In his book An Analysis of Civil Disobedience in the Anti-Pollution Movement of the Eighties Hsiao Hsin-huang points out that among 108 incidents of civil disobedience involving environmental issues "in the overwhelming majority of cases an attempt was made to solve the disputes through legal procedures."
"In the course of environmental disputes," he adds, "strong-armed tactics have in fact not been adopted by the public 'unilaterally' or 'immediately' at all." Only when legal and moderate methods have been tried and have failed has the public turned to stronger measures as a next step, he has found.
Why have they taken matters into their own hands and gone outside the system?
"There are a lot of reasons," says Ch'en K'ai-sheng, who has a master's degree in environmental law from National Taiwan University, indicating first and foremost that "regulations are too lax."
The stiffest penalty for polluters is NT$60,000 (about US$2,200), and they have to be punished continuously for six months before they can be shut down. For large corporations NT$60,000 is petty cash, and for small and mid-sized businesses, the cost of antipollution equipment (upward of NT$1 million) is prohibitive, so "procrastination has become the first recourse of many polluting factories," Ch'en says. As time goes by, the people who continue suffering from pollution lose their patience and rise up in revolt.
In addition, current regulations depend heavily on inspection and manpower for enforcement, but the country is severely short of the trained environmental personnel needed to do the job.
For a long time firms never considered pollution prevention in their costs of doing business, and even now they simply follow the guidelines passively: as long as their effluents are within the standards, they think everything's fine. But the existing regulations are riddled with loopholes, and for some kinds of pollution, such as toxic waste management, regulations haven't even been set up yet.
No matter what the regulations say, the general public most often relies on childhood memories for its standard of judgment. "The air used to be fresh, the water used to be clean, and the night-times used to be quiet and peaceful. Now they're dirty, smelly and noisy. How can you say there's no pollution?"
"The two sides have different epistemological standards and basically lack a foundation for communication or agreement," avers Dr. Kao Cheng-shu, chairman of the sociology department at Tunghai University.
Enforcement personnel can't make further demands of firms if they meet the regulations, with the result that they are often accused by the public of "coddling" businesses and taking their side.
Another reason for the constant conflicts, says Lin Chun-yi, a professor of biology at Tunghai University, is that "the government hasn't allowed the public to feel it's achieved concrete results in combating pollution."
It has been nearly ten years since the first incident of environmental civil disobedience occurred back in 1981. But the Settlement Law for Public Nuisance Disputes, as the law on environment-related conflicts is called, remains pending before the Legislative Yuan, and the Fundamental Environmental Protection Law setting out overall environmental policy has still not been formulated.
So why don't people turn to the courts for redress?
Chinese people "don't like going to court," explains Andrea Y. H. Chen, secretary general of the New Environment Foundation, and legal procedures are slow and costly. In addition, the burden of proof on liability is too stringent. The way it is now, Ch'en K'ai-sheng says, "almost anyone who litigates loses." Even in the U.S., where experts are in plentiful supply, liability in pollution cases is proven only about 40 percent of the time.
"In Japan," he says, "there was a stage in the environmental movement where the public didn't trust the courts either, but later the courts adopted some very advanced thinking under the existing laws in several big cases."
In this way the courts gave an impetus to executive, judicial and legislative reform, and the cases they adjudicated served as models for handling future environmental disputes and compensation claims, decreasing standoffs and conflicts.
Directly aimed at the growing problems, the Settlement Law for Public Nuisance Disputes is in the final stages of preparation.
But "when channels are opened up, they'll have to be kept operable or their effectiveness will be discounted." Mr. Chen cautions. Are current environmental personnel adequate to serve as arbitrators, for example? Without legal training, how well can they be expected to deal with disputes? In Japan "there are more than 10,000 'petition consultant personnel' to handle complaints," he says.
The protest tactics used in Japan during the 1970s were no less confrontational than ours now, but "they got things going on a normal track after five or ten years." Japan's environmental movement has been joined by doctors, lawyers and experts in various fields who have helped to set up research and legal channels to follow and even to educate the local populace in environmental issues enabling disputes to be resolved within the system and at the same time raising environmental awareness.
"In the U.S. the public mainly relies on pressure groups as a counterweight to polluters, and arbitrators are sought in case of disputes," says Dr. Daigee Shaw, who is convener of the committee on environment in the R.O.C. Consumer Foundation, pointing out that private interest groups have never been encouraged in Taiwan and so are unable to assist the government now.
In the long run, the most fundamental way to solve pollution disputes is probably to eliminate heavily polluting industries. "The government should make an across-the-board evaluation of the existing industrial structure and cut out certain industries," Dr. Hsiao says, reflecting a commonly held view of many economists and environmentalists. Some industries will certainly suffer in the process, of course, but that pain is a stage that society must pass through to progress.
Most scholars approve of the environmental movement because it has forced society to think about environmental problems and has speeded up the government's steps to fight pollution. Particularly at a time when the government had no environmental policy at all, "civil disobedience was a stage that environmental movement had to pass through," Lin Chun-yi concludes.
It's unfortunate that our society sometimes seems to require a strong jolt before waking up to a problem.
[Picture Caption]
Pollution control management in Taiwan relies heavily on laborious inspection work. An inspector is shown here performing a waste emissions test at a metals company in Keelung.
Inappropriate zoning is an important factor leading to environmental disputes. (Above) A Taipower generating plant is located in the middle of Kaohsiung harbor. (Below) A water treatment facility is situated right next to some rice paddies.
If results are not apparent at the local level, many residents seek help from the central government. (Left) A group from Houchin submits a petition against the fifth naphtha cracker to the Legislative Yuan. (Right) An elderly gentleman from Ilan protests against construction of a sixth naphtha cracker. (photos from Sinorama files)
The environmental movement has led the public to think more about environmental issues. (Left) A billboard "sticks up" for ecology. (Right) Opposition to construction of a chemical plant by Dupont was strong in Lukang four years ago. (photos from Sinorama files)
The participation of experts is very important if environmental disputes are to be resolved within the system. (Left) At left is Lin Chun-yi, a professor of biology at Tunghai University, and at right is Lin Yao-sung, a zoology professor at National Taiwan University. (Right) A doctor of animal pathology explains how the manmade environment affects the life of domestic fowl.
Inappropriate zoning is an important factor leading to environmental disputes. （Above） A Taipower generating plant is located in the middle of Kaohsiung harbor. （Below） A water treatment facility is situated right next to some rice paddies.
（Below） A water treatment facility is situated right next to some rice paddies.
If results are not apparent at the local level, many residents seek help from the central government. （Left） A group from Houchin submits a petition against the fifth naphtha cracker to the Legislative Yuan. （Right） An elderly gentleman from Ilan protests against construction of a sixth naphtha cracker. （photos from Sinorama files）
If results are not apparent at the local level, many residents seek help from the central government. （Left） A group from Houchin submits a petition against the fifth naphtha cracker to the Legislative Yuan. （Right） An elderly gentleman from Ilan protests against construction of a sixth naphtha cracker. （photos from Sinorama files）
The environmental movement has led the public to think more about environmental issues. （Left） A billboard "sticks up" for ecology. （Right） Opposition to construction of a chemical plant by Dupont was strong in Lukang four years ago. （photos from Sinorama files）
（Left） At left is Lin Chun-yi, a professor of biology at Tunghai University, and at right is Lin Yao-sung, a zoology professor at National Taiwan University. （Right） A doctor of animal pathology explains how the manmade environment affects the life of domestic fowl.
The participation of experts is very important if environmental disputes are to be resolved within the system.
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
