Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: 338km/WikiCommons/CC BY 3.0
ACTIVISTS IN TAINAN were successful earlier this month in convincing the Tainan city government to withdraw more than 900 hectares of land that would have been used for projects, including the development of a science park.
The science park was to be built on the Shalun Farm, which was owned by the Taiwan Sugar Corporation. Original development farms would have turned the south of the farm into a science park and the north into an industrial area.
The designation of the land for development was changed at the end of 2024, prompting fears that the conversion of farmland for industrial use was imminent. In particular, this would have threatened the habitat of 360 species, including 35 protected species, that had been found in the area. The most attention has gone to the fact that the Shalun Farm contains the highest density of the protected barn owl in Taiwan, with a little over 40 acres in the farm serving as its habitat, but the area as a whole has significant biodiversity.
Environmentalists have criticized that the Shalun Farm was chosen for development, when there is much other land in Tainan that could be used. It is thought that, as land owned by Taiwan Sugar, the Shalun Farm was considered an easy area to rezone.
Still, environmentalists have warned that the threat is not yet over. The National Science and Technology Council’s proposal for the science park can still proceed through other channels. And environmentalists believe that, if the area passes an environmental impact assessment (EIA), development could still continue. Indeed, it is rare for any EIA not to be approved, as environmentalists have criticized the lack of inclusion of information about biodiversity in the process.
Late last year, the EIA process came under criticism from environmental groups. In particular, environmental groups highlighted that the EIA process had been changed under Environmental Protection Administration minister Chang Tzi-chin. That is, civil society groups that participated in the EIA process were allowed to dialogue with developers. But under the new regulations, civic groups were only given three minutes each to question developers, who were not obligated to respond to concerns from civil society groups. Calls, then, were for civil society groups to be given more time. New tools using AI, too, were highlighted as potentially allowing for accessible meeting minutes.
Previously, environmental groups criticized the composition of the EIA board. Over half of the members were grandfathered in from preceding EIA boards. However, civil society groups mostly focused fire on that representation for the public health and the medical sector was removed, while there are only two members of the EIA committee who have a background in ecology. This is the lowest in the history of EIA committees in Taiwan, while there were no representatives from civil society groups.
Moreover, 10 of the 14 members had a background in engineering, consisting of nine members who had backgrounds in environmental engineering and one with a background in ocean engineering. This was understood as favoring technical viewpoints and the perspectives of engineers over ecology.
Controversy over plans to convert the Shalun Farm for industrial use is not the only time that there have been disputes over science park development, either. In 2021, plans by the Executive Yuan to set up science parks in Chiayi and Pingtung were similarly questioned by netizens and civil society groups such as the Citizens of the Earth, Taiwan.
Such groups questioned whether plans for the new science parks are necessary when there are already existing science parks in Changhua, Miaoli, Yilan, and facilities in northern, central, and southern Taiwan that are not efficiently used. Construction of new science parks, after all, could affect the local environment in terms of their water and electricity needs.
Still, the incentive for politicians is often to build science parks, not only as white elephant projects for their personal legacies, but also to be able to claim to voters that they are bringing high-tech jobs to the area. As such, environmentalists sometimes end up having to debate it out with politicians over whether science parks bring advantages or disadvantages to local constituents.