Bill recently attained standards of wealth have given people pause to reflect all their surroundings, and the result has been a new environmental awareness, one that is barely three years old. People now question the nature of growth: if it is supposed to bring happiness, what are the reasons for all these newly encountered pains?
Questioning attitudes have translated into action. Two years ago, Taiwan for the first time witnessed a grassroots protest concerning an environmental issue. Plans to build a chemical plant in Lukang, a quiet town all the west coast of central Taiwan, sparked a series of protests that effectively halted construction and forced cancellation of the project.
Since then there have been additional demonstrations and other forms of protests about environmental issues. Some of these have been more emotional than rational, throwing even carefully planned and environmentally safe projects into disarray. Nevertheless, the new mood illustrates a raised public consciousness about general environmental problems. In response to the public mood, the government has reinvigorated its environmental protection sector.
The major move in this direction has been the establishment of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) under the Executive Yuan. The EPA, set up in 1987, replaces a bureau level office and is mandated to function as the central decision-maker on environmental issues. 1t is tied in with similar departments at the local government level, and has been given legal authority and has been staffed with enforcement units- both key measures giving the EPA some "teeth and claws" when dealing with polluters.
Chien Yu-hsin, a former legislator noted for his enthusiastic concern about environmental issues, was appointed the EPA's first director-general. The choice was widely praised, for he is seen as having both the credentials and the proper attitude needed to attack Taiwan's serious pollution problems.
FCR sent staff writer Yu Kuo-sheng to interview Director-General Chien about the directions now being taken by the new EPA. Excepts follow:
Q: How serious are pollution problems in Taiwan?
A: This question is very difficult to answer simply because of the lack of base line references on pollution and insufficient data on the various antipollution efforts we have previously engaged in. Frankly, right now it's impossible to make accurate and continuing assessments on how fast pollution problems are being aggravated, let alone have effective monitoring of the devastating effects of nuclear and toxic chemicals. Our surroundings have already become badly polluted. For instance, we have a very high percentage of severely polluted rivers, and all of them now through highly developed city areas. Moreover, river pollution is only the tip of the pollution iceberg. The situation is alarmingly urgent.
Q: How will you be able to gather better information on the current situation?
A: Our past efforts in the area of environmental protection have been scattered and unsystematic. An accurate database is essential, and the failure to have one in place has really hindered the process of our work. This is exactly why I have repeatedly stressed the importance of establishing a complete, comprehensive data system. Though our administration has only been underway for several months, I am insisting that a computer network system be operating in our office by June.
Q: Why has the anti-pollution system been defective so far?
A: We face a two-sided problem: one is pollution itself, the other is the structural limitations of the governmental administrative system. For more than 30 years we have pursued economic development as best as we can, but at the same time we neglected environmental protection. As a result, our surroundings have greatly deteriorated. In addition, an ambiguous environmental protection policy aggravated the situation. When challenged by economic interests, environmental protection concerns were automatically compromised without exception.
A relatively clear day over Taipei, the island's most polluted city.
Of course this doesn't mean that no anti-pollution actions were ever taken. We did indeed have anti-pollution regulations and a mandated sector to exert them in the past. But the administrative power of the sector was too limited, and it was essentially powerless to function as it should. And the laws and regulations were not fully implemented due to insufficient manpower. For instance, a staff of but 200 experts was tasked with investigating pollution problems, while over 70,000 plants were producing pollutants every day.
There were other problems, too. The powers of the concerned governmental sectors were administratively diversified, and this made both coordination and enforcement very difficult. These problems still exist. For example, the work in nature conservation is simultaneously under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, the Council of Agriculture, and now our Administration as well.
Q: Do you think there is an unavoidable confrontation between economic growth and environmental protection?
A: These two concerns do seem to contradict each other. But in substance they can augment each other in the quest for people's well-being. Nevertheless, these are difficult problems.
For instance, exhaust emissions from leaded gasoline adds to air pollution. But, according to economic officials, the lowering of the price of unleaded gasoline price may not prove to be very economical since most local vehicles are not equipped with catalytic convertors for unleaded fuel; if not converted their engines will be seriously damaged. These days a convertor is market priced at about NT$40,000 (about US$1,400). So the question becomes whether or not it is a good approach to force motorists to buy convertors. And if the attempt is made, will it turn out to be effective? All of these have to be well considered, and naturally take time to decide. When contrasting economic and environmental issues, we always have to think about what will produce the maximum amount of social well-being.
Q: Have people in Taiwan reached a consensus about the importance of antipollution measures?
A: Let me put it this way. Over the past two or three years, all of a sudden there have been anti-pollution sentiments among the people. But unfortunately we need better understanding of the problems themselves. Problems can never be solved by irrational sentiment. In fact, too often sentiment misleads people to absurdity-they call for absolutely "no pollution." This kind of misperception proves to be destructive in the long run to actual progress toward environmental protection. Therefore, education is one of our top priorities. We want to encourage rational attitudes toward pollution problems. We plan three approaches: First is to add materials on pollution to the textbooks used in primary and secondary schools, and to begin related academic studies on the college level. Second is social promotion of environmental understanding through the mass media. Third is to educate industrialists and their employees in the actual facts of pollution.
This is an incredible task. We must attempt to make up what we have failed to do in the past, and we are starting 18 years later than the U.S. and Japan. We must adopt fast and effective means to combat the situation. We are racing against time.
Q: What role will your administration play in this effort?
A: The government's policy is to strengthen our anti-pollution effort through escalation of the administrative power of the environmental protection sector. This means that we at the EPA are supposed to act as the mastermind in the anti-pollution battle. The policy merits acclaim because in the past the voice for environmental protection was for all intents and purposes inaudible. Now we have the power to be heard and be responded to.
I am encouraged by the expanded manpower of our office, which has increased from the original 100 to 318. I am also proud of the high-quality staff we have: 14 Ph.D.s, 69 M.A.s, and most of the rest are college graduates. We are young-the average age is under 33; the staff is energetic and should be highly efficient in coping with the expanded responsibilities of our office.
Q: What activities are you engaged in on the legal side of environmental protection?
A: The spirit of democracy is based on law. Laws and regulations governing environmental protection must be given teeth through law enforcement. The current regulations are inadequate to cope with our rapid social changes. We have already accelerated our efforts to bring change in this area. For example, we have pushed for the amendment, revision, codification, and legislation of 37 anti-pollution laws concerning air and water pollution, environmental damage assessment, public damage penalties, and the maintenance of public environment. Before these laws come into effect, we have the power to mediate and dissuade polluters in attempts to eliminate disputes and build up our authority and prestige.
Q: Could you discuss some of the current and planned public projects for improving the environment?
A: As far as Taipei is concerned, the government has employed about 8,000 people who have been tasked with local clean-up projects. This is a heavy operational burden for the government. Studies have shown that the private sector is 30 percent more efficient than the government sector; so why don't we take advantage of the high efficiency of the private sector?
We estimate that by the year 2000 the ROC will have spent more than NT$1,000 billion (about US$35 billion) for construction projects designed to improve the environment and protect against further pollution—projects like new sewage systems, garbage treatment facilities, and so forth.
Because we are in fact incapable of handling technology-intensive projects like these, we have opened up our construction projects to public bidding. So far 50 large-scale contractors at home and abroad have bid on various contracts. The spirit behind all of this, of course, is to utilize private enterprise to help solve our pollution problems. We think we'll get a better return on our investment this way.