Rehabilitation of EIA System a Priority

Rehabilitation of EIA System a Priority 
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2010

Earlier this year the Supreme Administrative Court nullified the Taichung Science Park Phase 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This was the first time a judicial entity has ever nullified an EIA. A halt on Phase 4 development followed. White Dolphin conservation efforts led to controversy over the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical EIA. Repeated fires at the Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant made Phase 5 plant expansion EIA approval many times more difficult. The EIA system suddenly came under criticism as utterly useless. Developers criticized it for increasing investment risk. Environmental groups criticized it for lopsidedly favoring economic development. The credibility of government policy-makers and environmental protection agencies hit rock bottom. As a result, restructuring of the EIA system is imminent.

It has been 80 years since the Environmental Assessment Act was implemented. During much of that time economic development trumped all else, even as environmental hazards proliferated. In all fairness, environmental protection agencies, by invoking the magical power of the EIA, succeeded in blocking many environmentally destructive projects. The EIA's current predicament is due in part to changes in the larger environment. These have revealed serious defects in the EIA's original design. Another reason however, is political interference.

For the past half year, much criticism has been directed at the EIA system, at its veto power, and at the Central Committee's black box operations. These have led to technical and administrative problems which must be addressed. But technical issues are of secondary importance to restoring the credibility of the EIA system. The real reason for loss of confidence in the EIA is insufficient will and insufficient understanding on the part of upper echelon policy makers. These upper echelon policy makers should amend the technical aspects of the law. But they should also contemplate the root of the problem.

The ruling administration hopes to strengthen the economy. It hopes to improve people's lives. In its hurry to establish a glowing political record, it often promotes some "project essential to the nation" that "simply must go ahead." Partisan politics forces officials to compress their policy formulation process, administrative review process, or even "guide" controversial projects through a minefield. This leads to insufficient EIA transparency, insufficient citizen participation, and delayed controversy.

Once the root cause of the EIA crisis has been understood, rebuilding trust in the EIA requires addresssing both the human dimension and the legal dimension. Take the human dimension first. Policy makers may be convinced that a particular development project will promote economic growth and the public welfare. But they should nevertheless respect the spirit of bottom up community involvement. They should communicate with the public, seek public support, rather than pressure administrative authorities, demanding that they approve their projects ahead of certain deadlines.

They should not seek loopholes in the multi-layered regulatory mechanism for national infrastructure projects. For example, the Suhua Highway recently triggered a major controversy. Authorities bypassed comprehensive land planning and regional planning requirements. They went ahead with a transportation project that was not a part of national land use plans. Another example is the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. Senior government officials repeatedly offered predictions about when the EIA would be completed. By doing so, they could blame the EIA mechanism in the event the project failed to pass in time.

Only by reducing human intervention, can we return to the original intent of the EIA, namely, "To prevent and reduce development that brings adverse environmental impacts." Only then can one rebuid confidence in the EIA system. What matters is not technical fixes for individual projects, but eliminating the problem at its source.

First, the most compelling criticism of the EIA Act is that projects are submitted for approval only after they have already been settled upon. This disregards the need for prevention, early warning, and filtering. The Executive Yuan has an understanding that it will "pre-assess" certain projects, giving them "individual EIA assessments." Before major public policies and major investment and development projects are finalized, they will require "pre-assessment." Developers should invite advance participation from all sectors of the public. One requirement for alternative plans should be "zero development." Only after a project passes pre-assessment and is confirmed as feasible, will it be allowed to undergo the actual EIA process. It should not be allowed to undergo the EIA process in an attempt to bulldoze its way through.

Next, a third party management system should be established for EIA reports, as soon as possible. Currently EIA reports are written by consultants hired by developers. Consultants' reports must conform to developers' wishes. If they do not, consultants may not even receive ghostwriting fees. Therefore a fair and just "EIA management company" system must be established. Developers will be required to pay a specified percentage in EIA report writing fees to EIA management companies. EIA management companies will hire EIA consultants to produce EIA reports. Funds will be appropriated in accordance with the progress of the project. This will avoid the phenomenon of the developer holding the EIA report hostage by witholding report writing fees.

The EIA management company system will require certain preconditions. The authority in charge shall periodically evaluate EIA consultant firms for integrity. Do they put environmental science and environmental justice on an equal footing? Are they fulfilling the role of an environmental early warning system? Are their EIA reports rigorous? Do they increase the efficiency of the EIA process? The EPA should subject these firms to public evaluation. Only then can the EIA process be restored to its transcendent status. Only then can its lost credibility be salvaged.

The Environmental Assessment Act must be rehabilitated from its roots. Upper echelon policy makers must make fundamental changes. The two-stage EIA process is widely criticized as too time-consuming, Should the veto be abolished? How should Central Committee members be recruited? All these problems can be solved. The EIA system can then uphold environmental justice, and help investors to develop environmentally sound projects.

重建環評制度是當務之急
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.09.09 02:33 am

今年初最高行政法院判決撤銷中科三期環評，創下司法機關否決環評首例，接著中科四期遭判決暫停開發，白海豚保育引發國光石化環評爭議，六輕連番大火造成五期擴廠環評難度倍增。一時之間，環評制度遭批評得一無是處，開發商抨擊投資風險不確定，環保團體認為一面倒向開發，政府決策者與環保機構公信力更跌到谷底。至此，重建環評制度已迫在眉睫。

平心而論，環評法自民國八十三年實施以來，在開發至上、環境公害頻爆的年代，憑藉「否決權」這把尚方寶劍，確實相當程度地阻擋了不少高破壞性的開發案。環評之所以陷入今天的困局，除了客觀環境變遷導致原設計機制產生嚴重缺陷，另個根本原因是受到政治干預。

半年多來各界對環評制度的討論，指出了否決權、黑箱作業以致環委產生等技術面、執行面問題應予改進；但這些技術面的檢討，其實是重建具公信力環評制度的「下位」工作。引發今天環評制度信心崩盤的局面，更出在上位決策者的意志及觀念的問題，不宜僅就技術面修法，而應往問題源頭做「上位」思考。

主政者想拚經濟、拚競爭力以改善人民生活，急於創造政績，經常指示一些非做不可的「國家重點建設」，在政黨政治體制下，要求官員壓縮政策形成程序、行政審查程序，甚或介入「護航」使有爭議的開發案達陣，因而造成環評資訊不透明、公民參與受限等缺失，埋下爭議潛因。

確認造成環評危機的因果關係後，重建工作應該「人」、「法」雙管齊下。人的方面，決策者即使認為特定開發案對經濟發展及人民福祉有利，也應循環評法立法精神「民間參與、由下而上」與民眾溝通，爭取支持；而不是對行政機關施加壓力，要求限期儘早過關。

對於現行國家建設的層層規範機制，也不應再取巧規避。例如稍早引發重大爭議的蘇花高，略過了國土綜合開發、區域計畫等上位計畫，直接提出根本不在國土計畫上的交通建設案；再如國光石化案，政府高層不時預告環評何時會過，未達預期即對環評機制多所責難。

減少人為的干預後，才能回歸環評法「為預防及減輕開發行為對環境造成不良影響之目的」的立法意旨，修法重建環評制度。特別要強調的是，不是為個別項目作技術性修補，而是要斬掉問題發生的源頭。

首先，環評案最引人詬病的是開發案定案後才送審，完全無視環評的預防、預警、過濾等功能；對這個積弊，行政院已有實施「預審」、「個案政策環評」的共識，重大公共政策、重大投資開發案定案前須先預審，提前邀民間相關各界參與，且開發案的替代方案之一須是「零開發」。亦即，應通過預審、確認可行，再進入實體環評，而不是直闖環評試圖以「打帶跑」手法過關。

其次，應儘速建立環評報告書第三人經理制度。目前環評報告書是開發商找顧問公司寫，顧問公司若不照開發商的意思執筆，可能連代筆費都拿不到。因而，建立公正的「環評經理公司」是必要的，開發商依開發規模提交一定比率的環評費給經理公司，由經理公司遴聘顧問公司製作環評報告書送審，依計畫進度核撥經費，以避免開發商以經費挾制環評說明書的現象。

環評經理公司制度的配套，是主管機關定期評鑑環評顧問業者。顧問公司是否堅持事實，把環境科學和環境正義放在同等地位，發揮環境預警功能？環評報告書是否嚴謹，進而加速環評時效？環保署應公布評鑑，才能回到督導、提升環評效力的超然地位，進而挽救跌到谷底的公信力。

環評法如能從源頭、上位思考做根本的調整，廣受質疑的二階段環評、時效太慢、否決權存廢、環委產生……等問題便可相對獲得解決，從而讓環評制度能秉持環境正義，協助投資者做無害環境的開發。