Chris in Taiwan

Video for comment by limited group of viewers - please don't forward

2010-02-08T06:39:00.000-08:00

Taiwan's west coast humpback dolphins

2006-07-17T22:12:00.000-07:00

In 2002, Sousa chinesis won official recognition as a resident of Taiwan, leaping out of relative obscurity and into the highest category of endangered species. Despite its proximity to the heaving west coast human population, its presence had gone unnoticed by most local people, and the stretch of coastal waters in which it swims, between the Mailiao and Changpin Industrial Parks, had never before been thoroughly surveyed for cetaceans.

Taipower coal-fired power plant at the mouth of the Dadu River (25.6.06).

The home of the Sousa has changed immensely in recent decades from that in which its ancestors thrived: from the coal-fired power station at the mouth of the Dadu River, an army of pylons marches out across the plain and charges up the hill to fuel the campaign to keep Taiwan lit up, cooled down and churning out the goods; smoke stacks punctuate the flat landscape at Mailiao, nurturing the yellowish haze that floats lazily northward on the light breeze; human and industrial waste flow untreated into the sea, under the surface of which plump, farmed oysters swell on a maze of wires; and out there on the not-so-distant horizon, fishing boats trawl unchallenged far closer to shore than written law permits.

Mailiao Industrial Park, Yunlin County (25.6.06).

But it is not in the nature of these dolphins to migrate, even despite these increasingly unpleasant circumstances. And besides, the foul effluent that swirls in the waves even provides them, via their undiscerning prey, with nutrients in these increasingly barren hunting grounds.

West coast oyster farms, submerged at high tide, stretch north and south as far as the eye can see (25.6.06).

“They're pink? Is that because of the pollution?” is the most common response.

No, they are simply pink, with some dark grey spots left over from infancy. From the cement shoreline, the bright humpbacks of adults can be seen arching slowly and curving smoothly back under the surface, once, twice, and then deep down to look for food. Mothers are accompanied by their smaller, darker calves, with whom they will maintain a strong bond for three or four years.

“They sometimes come much closer to land,” says a fisherman on the pier by the power station. “In fact, they used to come all the way down this channel here – until it was blocked off with this cement wall.”

Fishing by the mouth of the Dadu River (25.6.06).

One little obstruction - it surely won’t make that much difference. But what about all the other areas along this stretch of coastline that man is ‘reclaiming’ from corners of the ocean that only he believes ever belonged to him? In some places at Mailiao, where dolphin sightings were marked on the map only two years ago, there are now no longer waves, only the flat, characterless plains that will soon serve as the grazing grounds of a steel plant and an oil refinery.

Coastal waters being transformed at Mailiao for factory construction (25.6.06).

There is plenty more of this to come, along with the new factories, desalinization plants and wind turbines, and as far as the developers are concerned it would be preferable not to introduce these hundred or so likely victims into the environmental impact assessments and the consciousness of people who might care. But thanks to those who took the time to look, others at least now have a chance to start watching, and thinking.

Totally clean energy? The west coast will see increasing on- and offshore platform construction for wind turbines (25.6.06).

Seafood speciality on sale at Lugang, near Changpin Industrial Park (25.6.06).

EIA decision casts a black cloud over Houli

2006-07-17T22:08:00.000-07:00

Ci-sing Farm, Houli (10.6.06)

On Friday 30 June, voices of fury, sadness and deep disappointment resounded in the halls of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) headquarters as news filtered out that the EIA review committee had voted ten to eight in favor of a hi tech development in Houli (后里), Taichung County. Houli residents, who had made the trip to Taipei to voice their protest, spoke quietly of their dismay, while two commissioners announced their resignation and others emerged from the conference room to complain bitterly of procedural lapses that had led to this result, declaring the death of Taiwan’s EIA system.

The proposed development is an expansion of the Central Taiwan Science Park (中部科學工業區) into Ci-sing Farm (七星農場), a rolling meadow in the south of the town, owned by Taiwan Sugar Corporation (台灣糖業公司) and rented out along the periphery to a few small-scale vegetable and honey farmers. In recent years, the town has made a successful transition from simple agricultural production to becoming an agricultural distribution center with buyers located throughout the country. However, after the approval in February of a development for semiconductor facilities at Houli Farm in the north of the town, which was followed quickly by the initial review for the second part of the Science Park development at Ci-sing, residents began to hold meetings to discuss the potential health, environmental and social effects of the industry that threatened to transform their town.

Houli farmers protest outside EPA (30.6.06)

On 10 June, Mr. You Gen-ben (游根本), a resident of Houli, strolled by the meadow, talking about the town’s draw on tourists from all corners of Taiwan, who arrive every weekend to cycle along the old Houfeng train route, past Ci-sing Farm and on to the horse riding center, or to buy locally produced grapes. “Look at the smiles on their faces,” he said. “That’s not something you can buy. People in Taiwan need places like this to take their kids and enjoy their time off work.”

Cyclists on Houfeng Railroad bike path (10.6.06)

Residents fear that tourism in Houli will be affected by the Science Park construction on Ci-sing Farm. But according to Professor Kuo Hong-yu (郭鴻裕), an agricultural scientist on the EIA review committee and a former resident of Houli, by far the most serious threat to residents will be the pollution. Already encircled by a steel plant, an incinerator and a paper mill, Houli would now be faced with a new set of pollutants, including at least 911 tons a year of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the Ci-sing plant alone, as well as endocrine disruptors from the Houli semiconductor plant.

“We don’t understand the science,” says Mr. Liao Ming-tian (廖明田), who runs a farm produce distribution center in Houli, “we only know how to shout out in protest against pollution of our town.”

But it is not only local farmers who do not understand the nature of chemicals used in the semiconductor and LCD industries; their effects are only starting to be understood by scientists. Studies sponsored by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) include over 11 years of research into simply developing the means to identify which substances may be endocrine disrupters.

Asian Pears, a Houli speciality (30.6.06)

This term refers to a wide range of substances that may be assimilated by the body and emit false biochemical signals, interfering with the endocrine system, a series of glands and hormones that regulate reproductive and developmental functions in mammals, birds, fish and invertebrates. In Taiwan, it is believed that endocrine disruptors discharged from hi tech factories in Hsin-chu Science Park (竹科) have caused oysters in downstream areas to become hermaphroditic.

VOCs are chemicals that contain carbon and evaporate easily at room temperature, such as xylene, which is used in semiconductor manufacture. They are known to cause health effects ranging from headaches and eye irritation to damage to the liver, kidney and central nervous system. Toluene, which is used in semiconductor manufacture, is categorized both as a VOC and an endocrine disruptor, while Naphthoquinone diazide derivative, a suspected endocrine disruptor, is to be used in the Ci-sing LCD plant.

“Heavy metals are bad enough,” says Kuo, "but once you start talking about endocrine disruptors, that’s when things get really complicated. They’re so little-understood, and extremely difficult to detect.” This, he says, is reflected in the absence of these substances from the EPA’s pollutant list, which provides reference concentrations for recognized harmful substances, but not for those for which methods of detection and toxicology research lag far behind their innovation.

Plenty of security outside EPA to control elderly Houli protesters (30.6.06)

Material safety data sheets included in the EIA literature demonstrate that even the manufacturers of chemicals to be used in the Ci-sing plant have very little knowledge of the health and environmental effects of their products. For a substance produced in Japan by Chisso Corporation, called “LIXON ZAU-5026LB” or simply “Liquid Crystal” (the actual chemical name is a trade secret), the toxicology report reads “no data available” for each of the listed items, including carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and mutagenecity¹. The same is reported for the ecotoxicity² and environmental fate³ of Liquid Crystal, although it is stated that the substance is neither degradable nor biodegradable, and “may persist for long-term if released into the environment”.

Another substance, “World Rock No.711L”, also made in Japan, is known to produce hazardous NOx⁴ and CO⁵ on combustion, but again there is no toxicology data available, and the most definitive ecological data provided reads: “can have adverse effects on ecological systems in concentrations”. A no-nonsense disclaimer states that the makers “do not assume any responsibility for any use of this material,” leaving the responsibility for any negative consequences of use, whether right or wrong, firmly in the hands of the even more ignorant LCD manufacturer.

Scarab Beetle (Rhomborrhina formosana 台灣綠騷金龜), Ci-sing Farm (10.6.06)

As is the case with so many new scientific developments, the time lag between the creation of a substance and the establishment of adequate health and safety measures is an inherent aspect of the LCD industry, which has a particularly short lifecycle for new products. Research and development of new LCD panels for ever-larger computer and television screens sets a rapid pace for manufacturing companies based in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, with each graduation from one generation of LCD panel to the next taking only about two years, an impossible speed for scientists monitoring the effects of the resulting pollutants on organisms.

Yet manufacturers insist that the industry cannot afford to pause for introspection and precaution. The attraction of the Central Taiwan Science Park to LCD companies lies to a great extent in the swiftness of the Park’s construction, an important factor to such a “time-sensitive” industry, according to Lee Kun-yao (李焜耀), Chairman of AU Optronics (友達光電). AU Optronics is also the sole company on whose behalf the Science Park authorities applied for development rights to Ci-sing Farm.

A Swinhoe's tree lizard (Japalura swinhonis 斯文豪氏攀蜥) looks out over Ci-sing Farm, Houli (10.6.06)

“There’s no time to waste in getting started on construction of the Ci-sing plant,” urged a representative for AU Optronics at the fourth EIA subcommittee meeting. The developers called for a swift start to construction, citing harsh competition with other LCD-producing countries, and the threat of Taiwan losing its recently-won lead over South Korea in production of large-size LCD panels.

Altogether five meetings of the EIA subcommittee were held in March and June, leaving a trail of unresolved questions from commissioners, while AU Optronics and Park representatives repeated their calls to save Taiwan from losing its competitive edge in the industry, citing also the economic benefits that the new plant would bring to Taiwan.

A Houli resident awaits the EIA committee's decision (30.6.06)

However, the developer’s prediction of an output value of NTD 10 trillion (USD 310 billion) in fifteen years was challenged repeatedly by commissioners, as well as Legislator Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛). The LCD manufacturing industry was not nearly as financially beneficial to Taiwan as the developers claimed, Lai noted, citing examples of LCD companies in Taiwan that were either loss-making or barely breaking even. According to Wild at Heart researcher Susan Chen (陳素姍), the huge profits predicted by developers hide the reality of this resource intensive industry, which requires continuous reinvestment in new technology in order to keep up with new developments, and relies on considerable amounts of government subsidies and tax breaks.

Commissioner Li Gen-jheng (李根政) questioned how it could be guaranteed that the plant would even last fifteen years in such a fast-changing industry, and whether AU Optronics should agree to repay the government for the huge amount of public spending on the Science Park infrastructure. Meanwhile, commissioner Robin Winkler (文魯彬) challenged the developer’s suggestion that this was a form of “sustainable” development.

“How do you define the limits of sustainability?” he asked, “100 years? 500 years? And when the industry declines, what can that land be used for?”

Houli protesters display locally grown flowers (30.6.06)

Commissioner Gloria Hsu (徐光蓉 ), a professor of atmospheric science at Taiwan National University (台大), argued that no development proposed by the Science Park Provisional Office, an agency under the government’s National Science Council, should benefit such a small minority, contributing to the imbalance in wealth distribution and neglecting to include such social costs as government spending on the Park facilities, utility subsidies and wastewater treatment costs.

And there is no doubt about the high levels of water pollution that will occur in Houli and beyond if AU Optronics builds its plant. The company intends initially to discharge effluent directly into Niou-chou Ditch (牛稠坑), which runs through farmland in Houli. However, developers have refused to guarantee that this effluent will be treated to agricultural use standards, only promising to meet industrial effluent standards.

And this pollution will by no means be contained in Ci-sing. Niou-chou Ditch will channel effluent directly to the Dajia River (大甲溪), the third largest river in Taiwan, which passes through several towns and villages beyond Houli, and then out to sea. Once wastewater infrastructure is completed, which is expected to take longer than construction of the plant, pipes will redirect the effluent to the Daan River (大安溪), which passes through towns in Taichung and Miaoli Counties.

After the announcement of the EIA approval on Friday, Commissioner Li Gen-jheng (李根政) spoke to media about the consequences for these major water systems, warning that the pollution would kill life in the river and on the west coast, and endanger public health, likening the results to those already witnessed downstream of the Hsin-chu Science Park, the seriousness of which he said was still not reported by media due to pressure from powerful groups with interests in the Park.

Commissioner Li Gen-jheng warns of toxic water pollution (30.6.06)

Ironically, it is also because of Taichung’s clean and relatively stable water supply that hi-tech companies prefer this area, rather than expanding their facilities within older science parks, where water shortages can interrupt production. However, as has been seen in Hsin-chu, science parks can often take priority over municipal and agricultural water supplies when stocks are low. National and county government water authorities insist that the Ci-sing development will have negligible effects on agricultural water supplies, but numerous commissioners have responded to this with deep suspicion, demanding more information on how water will be allocated during dry periods.

The willingness of government agencies to accommodate industrial developers, although not in the least unusual with EIA reviews, has caused outrage among commissioners reviewing the Ci-sing case. The Water Resources Agency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs gave consistently short, optimistic responses to commissioners’ concerns, stating simply that satisfactory detail had been supplied by the developers regarding water supplies and effects on agriculture. Taichung County Government claimed that it would supervise pollution in the area, and trusted that the dual results of economic development and environmental conservation would be achieved. Meanwhile, Taichung’s Environmental Protection Bureau promised to force other businesses in the county to collectively reduce their VOC emissions by 411 tons a year in order to allow AU Optronics to emit this volume (in addition to 500 tons of “spare” emissions borrowed from Science Park companies located in Taichung City). And in the final meeting on 30 June, it was the unanimous support of five government representatives, none of whom had attended a single subcommittee meeting, that swung the vote in favor of the project.

Mr You approaches EIA committee to make one last plea before being ushered out as voting begins (30.6.06)

To many people, the greatest concern with LCDs may simply remain the question of whether or not to buy the latest laptop or the largest-screened television, while hi tech fairs such as Computex, held in Taipei earlier in June, will continue to boast of impressive output values and market shares for next-generation technology. However, it is a different kind of generation that Houli residents worry about.

“We’re old now, we just care about the health of our children,” said Mrs Sie Long-syong (謝龍雄), who grows Asian Pears in Houli. “People all over Taiwan eat our crops. Please keep these companies out of Houli.”

“They say the same things every time,” said one EPA official when asked why Houli residents had not been given much time to speak at the review meeting. “They’ve had a chance to speak, everyone has had a chance to speak. You know, Taiwan's EIA system is one of the fairest systems in the country.”

Mrs Sie, a Houli pear farmer (30.6.06)

¹The capacity to induce mutations.

²Indicates impacts on all species in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems.

³Environmental fate provides an indication of what happens to a chemical once it enters the environment, as well as likely exposure levels for non-target organisms. Evaluation of the data makes it possible to determine the behaviour of a chemical in soil, water and air, the potential for its uptake by plants or animals, and the potential for bioaccumulation in organisms (adapted from Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada).

⁴Nitrogen oxides

⁵Carbon monoxide

Taroko Gorge Hot Springs Saved from the Drills

2006-07-17T22:06:00.000-07:00

Sakadang River, Taroko Gorge (18.6.06)

It may be some people’s ideal way of enjoying one of Taiwan’s most beautiful scenic locations: hiding away in one’s own personal chalet with natural hot spring water on tap in a nearby building and a masseuse on hand to smooth away any anxiety brought on by the sound of crunching glass as the tour bus sped through one too many tunnels on the road up from Hualien. This, at least, was the vision recently promoted by the proprietors of the Grand Formosa Hotel, located in Taroko National Park’s Tien-siang Village, as the new face of this famous tourist destination, to be realized through collaboration with the head of the National Park Administration, Huang Wun-cing. However, since this Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) plan involved disregard for several laws protecting the Park’s resources and the rights of local aboriginal people, and threatened to turn the public area around Tian-siang into a sweeping extension of the Hotel’s private grasp on the village, Wild at Heart’s National Park expert, Lynn Lin, spearheaded a successful campaign to push a pin in the conspirators’ bubble.

Liwu River, turbid after heavy rain (17.6.06)

According to the Hotel’s investment plan, water would be channeled from a point on the Liwu River 1km south of Wen-shan hot springs, a popular semi-natural bathing spot that was closed off in March 2005 after a bather was killed by falling rocks. As those familiar with the Park will be aware, the fragility of the hillsides is becoming more apparent with each passing typhoon, as well as unrelated landslides. Several of the trails around Tien-siang have been closed in recent months due to debris flow; Bai-yang trail, for example, now ends abruptly halfway with a loose pile of rubble, and not surprisingly, considering the powdery bedrock that towers overhead on either side, interspersed with sections of stone.

Debris flow blocking Bai-yang trail (18.6.06)

Ms. Huang, however, had little to say about the potential harm that could be caused to the structure of the gorge by drilling, nor the fact that Taiwan’s Hot Spring Act forbids exploitation of what the developers had identified as a hot spring outcrop. She also attempted to bypass restrictions on development of “special scenic areas” by redefining the planned development area as part of the Tien-siang “recreation area”.

The Grand Formosa Hotel, Tien-siang (18.6.06)

A brief prepared by Lin, listing altogether twelve suspected legal transgressions, was shared with legislators, who requested a thorough investigation by Minister of the Interior Lee Yi-yang. Points included neglect of environmental impact assessment (EIA) duties and the Administration’s failure to meet Freedom of Information requirements by refusing to disclose details of the contract to legislators. Lin also criticized the attempt to privatize natural resources that belong to the Park, as suggested by the Hotel’s proposal to commandeer the hot spring water for use in its planned resort, and to sell off any “excess” water to local residents.

More construction in Taroko Gorge means more of these...(17.6.06)

Meanwhile, the Taroko People’s Self-rule Promotion Association responded to the actions of the ostensible guardian of their ancestral lands by holding a press conference on 5 May, declaring violations of the 2005 Aboriginal Basic Law (原住民族基本法). According to the Association, the Taroko Administration and developers had held only perfunctory consultations with tribal representatives, ignoring the Law’s requirement for developers to obtain the agreement of local aboriginal people, and to set up a common management system in the planning of scenic or recreational areas, or resource management systems, within traditional aboriginal territories.

...and these...(17.6.06)

Minister Lee concluded his investigation with orders to remove the hot spring element from the proposal, and for the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) to establish whether an EIA should be carried out for the remaining aspects of the project, to which the EPA gave an affirmative response. Left with nothing to put in their hot tubs, however, the Hotel proprietors quickly decided that it was no longer worth going to the trouble of expanding the Grand Formosa Hotel facilities. Their contract with the Park Administration was annulled at the end of May, marking a success for the Gorge, Taroko protesters, and all others who value the natural beauty of the untouched parts of the Liwu River, as well as granting a leave of stay for small food and souvenir vendors in Tien-siang that would have been removed due to the BOT project.

It also brought an end to another episode of Taroko trouble for Lin, who is presently working with over sixty Taiwanese groups and several legislators to have Ms. Huang replaced with someone more committed to the task of protecting the Park from drill-wielding opportunists.

This caterpillar was otherwise occupied and gave no detectible response to questions...(18.6.06)

...as were these spiders...(18.6.06)

...and these dragonflies.(18.6.06)

McDonald's Lovin' Taiwan's Grease-friendly Government

2006-07-17T22:03:00.000-07:00

Dr. Cathy Kapica, Global Nutrition Director of McDonald’s corporation, was not seen publicly burning copies of Eric Schlosser’s books during her visit to Taiwan last week. But chances are that this leg of her Asia tour was part of a major PR campaign to discredit the author’s new book and film about the fast food industry, which are said to have caused quite a stir in the corporation’s headquarters. However, there may be little cause for concern for McDonald’s in Taiwan, where the fast-food giant has successfully charmed its way into the hearts of consumers and government officials alike, blurring the line between health education and junk-food propaganda.

Grafitti in Xi-men Township, Taipei.

When addressing a health-conscious audience, Dr. Kapica, just like her good friend Ronald McDonald, knows better than to brag about the company’s burgers. Instead, she comes armed with a lot of good, wholesome advice. For instance, on Saturday 20 May she talked about “helping children choose nutrient-rich foods” at a conference at Taichong’s Hungkuang University, co-organized by the Chinese Nutrition Society.

The Society is just one of many groups with whom McDonald’s has succeeded in forming cozy partnerships in Taiwan. The Department of Health currently endorses the company’s most well-known PR agent, Ronald McDonald, as he tours schools to educate children on health and hygiene. Also, in 1999 McDonald’s was granted permission by the Koo Foundation Sun Yet-Sen Cancer Center to set up Taiwan’s first “Ronald McDonald Family Room” for the visitors of sick children, which has since been replicated in other hospitals around the country.

Yet it was less than ten years ago that courts in England ruled against the corporation on several charges relating to precisely this kind of false, manipulative PR campaigning. In the longest-running legal battle in English history, known as McLibel, activists Dave Morris and Helen Steel successfully proved that the company exploited children, was misleading in the healthy images portrayed in its advertising, and that eating too much McDonald’s food was linked to heart disease. Since the trial, the negative health, social and environmental effects of the fast food industry have been repeatedly highlighted in books, films and on websites.

The friendly clown: Sansia, Taiwan.

So where was Taiwan when all this was going on? Everywhere one looks today, Ronald McDonald seems to have his big red foot in the door of some government agency, school or health institution, and is becoming an ever-more robust Trojan horse in the corporation’s campaign to keep kids munching on fries. Indeed, Ronald’s mission has not been affected by the attacks on his creators, but he has instead been given a makeover and sent back out into society reinforced with a smart new set of principles - stolen straight from the mouths of his fiercest critics. And all it took was a little cut and paste job from the Dummie’s Guide to Nutrition.

At a meeting on 22 May with Sheu Hui-yu, Director of the Nutrition Division at Taiwan’s John Tung Foundation, Dr. Kapica revealed one of the clown’s favorite weapons – a triangular tool originally developed by his adversaries and later assimilated for him by McDonald’s. Nutritionists Kapica and Sheu sat face-to-face across the Foundation’s conference table, each brandishing her own model of this tool, the “food pyramid”, a diagram indicating the recommended daily consumption of grains, fruits, vegetables, proteins, fats and sugars.

The food triangle according to McDonald's.

When asked whether any of the meal options at McDonald’s actually conform to the diet represented by the pyramid displayed in the company's promotional materials, Dr. Kapica indicated that there were certain “choices” on the menu that could be made, failing to elaborate on which items those might be, and how they might contribute to a balanced diet.

Unsatisfied, Sheu echoed one of the focal concerns of the McLibel trial, probing as to whether the company’s healthy, balanced lifestyle brochures were misleading to customers, who might be fooled into thinking that the kind of diet recommended within actually represented the food served by McDonald’s.

“Have you seen our menu lately?" Kapica responded as her colleague fished out the latest local menu with its usual selection of burgers, fries and…oh! A packet of corn.

Perhaps the questions were not specific enough, not giving the McDonald’s nutritionist due chance to fully display her wisdom and expertise.

Why was it, then, that for about the same weight of fries, the nutritional information provided for Taiwan was totally different from that in China or the US? Sheu pointed to the salt and calorie columns on the latest McDonald’s handouts.

Dr. Kapica was quick to respond. This was because the methods used for testing data varied from country to country, and they were presently working out how to standardize the system - a considerable challenge in a world with no example to follow. Thus her reply on behalf of the company most famous for its unprecedented global standardization of flavors, main streets, and every last detail of behind-the-counter operation.

Errors in the data could be excused, she added, for they at McDonald’s “provide more information than any other restaurant in the world.”

Politely ignoring the hyperbole, and still bothered by the inconsistency in nutritional data provided to Taiwanese customers compared to their foreign counterparts, Sheu pointed out that, in order for all that information to be meaningful, it would have to possess some element of precision, and that an error of factor 10 was stretching it a little.

The McDonald's balanced diet, Roosevelt Road, Taipei.

They discussed the famous Taiwanese Rice Burger, which Dr. Kapica admitted was considered a healthy option, yet was unprepared to explain why the chicken rice burger has higher fat and calorie levels than a Big Mac.

This, again, could be considered misleading. However, Sheu explained, she did not expect something as unreasonable as for the company not to sell its food. What concerned her most was the welfare of Taiwanese children, whose eating habits were being influenced by McDonald's marketing. For example, just what kind of message did Dr. Kapica think Ronald McDonald was conveying to kids on his visits to schools?

Dr. Kapica’s Taiwanese colleague, Deputy Assitant Manager of Sales and PR Chen Wei-Ya, explained that the purpose of sending Ronald to schools was to teach children to wash their hands. Was that all? No, she said, he also instructed them on healthy eating.

“Kids are more likely to do what Ronald McDonald tells them to do,” she said, and gave a demo of Ronald in action. “McDonald’s is a life choice. When you eat at McDonald’s, you also have to eat fruit and vegetables, and do exercise…”

She seemed almost charmingly unaware of her blatant admission that Ronald was simply a company salesman with a painted face. Yet one look at the hand-washing guides provided to schools by McDonald’s Taiwan confirms this reality; “Wash your hands before you eat,” advises the caption beside an illustration of a McDonald’s burger, fries and drink.

"Wash your hands before you eat..."

“We’re seriously looking at ways to get children to eat more fruits and vegetables,” Dr. Kapica assured, and proceeded to describe a few of the ways in which McDonald’s claims to be attempting to do so. Firstly, there are apple slices in American outlets, which come accompanied by a low-fat dip.

“But is it high in sugar?”

“Of course it’s sweet!” Dr. Kapica retorted. “But will children eat apples without it?”

She then expounded a theory that, after eating a lot of apple slices with the caramel dip, children would try them without the dip, and possibly find that they liked the apple by itself. This was followed by a description of efforts in Australia, where flavored straws are being used to make drinking milk more fun for children.

“But the ingredients of the straw are also good, right?” asked Chen.

“Well…it’s flavor,” came the reply. “Chocolate or banana…”

As she progressed with these examples, it became clear the bizarre kind of image she was trying to paint of McDonald’s: that of an unfortunate victim of the poor eating habits of modern society, which it was heroically trying its utmost to reverse.

“We tried forty vegetables with kids – they ate none of them!” she said. “We have to work with other people to say, “children need to eat this!”

Was McDonald’s, then, prepared to stop advertising its existing menu to children until a day came when it could offer the healthier food it was trying so hard to introduce? No, Dr. Kapica could see no sense in that, and anyway, she had no idea what was meant here by “healthy”.

And the feeling was mutual - was the guiding principle behind McDonald’s health drive, after all, to use additives and sugary dips to lure children into consuming milk and fruit, or to harness the innocence of milk and fruit to wean them onto additives and sugary dips? Would the corporation one day be claiming that babies have an innate repulsion towards breast milk that could only be overcome by smearing McDonald’s cherry-flavored gel on the nursing mother’s nipples, upon which the in-house nutritionists could then cry in anguish, “Of course it’s full of chemicals, but will babies feed without it?"

Whether or not the corporation would go the small extra distance to promote such an absurdity, the fact remains that, as company reps told Sheu ten years ago, if McDonald’s were to sell healthy food, it wouldn’t be McDonald’s. Even as Dr. Kapica talked about nutrition in Taipei, a UK newspaper reported that McDonald’s is abandoning its attempts to sell healthier foods in America and Britain, and instead bringing out bigger burgers than ever, which has caused renewed concern about the corporation’s contribution to diet-related health problems amongst children and the less wealthy.

Of course no one should have the right to dictate what others eat. But while it is up to the individual customer to make this choice, there is something very sinister about a company that intentionally works its way into the consciousness of small children, plumping them up for the obesity ward while sending a smiling clown to sing songs with the kids suffering from cancer next door. As Helen Steel said during her McLibel campaign, “Ronald McDonald is one stranger parents certainly should warn their children about - we know he has ulterior motives.” The Department of Health should take note.

Proposal to Build, Operate and Trash Jibei Island Blocked

2006-07-17T21:58:00.000-07:00

Residents of Jibei Island, located in the north of the Penghu archipelago, were joined this spring by environmental groups and legislators in a successful attempt to block a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) project that could have been devastating to the island’s ecology and small local businesses. In a public hearing held by the Sustainability Forum of the Legislative Yuan on 9 March 2006, demands were made on developers and government agencies to justify the haphazard Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the exclusion of local opinion in the decision-making process, and an attempt to whitewash the long-running illegal occupation of land by tourism operators. Yet some of the decisions reached at the meeting seem to have fallen on deaf ears, and pressure is still being exerted on the island to conform to this heavy construction-based pattern of development.

A stormy day on Shawei spit (CM)

Between 300,000 to 400,000 visitors flock to Jibei every summer, generating millions of NT dollars a year for tourism operators on this island of just over 305 hectares. This income would be of great benefit to the island’s population of 1,500, among which increasing numbers of young people are leaving for parts of Taiwan with better job prospects. However, what the majority of tourists come to enjoy is a treasure out of the reach of most residents of Jibei: the golden sands of the Shawei beach, extending 700 meters out to sea to the South, and cut off from the rest of Jibei by a surrounding wall to the North, built by the proprietors of Sea Paradise Resort.

Both private and government websites boast of the beauty of this stretch of land, enticing holiday-makers to enjoy the scenery, water sports and the traditional lifestyle for which Jibei is famous. But few tourists come into contact with the local community for long enough to detect the widespread discontentment on the other side of the wall. Tours, as well as the island's infrastructure, are designed to guide those alighting at the harbour directly to and from Shawei, often without even passing through Jibei’s only town. A round-the-island road allows 60-seater buses to crawl round the coast, enabling passengers to view the island and get to the resort, or back to the pier, without moving a muscle. This road was one of Penghu National Scenic Area Administration's (PNSAA) contributions towards what it views as the development of 'local tourism'. Yet for the last two decades, locals wishing to follow the buses as they turn into the Sea Paradise resort have had to stop at the wall, like everyone else, and pay an entrance fee.

Convenient - but where did the beach go?

“Why should I pay to walk on Shawei beach? Jibei Island is my home!” laments Mr. Jhuang, one local who is actively involved in trying to win Jibei’s prime tourist destination back from the businesses that have occupied it since 1983. The dispute came to a head in recent years after the PNSAA announced its plan to invite more private businesses to the island to develop and operate a major expansion of the resort facilities, disregarding the fact that the majority of the 18 hectares used by Sea Paradise was appropriated illegally.

In a 1998 lawsuit, Kaohsiung High Court found the lessee, Mr. Chen Si-nan, guilty of illegally occupying 16.8 hectares of government land, having only received permission in 1983 to use 1.2 hectares for construction of a few simple facilities: a washroom, a break room, a changing room and a restaurant. By subsequently enclosing and developing the remainder of this tourism gold mine, owners of Sea Paradise succeeded in turning profits of about NTD10 million a year as the percentage of Penghu-bound tourists traveling to Jibei rose to over 74 percent, while small local tourism enterprises struggled to compete.

Basalt formations, Jibei (CM)

Despite this blatant disregard for the terms of the lease agreement, 15 years passed without a word form the government agency responsible for overseeing the rent of public land on the island – the National Property Bureau (NPB). Furthermore, following the 1998 High Court ruling, which included an order to demolish all unlicensed buildings at the resort, the Bureau continued to rent the legitimate 1.2 hectares to Sea Paradise, and to turn a blind eye as illegal operations continued on the rest of Shawei beach.

At the public hearing held on 9 March 2006, the NPB admitted to having made an administrative error by failing to challenge Mr. Chen’s use of the land, but claimed to have responded to the 1998 ruling by pursuing rent in arrears for the illegally occupied area, and denied responsibility for managing the demolition of unlicensed buildings. This met with a series of challenges from the convener of the Forum, Li Gen-jheng, who questioned the NPB's decision to continue the lease, while pursuing an amount of money (a mere NT$1000 per hectare per year) vastly disproportionate to the profits made by the resort, allowing the proprietors to go completely unpunished. Indeed, as argued by the Forum’s chairman, Legislator Tian Ciou-jin, rather than the proprietors being penalized for breaking the law, they were instead being rewarded with a 50-year BOT project on the disputed land and NT$38 million in subsidies, all courtesy of the PNSAA.

According to the PNSAA's bidding manual, the BOT project aims to turn Jibei Island into a major harbour and holiday center, promoting tourism and stimulating local employment and prosperity. Yet there is no mention of local participation in the design and implementation of the development. Bidding companies are merely required to be a corporate person legally established in Taiwan with experience in running facilities of a similar budget size or floor space, and there is no limit on the proportion of foreign shareholders.

Tour of old fishing routes with Mr Jhuang (CM)

Not only does this project threaten to exclude locals and squeeze out smaller tourism enterprises, it would also steer development on Jibei further in the direction of the water-sports theme promoted by proprietors at Shawei beach, rather than the culture and ecology-based tourism that many would like to see share the focus of tourism on the island. The sea surrounding Jibei is host to the world's most northerly reefs of Turbinaria mesenterina coral, as well as the pitch-black basalt that characterizes much of Penghu’s geological make-up. It also boasts a several hundred-year-old tradition of the use of stone tidal weirs (石滬) for catching fish. These curved walls of basalt and coral, hand-built over periods of up to ten years, are submerged at high tide, and form a trap for sea creatures when the tide recedes. The weirs can also be seen in other parts of Penghu, where they have eased what are often extremely harsh living conditions, particularly during the long spell of strong winds between October and April each year.

Stone Tidal Weir, Jibei (CM)

Locals such as Mr Jhuang would like to continue to share with tourists these features, as well as their knowledge of Jibei’s cultural heritage, and environmental groups and scholars such as Professor Chen Yu-feng of the Department of Ecology at Providence University have suggested preserving the area as an international base for environmental studies. Those interested in preserving or restoring some of the natural features of Jibei would do well to act quickly on such advice; due to years of purely profit-oriented operations on Shawei (also including gravel extraction), and thanks to the Administration and its visions of cement-based tourism, the ecology and beauty of the coastline are now marred by litter dropped or washed up on the beach, and by wave breakers, roads and concrete pagodas reminiscent of the more heavily sculpted parts of Taiwan proper. These "facilities" came as part of the Administration’s preparatory work for the BOT project, which also includes plans for government-funded car parks and a desalinization plant.

Recreational vehicles suspected of damaging Shawei beach (CM)

In recent years, the fine sand of Shawei beach has also seen an accumulation of dead coral, as well as estimated erosion of the spit itself of up to 200m lengthways, and the disappearance of fish and other marine wildlife. It has been difficult to pinpoint the exact source of the damage, but it is believed that irresponsible diving practices, the use of recreational sand vehicles, the alteration of wind and wave flow patterns through construction of obstacles such as sea walls, and modern fishing techniques have all contributed to these phenomena.

Coral graveyard, Jibei (CM)

Although damage caused by fishing cannot be attributed to tourism on Shawei, this does highlight the vulnerability of Jibei’s marine ecology. Penghu has seen a dramatic decline in sea life populations since the 50s, when explosives and electrocution were introduced into fishing and fleets enlarged. Dragnet fishing by the Chinese is also blamed for draining fish populations and damaging coral reefs. Under these circumstances, can further exposure of these fragile eco-systems to the consumption and pollution of hoards of holiday-makers be justified?

In addition to pollution and other sources of damage to the environment, of immediate concern to residents of Jibei is the over-extraction of ground water, which may be sufficient for the island’s small population, but cannot sustain the thousands of people staying at Shawei each year. Subsidence has occurred, and drinking water is now contaminated with seawater, forcing residents to control salt levels by alternating between and mixing water from the six official wells. Some water is even shipped from other parts of Taiwan, which, considering the pressing water crisis faced by the whole nation, cannot be considered a long-term solution. The idea of constructing large desalinization facilities is also an extension of the trend in resource mismanagement perpetuated by many government agencies in Taiwan; pushing capacity to the limits rather than increasing efficiency, and no talk of caps on consumption.

Former beach with wave breakers, Jibei (CM)

Wave breakers (CM)

Wave breakers (CM)

Needless to say, the Penghu National Scenic Area Administration placed little emphasis on the Environmental Impact Assessment for the BOT project. Among the issues raised at the public hearing, it was revealed that coordinates for coral reefs cited in the EIA report were false, some even being located on dry land. The Administration also violated procedure by privately allowing proprietors to sidestep their duty to produce an independent environmental impact report.

Also hardly surprising is the fact that review meetings for the project were held behind closed doors, hindering as far as possible the participation of those residents of Jibei not in favor of the proposed development. At the public hearing, the Public Construction Committee (PCC ) defended this procedure, citing the Law for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects (促參法), which calls for secrecy regarding information provided by the review applicant. On this matter, however, the Forum concluded that since the Law requires all parts of the review process except the applicant’s details to be made public, residents of Jibei should have access to all other details of the review procedure, including the minutes of meetings. In addition, Legislator Lin Shu-fen announced her plan to propose an amendment to the Law to include a public hearing system in the BOT review procedure. From the perspective of affected communities and environmental groups, such changes cannot not come soon enough; any progress in persuading government agencies to commit to freedom of information in all EIA and construction projects could have significant effects on resource management and the direction of development in Taiwan.

15 April 2006: Business as usual on Shawei beach

But there are, of course, those who would rather not sit around too long waiting for Jibei’s residents to gain control of the situation. Since the hearing, illegal tourism operations have continued on Shawei beach, albeit in a somewhat more subtle fashion (tourists are known to have been shipped out of sight when proprietors get wind that anti-BOT groups are converging on Jibei Island). Deadlines set by the Forum in March have come and gone, while the unlicensed buildings remain, and there is still much tension in the air between those for and against the project.

At a meeting held on Jibei on 15 April 2006, one Penghu official argued that Jibei urgently needs to make its mind up about how to expand its tourism industry, emphatically repeating the question, “Is Jibei ready or not?”

But for what should Jibei be ready for? To sell its soul to those who claim to have Jibei's best interests at heart, only to be asphyxiated under a smooth, expensive layer of cement? The island, at least, will surely never be ready for that. It remains to be seen whether the people can spare it that fate.

The Hushan Dam

2006-07-17T21:57:00.000-07:00

Plans were first laid to submerge You-cing Valley in December 1994. Located in the Hushan area, 10 km south-east of Douliu City in Yunlin County, the valley would be filled with water diverted from the Cing-shui River and dammed just north of Hushan Village. The resulting reservoir would, according to developers, provide the means to relieve Yunlin County of its shortage of agricultural and domestic water, and mitigate the serious land subsidence that had occurred through excessive pumping of groundwater. More than ten years later, however, the dam still exists only on paper, and a growing number of people are fighting to keep it that way.

You-cing Valley: CM, Wild at Heart

You-cing Valley carves a winding path through lush forest that has survived and replenished itself since the last major forestry exploitation in the area by the former KMT government after 1949. Protected by law in recent years under the management of the Forestry Bureau, the valley offers more than a shady walk for people escaping the stress of the city; birdwatchers and academics have recorded a wealth of animal species to whom the plants and pools provide either a permanent home, or a vital resting and breeding ground along migration routes.

The diversity of life in Hushan presents itself throughout the day as a vibrant spectrum of sounds and colors. The hiss and hum of cicadas and bees resonate from amidst flowers, leafy green vegetation and creaking bamboo, punctuated by the various taps, whistles and squeaks of birds including the Formosan Blue
Magpie (Urocissa caerulea) and Swinhoe's Pheasant (Lophura swinhoii), two of five endemic bird species in the area. A gradually mounting chorus of croaks and rattles hints at the vast concealed army of resident amphibians; 21 of Taiwan’s 31 frog species have been spotted at Hushan. And in early April, dense clouds of Taiwan Purple Crow Butterflies (Euploea tulliolus) can be seen taking off as they begin their northward migration.

Brown tree frog: Yunlin Wild Bird Association

One particularly striking bird, the Fairy Pitta (Pitta nympha), finds its way to You-cing Valley every year from countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. Known in Mandarin as the "Eight-colored Bird", it arrives in late spring, and is seen hopping along the ground looking for earthworms, its multi-colored feathers gleaming brilliantly when caught the sunlight. Threatened by habitat destruction, only about 2,000 Fairy Pitta remain worldwide. It is listed as a vulnerable bird by Birdlife International and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and is listed as an endangered species in Taiwan, where Hushan provides the world’s most densely populated Fairy Pitta habitat known to date.

Fairy Pitta: Wu Chong-han, Yunlin Wild Bird Association

International recognition of this shrinking population brought Birdlife International representatives to Taiwan in 2000 to voice concern over exploitation of local forest resources. Later, in 2004, in a letter addressed to President Chen Shui-bian, the organization's director, Mike Rands, asked that the government confer greater protection status on the Fairy Pitta habitat. Specifically addressing the Hushan dam proposal, Rands also echoed Taiwanese environmentalists in asking that a new Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project be conducted, taking into consideration the importance of the area's ecosystems, as well as the viable, low cost alternatives that had been suggested in place of the dam.

However, even with protection under the law and the work of activists at home and abroad, rich ecosystems such as that of You-cing Valley are not out of danger; the growing pressure of corporate and political interest in the Hushan dam project led in January 2005 to agreement by the Forestry Bureau to release the land from under its control, making it available to developers. Water shortages and subsidence in Yunlin County were again cited as grounds for urgency in approving and starting construction. However, whether or not the dam was a viable solution to Yunlin’s water problems remained the subject of heated debate, and according to many who had studied the valley environment, it would even be a highly dangerous project.

Valley Walls: Wild at Heart

From a distance, the walls of the valley appear strong and solid. However, as demonstrated repeatedly by ecologists visiting the area, the stone breaks off easily and turns to powder between the fingers. The September 1999 earthquake, which had a magnitude of 7.3, and subsequent typhoons have caused the fragile hillsides to collapse, clogging the Cing-shui River and turning one upstream lake into a mud plain. A small weir built in an attempt to control the flow of sand now stands silted up to the brim, and some say the same fate lies in store for the Hushan dam, estimating a lifespan of only ten to 20 years. The original EIA, opponents argue, not only overlooked the biodiversity of the area; it also failed to address the potential silting up of the dam, and the fact that an earthquake on a similarly large scale could cause it to collapse.

Silted-up weir, You-cing Valley: Wild at Heart

To concerned locals and environmental groups, however, this was only part of a much larger issue. At the same time as government agencies were endorsing the dam project as a solution to Yunlin's existing water problems, separate plans were being laid for two major construction projects on Yunlin's offshore business park. Two corporations were vying for space to set up factories--Formosa Plastics for a steelworks, and Chinese Petroleum Corporation for a petrochemical science and technology park. The January 2005 decision to release the Hushan area from the protection of the Forestry Bureau coincided with a report confirming the suspicions of environmental groups that the offshore construction projects were linked to the dam project; the Ministry of Economic Affairs revealed that the corporations would both be allowed to build factories, and the dam would be built to meet an enormous future demand for water by these two notorious polluters.

Mailiao, Yunlin, Home of Formosa Plastics' Sixth Naptha Cracker Plant: Li Gen-jheng

To residents of Yunlin who trust in the promotional information they have received, the project still represents a solution to their water needs. Those who do not live near Hushan do not feel threatened by the potential collapse of the dam--and why should there be concern, when the engineers are so confident in their ability to overcome the forces of nature that they see no need to disclose their solutions for public review? But to those who have studied the ecology and geology of the proposed dam site, and the health and environmental effects of factories such as those planned for the business park, the risks and sacrifices involved in the Hushan dam project far outweigh the benefits of channeling more of the county's scarce resources into the hands of a few powerful corporations.

A comprehensive report on the Hushan Dam project is available in Mandarin at the Ecological Education Center. A excerpt of this book is also available in English.

TAIC toxic pollution disaster: some compensation...

2006-07-17T21:50:00.002-07:00

Note: Originally printed in the Taipei Times as a letter to the editor.

On 27 January 2006, residents of Hsiengong and Luermen townships in Tainan County received a long-awaited first installment of compensation from the EPA. The monthly sum of NT$1814 per person is partly intended to pay for continuing medical treatment of various illnesses caused by toxic pollution at a nearby chemical plant between 1942 and 1982. However, the case has yet to reach a final conclusion, and many are dissatisfied with the outcome of court proceedings to date.

Company’s toxic track record
Anshun plant, situated northwest of Tainan City, has changed hands, names and products several times since its construction by the Japanese in 1942. Originally producing hydrochloric acid, caustic soda, liquid chlorine, and also poison gas for the Japanese navy, by the early 1970s it had become Asia’s biggest producer of the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), under the title of state-owned Taiwan Alkali Industrial Corporation (TAIC). After closing in 1982 for economic reasons, it merged with China Petrochemical Development Corporation, which then privatized in 1994, inheriting TAIC and all its property.

Once renowned simply for its vast production volume, news is now spreading that the company site holds some more sinister records. The bottom mud in neighbouring Luermen River has the highest dioxin levels for a river in Taiwan, and one local resident has the highest recorded blood dioxin concentration in the world. In January 2006, the dioxin concentration in one ditch on the site was found to be 64 million TEQ ng/m3 – 64 thousand times the accepted standard.

Dioxin, a byproduct of DDT belonging to a dangerous group of chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) or the “dirty dozen”, can result in illnesses affecting the skin, liver, and immune, nervous and reproductive systems. It has also been categorized as carcinogenic to animals, including humans.

In addition to dioxin, soil on the factory site has also been found to contain both DDT and methyl-mercury (CH3Hg+) . DDT is known to affect the nervous system and cause reproductive problems, and is also believed to be carcinogenic, while methyl-mercury causes a range of illnesses including impaired neurological development and severe disabilities in the children of women exposed to it. The horror of methyl-mercury poisoning was first demonstrated in 1956, with the discovery in Japan of what soon became known as Minamata disease .

Locals left in ignorance of peril
For decades, residents of the townships near the Anshun factory have farmed and caught fish and shellfish in the reservoir and ponds surrounding the factory, unaware that what they were eating and selling was poisoned. However, not everyone was oblivious to the danger.

Fish farming equipment in a contaminated pond adjacent to the fenced-off reservoir.

Confidential documents show that the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) warned TAIC in 1982 that mercury concentrations in fish caught in the reservoir (used by TAIC as a toxic waste dump) exceeded safe levels for human consumption. Yet this was not brought to public attention, nor did it result in any attempt to prevent the further spread of pollution, or the consumption of fish harvested in contaminated areas.

It is also believed that Tainan City Government’s Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) neglected their respective supervisory and investigative duties. It was, in fact, purely by chance that the EPB discovered the seriousness of the dioxin pollution in 2001. The Bureau had commissioned National Cheng Kung University to study the blood dioxin concentration of people living near each of the nation’s 12 incinerators, through which it emerged that residents of Hsiengong and Luermen townships had unusually high dioxin levels in their blood. It was then established that this was directly related to their proximity to the China Petrochemical plant.

With so many potentially liable, and because of the length of time that has passed since the pollution occurred, the case is taking a long time to reach a final conclusion. In July 2005, the Executive Yuan promised NT$1.3 billion (US$41 million) compensation for affected residents, but it has taken six months for the first small portion of this to reach victims.

One major complication relates to ownership of the plant. Kaohsiung City High Administrative Court has held China Petrochemical responsible and ordered the company to pay the compensation fees. However, China Petrochemical is presently appealing on the grounds that the pollution occurred under state-owned TAIC, and therefore the government should bear responsibility for the clean-up.

The amount of compensation is also a bone of contention. The monthly sum of NT$1,814 per person is intended to pay for continuing medical treatment of various illnesses, including cancer, as well as social welfare and living expenses. Many regard it as disproportionate to the extent of damage caused to the health and livelihoods of local residents, taking little account of past medical costs and other losses, and failing to discriminate between the varying needs and severity of illness among the population.

Further contamination still a threat
As for control of the pollution and the ongoing clean-up of the factory grounds, some of the most polluted soil has been removed to a concrete store on the site, and China Petrochemical has installed and begun to use equipment to treat the chemicals. But no urgent action is being taken to deal with the remaining pollution, which may spread beyond the factory boundaries during heavy rainfall. Also, birds and other animals continue to nest and feed there, and in one place, a large pipe runs under the walkway separating one off-limits pond from Luermen River, allowing water, silt and fish to move freely between the two.

Please don't fish here, it might be polluted.

Still only crude physical barriers hinder human entry to the most seriously polluted areas, and there is little enforcement of the 2005 ban on fishing. In December 2005, the only indications of danger were a few sparsely distributed signs from Tainan City Government suggesting a “likelihood” or “unconfirmed level” of pollution. According to local researchers, these measures are insufficient to discourage some residents, who do not understand how seriously to take such warnings, particularly when large, healthy-looking fish and crabs can be seen in the water.
Fishing on Luermen River, meters away from
a pipe leading to a contaminated pond. Despite the high instance of illness in the local population, those who have eaten fish from these waters all their lives find it hard to comprehend the invisible threat.

Wild at Heart and groups in Tainan continue to seek proper recognition and treatment of the TAIC case.

Panda Preservation in Taiwan: Helping Sink the Flagship

2006-07-17T21:46:00.000-07:00

Note: Originally printed in the Taipei Times as a letter to the editor.

China’s State Forestry Administration announced on 6 January 2006 that two giant pandas, from among 11 suspects being held at the Wolong Center in Sichuan, have just been charged and sentenced to exile in a prison on Taiwan, for being too endangered and attractive to be granted permanent residency in their homeland. The Administration didn’t exactly use those words, preferring China's official term "gift" (although there are plenty of more fitting words for a transaction in which goods and money change hands). But that is what it comes down to--the further persecution of a species already threatened by modern man's determined reshaping of the natural environment, due to its perceived usefulness as a cuddly, charismatic bartering chip by the Chinese government.

Taiwanese environmental and animal welfare groups are firmly against importing the pandas offered to KMT Chairman Lien Chan by China last April. The majority of these groups have, however, been excluded from the discussion by the Forestry Bureau, which has invited only a limited selection of organisations and academics to join the committee set up in November 2005 to review Taipei City Zoo's application to import and host the pandas. Even the zoo's breeding proposal is not being made available to those outside the committee, and all this despite the fact that one of the original requirements set by the Council of Agriculture (COA) was that the consent of conservation groups would have to be obtained.

The breeding proposal, an English translation of part of which is nevertheless available here¹, suggests research of the pandas' behaviour "in the Taipei City environment". It is not explained whether this peculiar notion refers to the reaction of the pandas' lungs to the dioxin-laced fumes of the waste incinerator near the Zoo, or how they might fare in the muggy, subtropical heat of the Taipei summer after having evolved in the cold, damp bamboo forests of Sichuan Province in China. Either way, the only real benefit of such research would be the lame excuse it provides to bring these live political gifts to Taiwan and make them the subjects of a sizable commercial enterprise.

The proposal estimates potential profits of at least NT$9million (approx. US$279,542) a year from visitor donations and sales of panda souvenirs, of which 40 percent would be spent on the pandas in Taiwan, and another 30 percent would be given to panda breeders in China, although there is no guarantee that the funds will actually be used to improve conditions and prospects for this and other species threatened mainly by destruction of their forest habitat (numerous sources claim that panda "rent" money and fund proceeds given to China have often failed to reach the conservation projects or have otherwise been misused or wasted).

News on progress in rescuing this species from the brink of extinction has oscillated over the past few years between gloomy reports that numbers in the wild are still declining due to continuing habitat destruction and poaching, to joyful accounts of the hope offered by artificial insemination and captive breeding technology, through which captive panda birth and survival rates seem to have increased. But the latter should only please those happy to see the species survive as a living museum piece; so far not one of the dozens of cubs born in captivity has been released into the wild. Instead they are used to maintain the captive population, along with others that it is suspected are still being caught in the wild for the same purpose. Whether or not Chinese panda conservation authorities are sincere in their aim to use captive breeding to repopulate the wild, they are clearly failing to do so. And whether this is the fault of project managers, or due to their government’s lack of support for conservation efforts, the fact remains that by receiving two captive pandas Taiwan would, at best, be helping to perpetuate a system that maintains and increases the number of pandas behind bars (or glass), and at worst, be contributing to the decline in the wild population.

But what about the panda's celebrity role as a so-called "flagship species", one that, through its endearing aesthetic and behavioural features, can draw crowds, cash and enthusiasm worldwide for the conservation of its habitat, and therefore whole ecosystems? Wouldn’t any additional suffering of a few of these animals be justified by the gain in concern for this species and the many others in its bamboo habitat, as well as inspiring Taiwanese zoo-goers to take more care of their island's native species?

This is what Taipei Zoo suggests with its proposal that what profit remains after China has received its share would constitute a fund to raise public awareness of wildlife conservation issues. Yet any claims by the Zoo of concern for animals ring hollow in the light of the Zoo’s recent disgrace. As was revealed by Environment and Animal Society Taiwan (EAST) in a press conference on 15 November 2005, Taipei Zoo is in no position to set examples for the rest of society. Video footage taken by EAST in the Zoo over the past four years features bears that have been driven insane by their long term enclosure in dismal, restricting environments, displaying a condition know as stereotypies, whereby they walk round and round in circles and constantly shake their heads. How can the Zoo possibly harness public support for protection of these animals, when it coops them up in conditions so far removed from what they need that they no longer behave as they would in the wild, drawing exclamations from young onlookers that the bears are "dancing" or "on ecstasy"²? It would seem that the first logical step, before any talk from the Zoo authorities about adding new bears to the menagerie in order to help save animals nationwide, would be for them to save the animals already suffering right under their noses.

As for the benefits associated with flagship species' such as the giant panda, there is uncertainty as to how effective they actually are in generating support for ecosystem conservation. Researchers Andreas Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson say in their 2003 study of the phenomenon that "despite being such a prominent flagship species, current conservation efforts for the panda are not focused on habitat conservation but increasingly rely on captive breeding programs in ex situ facilities. Funding for the panda is increasingly allocated to panda preservation alone." ³ The report also found that public support for conservation of such animals dropped by almost a half when they were not conserved within their natural surroundings. Hence, in financial terms, leaving pandas in China is better both for pandas and for their habitat.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which has been involved in panda conservation since the 1980s, confirms that conservation of the panda within its habitat is the priority. It also highlights the senselessness of the focus on captive breeding: "…barely 28% of adult pandas reproduce in captivity" compared with 100 percent in the wild⁴. Even Taiwanese scientists would have to admit that, no matter how great the advances in artificial insemination if they were to get their latex gloves on a panda, they would never be able to beat that record⁵ .

So what we are being sold is not conservation, but science for the sake of science. No amount of experimentation will equip researchers with panda-saving wisdom more valuable than what they already know about the major threats – the same threats faced by innumerable species in Taiwan. Taipei Zoo’s attempt to become part of an international panda rescue mission demonstrates that, as happens all too often, we have our conservation agenda upside down. By focusing on something large, popular and mysterious we may be able to distract ourselves from our contribution to the peril faced by all creatures great and small on our own soil. But it will not stop the mining, road building or dam construction, nor mitigate the various forms of harmful pollution we as individuals impose on other animals.

As for renaming the pair “freedom” and “democracy” as suggested by Thor McGillacuddy in the Taipei Times on 8 January, if it is at all necessary to give anthropocentric names to the animals, let us at least save these two for the first captive-born to truly escape from man’s exploitative clutches.

¹Thanks to an anonymous source.

²The Liberty Times (B6), 16/11/2005.

³Andreas Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson, “The Willingness to Pay for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species Be and Instrument for Nature Conservation?”, Land Economics, November 2003.

⁴Especes Nouvel état des lieux : LE PANDA GÉANT : PAS ENCORE TIRÉ D’AFFAIRE, WWF Belgique, 15/02/01

⁵Part four of Taipei City Zoo’s Breeding Research proposal describes potential research into the pandas’ reproductive physiology and artificial insemination.

Pandas for You and Me

2006-07-17T21:41:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I went to Taipei City Zoo to see the animals. Not those in the animal "houses", but those outside in the open, milling around with their young, having temporarily escaped from their own pens and cages in the city into the more verdant, exotic territory of Taiwan's resident penguins, koalas and elephants.

The koala house, situated near the zoo entrance, was very popular, judging by the constant flow of visitors through the small gallery at the front. Perhaps "flow" is not quite the right word to describe the humans' behaviour; after all, some did pause for ten or twenty seconds, a few even for a whole minute. They would look into the glass and concrete boxes that the koalas live in, and let out different calls. I wondered what they were doing, so I observed them a little longer.

I counted altogether six different calls. The first, mostly from the young, went like this: "Is it fake?"

I took this call to mean that because the koalas were keeping very still (they rest and sleep for about nineteen hours a day, and are nocturnal), and possibly because in their own habitat the young humans are exposed to all kinds of hi-tech toys and virtual reality, they had developed a high level of suspicion when faced with a living, breathing animal clinging motionless to a branch propped up with steel supports on a concrete floor, displaying only its rear end.

The second call came from one or both parents: "It's real, it's real!"

I wondered what made the parents so sure. They stared hopefully at the sleeping exhibits, waiting for the evidence. Their young stared, too, or struggled to turn around in their pushchairs so they could look at something else.

Some parents agreed with their young that the koalas looked fake or "just about ready to die", and left. For those who stayed long enough, however, there was usually some action, stimulating a satisfied "See? It moves!" or "It's eating!" or "It's scratching itself!" from the parents. This acted as a signal that it was time to get the camera out and take a picture of themselves in front of the glass and concrete box with the now definitely real animal inside.

It seems that this is a sort of guessing game that humans like to play with their young, whereby they take turns at guessing whether an animal is real or fake, then they wait and, depending on whether the animal moves or not, one of them wins, they take a picture so they can remember the game later, and they go and find something else to do. I can't think of any other explanation. I did once hear someone say something about "education" in the context of humans looking at animals in glass and concrete boxes. But since there was no one around to explain anything about the animals' natural habitat or even what kind of leaves they were eating, the only thing that anyone could have learned from the display (judging by all the human calls I heard) would be that, even under halogen lighting, koalas are "cute" (there was unanimous agreement on this among the adults), eat some kind of leaf and scratch themselves from time to time, but generally keep very still with their eyes closed.

There was some useful information in the form of a few little signs that said in Chinese and English not to use flash photography or make loud noises, but I guess none of the visitors could read Chinese or English, or maybe they thought it was a joke, because they used a lot of flash photography and made a lot of loud noises. I spoke to the zoo attendant, who, like me, was standing nearby quietly observing the humans.

"Can they see and hear us?" I asked (about the koalas).

"They can see us, but they can't hear us - look at the glass," he replied, pointing at the glass.

I looked at the glass.

"Why does it say not to make loud noises?" I asked.

"Well…eh," he said, "You know, we have to be quiet for them," he said, pointing at the glass again.

It was a very informative conversation. He also told me that the animals were indeed bothered by the flash photography, but that there were too many humans (that means between two and ten) for him to control it. When I asked him about the leaves, he revealed a rich source of information I had somehow not noticed before – on the wall there was the logo of the Australian group that had helped arrange for the koalas to be brought here, in which there was a little illustration of some leaves.

"That's eucalyptus," he confided in me.

I went round the corner and found four more koalas, and a large number of humans (I didn't count them, what's the point these days?). On the way up the little path to these other glass and concrete boxes, I passed some signs, one of which explained rather defensively why the koalas don't move around much. I assumed this was for humans who had complained that they weren’t getting the entertainment they had paid for. Perhaps they were tired of losing the guessing game to their young, who were cleverly guessing "fake" every time. But as far as they were concerned, the signs might as well have been there to keep the wind out; they walked right past them and up to the koala boxes to play the guessing game and try out their flash photography.

There are, of course, other groups of humans that come to the zoo. They do
"research" that is supposed to help us understand the animals so we can protect them and their habitats. I know this because I read Taipei City Zoo's proposal for raising the two pandas that everyone is talking about. (If you haven’t heard anything about the pandas, just look in the newspapers from Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday and you are bound to find some information and propaganda). There was one part of the proposal that I thought was really well written, about the behavioural research they want to do on the pandas. It goes like this:

"Objectives: To understand the daily behavioural patterns and reproductive, nursing, aggressive and other social behaviour of giant pandas in the Taipei City environment…"

As soon as I read this I knew that Taipei City Zoo would be the perfect place for this kind of research. After all, you can't observe how a panda behaves in the Taipei City environment if it's running around loose in the wild in Sichuan Province in China. However, I have yet to find out what this has to do with saving pandas or their natural habitat; the part of the proposal that I read didn't go into so much detail, and the Council of Agriculture, the Ministry of Education and all those other people who have copies of the rest of the proposal are not sharing it with the public, perhaps because it's politically sensitive and therefore not really anything to do with the public or conservation.

There's something else I feel a little uncomfortable about. Some of the staff at the Zoo told me that, as with the koalas, the Zoo doesn't have the right environment or staff to look after giant pandas properly. I don't know how concerned I should be about this--maybe the Zoo authorities are planning to turn over a new leaf and dedicate themselves to providing five-star facilities. With the kind of budget they have allocated to the panda proposal and that generous NT$200 million donation from the Shin-Kong Group, you'd think they'd have enough money to nail a whole lot of propped-up bamboo to the floor and make it look all lush and natural for the humans, to distract them while they wait for the pandas to move.

For more information contact chrismac@wildatheart.org.tw.