be located in Linkou?

Preserving the land in its pristine form as the city's lungs also makes sense. Arsenal Number 202 land is ecologically valuable, diverse, and whole. Preserving "shallow mountain ecosystems" at the juncture of urban and rural regions is important to the environmental health of urban areas. But Arsenal Number 202 has 185 hectares. Why can't we use 25 hectares for a biotechnology park? Why is a second lung more valuable to the public than the productivity of biotechnology?

Ensure that information is transparent. Allow the public to examine the facts and arrive at their own conclusions. The current controversy is the direct result of a lack of transparency. The Executive Yuan said nothing. The Academia Sinica failed to dialogue with the public. Why a biotech park, rather than some other kind of park? What will the biotech park do? Was the project custom tailored for Academia Sinica head Ong Chi-hui? What is the current status of the ecosystem? This information was not made available to the public. Even Academia Sinica researchers were not given the opportunity to participate. Only when the controversy erupted, did those in charge adopt a lower profile, and disclose a limited amount of information.

A lack of transparency led Chang Hsiao-feng to argue, "The government must not do things that will shorten our lives," and Premier Wu to counter, "If Taiwan is nothing but wetlands, how can the economy grow?" Both arguments are simplistic, and only confuse the issue.

No resolution to the standoff over the Arsenal Number 202 land use controversy is on the horizon. The outcome may be a compromise that strikes a balance between the two. It may be one alternative or the other. What's important is that the controversy compels the public to confront the problem rationally, and find a balance between environmental protection and economic development.

白鷺鷥與生技園區的抉擇
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.13 02:10 am

二○二兵工廠釋出二十五公頃土地給中研院籌設國家生技園區，作家張曉風一篇「總統，我可以有兩片肺葉嗎」的文章，為研究園區預定地優質的生態環境請命，希望不要設生技園區，於是再次掀起一波「開發與保育」的論戰。

連日來，馬總統、行政院吳院長、內閣多位部長數度奔赴二○二兵工廠，似乎只為了說服張曉風；其實，該溝通、整合的應是持多元意見的整個社會，俾讓社會得以獲取充分資訊，理性看待問題，形成共識，解決問題。

從民國七十四年鹿港反杜邦運動，七十八年宜蘭反六輕，八十四年台中縣反拜耳等大型環境抗爭，對照這次生技園區爭議，很遺憾的，快三十年了，雖然付出了外資長期不來投資、台塑出走美國及大陸等代價，但社會並沒有學到理性討論開發與保育的應有素養，仍然以感性或動用行政資源等手法，試圖「壓迫」對方撤手，這種方式難以累積社會的智慧。

生技園區的二十五公頃，以及二○二兵工廠其餘的近一百六十公頃土地該怎麼運用，尚難逆料；但若能對社會的兩極爭辯學習「公民素養」，一個夠成熟的公民社會應在陳述自己的意見之餘，也尊重對方的發言權，且尊重最後多數的決定，則這次爭議付出的代價才有意義。

兵工廠土地該怎麼利用才符合全民最大利益，其實不難找出合理的答案，因為資源運用的三原則很明確，先進國家的運作也相當成熟，檢視爭議雙方各自的立足點，不難做出抉擇。

三原則的第一項是可替代性，珍貴資源若可找到替代品，優先用替代品；實在沒有替代品，才考慮動用珍貴資源。第二是稀有性，例如金比銅少，雖然導電、延展性都比銅好，仍先用銅做電纜材料，不要貿然地做「金電線」。第三是可再生性，太魯閣峽谷先欣賞它的景觀，那是取之不盡、永續再生的，而不是開採石灰石煉水泥，做不可再生的利用。

就資源利用三原則，民眾可檢視二○二兵工廠土地，在生技園區、都市之肺的兩個利用方式各有什麼道理，之後再做出個人判斷，進而在社會上凝聚出具多數共識的抉擇。

先談生技園區，政府應說明生物科技是第四次工業革命、附加價值極高的知識產業，也是讓台灣脫胎換骨的產業，其「試管產業」型態，對台灣有限的環境承受條件，負擔遠較高耗能的石化、水泥或煉鋼為輕，有發展的優先性及必要性；但政府也須說明為什麼非兵工廠那塊地不可？全台閒置的工業區甚多，生技園區為什麼不合適？設在林口又為什麼不行？

保留原生綠地作為都市之肺的利用，也得講出道理，包括二○二這塊地在生態上的珍貴、多樣及完整性，保留城鄉交界區的「淺山生態系」對都會區環境健康具重要性；又為什麼兵工廠一百八十五公頃，不應切出生技園區的二十五公頃？給人民多一片肺葉為何比生技科技創造的產值有意義？

讓民眾檢視、判斷，基本前提是資訊透明。事實上，這一波的爭議正是因為資訊不透明，行政院沒講，中研院也不與社會溝通。為什麼是生技園區而不是其他園區？要做些什麼？是不是為中研院長翁啟惠的專長領域量身訂做？預定地的珍貴生態現況又是如何？這些資訊，先前非但社會不瞭解，連中研院研究員也沒機會參與，直到爭議形成，始知放低姿態、有限地公布資訊。

正因為資訊不透明，才形成張曉風說「政府不能做夭壽的事情」，吳院長則稱「假如台灣全部保留溼地，經濟還能發展嗎？」雙方各趨極端，讓事件變得複雜。

兵工廠土地運用爭議膠著的局面一時還看不出端倪，不管結果是「兼籌併顧」取得平衡與互補，或者是二擇一，重要的意義是：經由讓這次爭議，應使全民學會理性面對問題，為生態保育與經濟發展找到平衡點。