Environmentalists blast officials over port project

• By Esme Yeh / Staff reporter

• • Add TT as Preferred Source

  • 

  • 

  • 

Environmental advocates in Taichung yesterday filed a criminal report accusing 17 current and former officials of forgery to shield a Port of Taichung land reclamation project from environmental and ecological assessments.

The advocates filed the report at the Taichung District Prosecutors’ Office and urged the Executive Yuan to halt the project in line with a 34,000-signature petition to protect the habitat of critically endangered Taiwanese humpback dolphins.

Former and current officials of Taiwan International Ports Corp and its Taichung branch, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ocean Affairs Council and its Ocean Conservation Administration, and the Ministry of Environment are named in the complaint, Government Watch Alliance executive director Hsu Hsin-hsin (許心欣) said.

A Taiwanese humpback dolphin swims near Taichung Port in an undated photograph.

Photo courtesy of the Ocean Conservation Administration

The groups involved, including the Taichung branch of the ports company and the transportation ministry, claimed that the project was part of the 2017-2021 Future Development and Construction Plan for International Commercial Ports, which was approved before waters in the region on Aug. 31, 2020, were listed as a “major wildlife habitat” of the dolphins, Hsu said.

The listing took effect the day after on Sept. 1, 2020.

That is why the council determined that the project was not subject to a critical habitat assessment review, she said.

However, the revision of the project was approved on Sept. 21, 2020, after the critical habitat listing, she said.

The groups claimed that the fill and seawall project was part of the Taichung Port Offshore Wind Power Industry Zone — involving wharf work to serve the offshore-wind industry — making it an “existing development,” which is clearly impossible given that the fill project has a NT$10.4 billion (US$329.66 million) budget, but the wharf project’s was NT$2.8 billion, Hsu said.

The groups seem to have used incorrect information to deceive the council, which might have caused a public official to make a false entry, Hsu said.

The council might be guilty of malfeasance if it knew that the habitat listing was issued before the third revision of the land reclamation project, but did not order an ecological assessment, she said, adding the transportation ministry seems to have falsely endorsed the land reclamation project.

The materials approved to reclaim land were changed to construction surplus soil and rock, despite the risk of heavy metal pollution, she said.

However, the environmental ministry, and the council and Ocean Conservation Administration failed to order the land reclamation project to undergo additional environmental assessments, she said.

The unusually low fee of NT$450 per cubic meter for material to use in the reclamation project indicates that the three central governmental agencies might have facilitated profiteering, Hsu added.