Date: May 3, 2014

As the state of petroleum industry, Texas, unlike California, contrarily has a passive attitude towards climate change. Aside from climate change legislation and policies, according to the research in Yale Project on Climate Change Communication in 2013, Texas citizens are under-performance in the aspects of knowledge and attitudes toward climate change issues, in comparison with California citizens. Categories such as “likely to believe that global warming is caused by human factors” and “America should reduce carbon emission despite other nations’ actions” are of the largest gaps.

Ever since the case of Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, Federal Supreme Court held that according to Clean Air Act, U.S Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to establish a regulatory GHG standard. Since then, EPA has required all states to regulate permission verification on subjects such as new established and altered fixed contaminant source and integrate such regulations with GHG emission control. Since Texas has not been following EPA’s execute projects, EPA interfered by replacing Texas state government by establishing federal projects. However, Texas thought EPA has violated against state’s quasi-sovereign, and as a result, Texas, united with the State of Wyoming and other industry groups, filed a lawsuit against EPA. In 2013, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that plaintiff does not have a standing in filing a lawsuit. Currently, this case is still in the trial process in Federal Supreme Court. In this case, we can see clearly that Texas has an opposing attitude towards climate change issues, even as to holding the federal government’s back.

But after this case, the Texas State Senate has passed House Bill (HB) 788 authorizes TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) establishing greenhouse gas emissions regulation standards. Even though TCEQ announced the regulations in March, 2014, however, it hasn’t been approved by Federal EPA nor did EPA withdraw its federal projects. Besides, Texas Climate Change responses are regulated mainly through State Energy Conservation Office, with its main materials regarding subsidizing energy-saving equipments and renewing energy sources (e.g. LoneSTAR Environmental Services), education and training, and soft strategies such as legislation amendment on architecture law in boosting energy efficiency requirements. Overall, Texas’ climate change strategy performance is more outstanding in the fields of establishing goals and timeline in renewable energy generation ratio, encouraging and subsidizing the development of renewable energy in Bill 7, passed by the State Senate of restructuring the electricity industry in 1999. With legislative incentives, and appropriate geographical conditions, Texas stands in the leading position in carbon capture and storage techniques in the United States, and has established this measure as the main climate change mitigation strategy.

Date: May 3, 2014

Ever since America disapproved Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Federals has been quite passive on climate change issues. As a state of America, California not only has abundant history of climate change legislation, it has also skipped national levels and directly joined Western Climate Initiate for an international connection as a national control unit. California has been active in climate change legislation; their attitudes towards climate change issues are quite different from the U.S. Federal level.

 In 2006, the most important legislation of climate change issues in California is “Global Warming Solution Act of 2006.” This law has established California Air Resources Board, CARB as the main responsible board for climate change related policies. CARB is required to set up scoping plans, using the most beneficiary ways to carry out total GHG control. It has set up a target for reduction before 2020, to set up, supervise and execute compulsory reporting system and examination mechanism. Economic incentives are included the project, requesting CARB to set up a trade regulation. Under Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, state government is required to set up Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to provide recommendation on to provide recommendations for the project and greenhouse gas emission reduction measures. These two organizations, according to Professor Kao, are inspirational for the problems of inflexibility and inefficiency under traditional administrative framework.

Besides Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, California also has individual laws such as Senate Bill X1-2 and Senate Bill 107 for renewable power generation and its distribution system, Assembly Bill 1504 for forest resources and Carbon Sequestration, Senate Bill 375 for transportation and land use (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008), Assembly Bill 118 for vehicle technology and clean air. These laws are individual laws, but they are quite integrated. The government has established many action plans for climate change issues based on these laws. Other governmental departments besides environmental departments such as transportation and energy departments are involved and assisting in the projects. It is noteworthy that California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA has made adjustment according to climate change situations. In 2007, Senate Bill 97 not only includes responsibility to relevant government organization, it also required CEQA to include GHG emission evaluation into its environmental evaluation.

Overall, Professor Kao deemed that the framework of California climate change legislation is similar to framework legislation and scattered legislation model. As the most important climate change legislation of law, Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 involves governmental organization and responsible parties. It authorizes administrative organization in taking measures, leads later legislation and provides future development. Of other legislations and policies, California especially rely on revolution of energy policies and electronic power system, emphasizing on renewable energy and the usage of distributed power generation system and the development of energy saving techniques. However, Professor Kao also indicated that this kind of energy policies require cooperation of central and local governments.

If we look into the data of California’s achievement in fighting climate change, Professor Kao specifically suggested that while California has grown economically, California’s carbon emission GDP has decreased each year. It is an indication that economic growth and carbon emission are gradually less related. We can see the possibility of economic growth in low carbon scenarios, and this could be arguments for how carbon reduction interferes with economic growth. Researcher Daigee Shaw mentioned that, however, even though GDP carbon reduction may decrease, total carbon emission could still rise up along with economic growth.

California, with its active attitude in climate change related issues, and its important role of international connection, Professor Yeh suggested that we could see the possibility and importance of seeing California as a “country.” Professor Kao responded that as a matter of fact, plenty of Californian scholars and governmental officials have recognized the important status as a country in fighting climate change issues. California could be a role example for America and even for the world. Professor Kao did not reject the idea of seeing California as a country.

Date: May 3, 2014

American climate change policies and legislation started out early. In the early phase of 1978-1992, American climate change legislation emphasized mainly on scientific research of climate change. National Climate Program Act of 1978 was established, along with other dispersed energy policy related laws. During this phase, America was more involved in international participation of climate change. It was the main leading hand behind United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol.

America then became passive on climate change responses under the influence of domestic politics. Between 1992 and 2014, there have been climate change policies in place of legislation. However, there’s lack of organizations responsible for energy related topics. For instance, the issue of energy regulation is under the supervision of Director of Climate Protection, which is an institution under Department of Energy. It was given much authority from the beginning for the research of climate science. And later on, the tasks of climate science were consigned to a higher level of controlling institution; such tasks were delivered by National Academy of Sciences, NAS. White House also set up climate science related research group. We could see that America values scientific research when it comes to climate science related policies. The panel participator researcher, Mr. Daigee Shaw further indicated that National Science Foundation plays a more important role than NAS, in respect of climate science research.

As to the climate change regulating mechanism, there isn’t special strategy on carbon reduction control. Economic incentives were the main method. The adjustment of climate change was mainly preceded through the forms of policies. Funds were established on financial and insurance mechanisms; however, unlike Mexico, these funds were used on international aid, instead of the domestic adjustment.

On the process and involvement of public participation of decision making, individual laws did not regulate the roles for public to involve in judiciary. However, America has quite mature system of administrative procedure and prosecution. Citizens could participate and begin a lawsuit through current legal system. Recently, there has been a less restrictive standard for the parties standing to sue and public involvement. Citizens could commence a lawsuit or require information disclosure on the standing of scientific research results.

Overall, American federation has transformed its climate change response strategies transformed from early laws to policies in the later phases. From active international involvement to substantial bilateral cooperation to specific countries, and to the recent Obama authority, there is more emphasis on multilateralism of climate diplomacy again.

With the main focus of the research transformed from slowing down of climate change issues and economic incentives to the later-staged adjustment topics, legislation and policies regarding climate science research were continued to be seen as important. And that the current administrative procedural system has served with maturity for public involvement and decision making.

Date: May 3, 2014

Mexico has drawn plenty of attention from the world, as it is a new democratic country with the current need of economic development, has passed General Law on Climate Change in 2012.

For starter, Mexico, as a developing country, wasn’t an obligated party for carbon reduction under Kyoto Protocol. But in 2010, Mexico, as the hosting country of COP 16, wanted to make a move in cultivating climate change issues. Although Mexico didn’t finish the legislation process before the end of COP16, it did follow through the legislation process with the efforts of the political parties in Mexico, and has made the law in 2012.

The commentators said that the international factors are the reason of Mexico climate change legislation. However, as COP 16 came to an end, with no spotlight, how could Mexico continue the driving forces of climate change legislation? Professor Chang said that it could be the main focus for future studies. Mexico has the similar structures of democratic transformation, distribution of political parties and power, and social economic structure with Taiwan. And it has continued to push the issue of climate change legislation with the rotation of two political parties. We could really learn something from Mexico. In Professor Chang’s report, she mentioned that whatever authority of political party is in charge, Partido Verde Ecologista de México (PVEM) continues to play a key minority role of Mexican climate change legislation. It is noteworthy that the legislation of climate change has brought the amendment of Mexican constitution. The environmental rights clause was added into Constitution. We could see that besides the international factors, domestic politics and democratic reasons are adhered to climate change legislation.

Since 1992, before Mexico passed General Law on Climate Change, the trend of climate change legislation in Mexico had been scattered. It has individual laws such as forest law and energy law to regulate different climate change subjects. Other policies or programs were supplemented to move the topic of low-carbon development and climate adjustment. Governmental organizations were established in this phrase. After General Law on Climate Change was passed, it has become the framework of legislation, while early individual laws become the supplement of the General Law.

General Law has faced the difficulty of re-organizing the original mechanism of governmental organization and responsible parties. Professor Chang addressed that Mexico did a pretty good job in reorganizing the old and the new. Lots of original organization and protecting mechanism were kept, and new tran-organized departments were established to adjust related policies. General Law has divided the authority of federal government, state government, and municipal government, implementing the layers of management into the system.

Of the regulating mechanism and measures, General Law has specific target of carbon reduction, clean energy and time frame. It has granted federal rights to set up a trade mechanism, establishing mechanism of carbon emission reporting system, and supervising and information system. It also has different strategies of carbon reduction for different industries. As to the adjusting movement, General Law has picked the important issues of domestically vulnerable categories, food safety, biological diversity, water resource, energy for adjustment focus. It is noteworthy that Mexico emphasizes a lot on forest conservation in adjustment issues. On the financial mechanism issues, General Law has established climate change fund on the federal level. The funds were clear in its sources and purposes, specifying the funds will be used on impeding climate change, its information and education, and especially on the adjustment aid for vulnerable groups.

Mexico also cares about democracy involvement and disclosure of information for climate change. In General law, different levels of government were required to engage the participation of civil society and scholars and experts. They are given the opportunity to affect policies. It is also required for the government to create a climate change information system, for citizens to receive related information. In order to fulfill the climate change information platform, government is entitled to be provided with information by private sectors. General Law has penalty clause for information subject. We could see that Mexico has taken into account the importance of disclosure of information.

Overall, Professor Chang suggested that besides the substantial law, the main focus on observing Mexican climate change legislation should be citizens’ involvement, disclosure of information and the related citizens’ rights in General Law. The successful story of Mexican’s climate change legislation is worthy for further studying and could be use as an example for Tawain

Date: May 3, 2014

The Climate Change Legislation Roundtable Seminar was hosted by PLES coordinator,

Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh. Professor Yeh marked the start of our roundtable seminar by giving us an opening speech.

Professor Yeh started that throughout all the issues of legislation, the uniqueness of climate change legislation is that, most of the regulation of climate change issues took place in international occasions. Efforts accumulated through treaties and protocols signed by international parties and annual assembly of contracting parties. Nationwide, however, there are issues of policy controversy as to whether the party should sign, or follow the international treaties and protocols.

The international levels of climate change regulations and negotiations often affect, move or promote domestic legislation. There are some countries that have a longer history of climate change legislation, Japan and Switzerland, for example. These countries had shown the citizen’s will and active international involvement through climate change legislation, as opposed to passively obeying the obligations of the treaties and protocols, especially in Switzerland, where it has a long history as a neutralized state. Switzerland was generally less active in joining international organization because of its neutralized state; however, Switzerland had shown its determination to fight climate change by legislating climate change regulations a long time ago, and this could be a great example for Taiwan.

While Taiwan isn’t a contracting party of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, we have fewer opportunities in involving in climate change issues. As we don’t have legislation pressure from international community, we have no movement on climate change legislation. Our government has given us blank policies on climate change issues, despite the fact that there has been plenty of calling for related policies.

Professor Yeh hoped that with the legal academic community collecting and accumulating studies of climate change subjects, there could be a difference for climate change issues this year. Our purpose for this roundtable seminar isn’t just about researching and discussing climate change legislation, our aim is to provide a legislation draft and White Paper with abundant research foundation and scientific thinking. We hope to engage in more lobbying and persuasion in legislation, to make a substantial contribution for climate change management in Taiwan and international community.

PLES invited Instructor Suzuki Hikaru as the panel speaker of the 17^th Climate Change Law and Policy Forum. Instructor Suzuki teaches in Hokkai-Gakuen University, Faculty of Law and currently came to National Taiwan University College of Law as a visiting scholar during the past few months. Instructor Suzuki has delved into the research field of river management. On Wednesday, March 19^th, Instructor Suzuki will present and discuss with us the issues of river administrative management in Japan.

PLES sincerely welcomes all to join our forum.

Professor Thomas Merrill noted the development and transformation of American Administrative Law under the influence of environmental regulation. There were three features of American administrative regulation during the past: 1. Regulation as a method in distributing interests. 2. Bilateral antagonism of the regulating and the regulated. 3. Decision makers and mediators are experienced but they are not experts of the field. After 1970s, however, the awareness of the environment has risen up, changing the appearance of administrative regulation in dealing with environmental related subjects. Firstly, environmental issues emphasize on exteriorizing the inner costs, while the goal of environmental regulation is to maximize the outward results of public interests. Furthermore, as the environmental issues become globalized, causing the bilateral antagonistic regulation becomes multi-faceted. As a consequence, the regulators have regulated the category of the experienced into the level of professional experts.

During the past, administrative organization was only requested by American administrative procedure to give early notice, receive opinions, provide foundation, and elaboration of the topic on the procedural administrative regulations. However, there has been numerous information in environmental issues, it is deemed that the past procedures were no longer sufficient, suggested by civil groups and the regulated parties. There should be more disclosure from the government side, and more external voices should be elaborated. Agency involved in commencing lawsuit in administrative law has changed. During the past, there should be a clear invasion of rights for a cause of action. However, in National Environmental Policy Act, the court has given the party involved the possibility of right to sue. In the situation where the actions of the organization has impacts on the environment, there should be detailed explanation and assessment, otherwise the judiciary will involve as an intervention on government actions. During after the 1970s, environmental legislation ceased making progress and became insufficient in dealing with new environmental issues. The court then initiatively stepped in as a supplement for the inadequacy of legislation. Although the court has brought up the Chevron Doctrine, giving the administrative organization space to regulate under the circumstance of indistinct legislation. However, the concept of indistinct itself suggests that there are some rooms for court elaboration. Therefore, the intervention of the court has caused transformation on administrative regulations when dealing with environmental subjects.

Finally, Professor Merrill concluded that there is a new supervising organization, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) besides courts. Professional talents are involved to review and verify administrative budgets and policies, restraining the administrative organization to be prudent on its net benefits, especially on the subject of environmental issues where proficiency is highly needed.

Slides of the presentation are available on PLES website.

Reported by PLES assistant YiLu Ko

Date: December 12, 2012

The eighteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 18) of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the eighth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 8) finished successfully on December 7^th in Qatar. PLES continued our tradition since COP 15, hosted the seminar of “the Official Arrival of Post Kyoto Era: The eighteenth session of the Conference of the Parties of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” The seminar was hosted by PLES director Jiunn-rong Yeh with PLES doctoral candidate Nian-Feng Shin reporting the result of COP18. We also invited Professor Wen-Chen Shih of National Chengchi University Department of International Business; Assistant Professor Zi-Lun Lin of National Taiwan University Department of Political Science; Mr. Chia-Wei Chao, Executive Committee of Green Citizens’ Action Alliance; and Mr. Liang-Yi Chang, representative of Taiwan Youth Climate Coalition to discuss the development of climate change negotiation in COP 18, the negotiation progression of the second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol and other possible future development.

Zi-Lun Lin: Five obstacles of Climate Negotiation of Post Kyoto Era

Assistant Professor Zi-Lun Lin pointed out that there will be five obstacles of following climate change negotiation: 1. Will America be able to lead the global climate change policy? In comparison of George W. Bush Government, Obama Authority has been more actively involved with negotiation, attempting to use UN framework replacing the current one. It is notable that whether the U.S. is capable of standing in a leading position in global Carbon Reduction in the future. Secondly, how do the industrialized countries solve the divergent opinions of reduction responsibility? There have been highly diverged opinions even in those industrialized countries that carry the responsibility of reduction. Generally, European Union countries where Great Brittan and Germany as its leading heads, support stricter reduction standard. We should look deeper into whether or not the European Union has the chance to continue in leading the negotiation of climate change. Thirdly, whether or not the developing countries should burden appropriate amount of responsibility in reduction activities? While in the new economic entities such as Asia and Middle East have been increasing carbon emission, these entities play a more important role in global carbon reduction actions. In order to clarify the carbon reduction responsibility in developing countries, there should be a renewal content of the idea “historical responsibility” in future climate change negotiation. During the meeting in Qatar this year, China has accepted the EU 2020 global reduction framework in assurance of future reference of Kyoto Protocol in the following negotiation. In collateral result, the US is willing to continue to participate in the negotiation, which is a large development of this year’s conference. The forth difficulty that Assistant Professor Lin brought up is technicality and large financial burdens. Either the reduction or adjustment project needs sufficient funds. How to create a well-functioned financial mechanism to support developing countries in climate change is an important issue in the future. Last, but not least, the fifth obstacle lies in the issue of how we create a climate system framework that is in just. For example, how do we set up a fair and flexible mechanism?

Wen-Chen Shih: Financial Mechanism Has Gradually Become the Vital Core of Climate Change Negotiation

Professor Wen-Chen Shih pointed out that in recent years, financial mechanism has gradually replace the obligation of reduction, and has become the vital core of climate change negotiation. During this year’s meeting, Green Fund was confirmed to be the main financial mechanism under UNFCCC. Of the following topics include: Green Fund and its relations with related financial mechanism, sources of funds, the application of MRV mechanism in assuring the financial sources of the funds and the activation process of finance, etc. Moreover, in regard of the flexible mechanism, this meeting also discussed whether there should be a claim or dispute resolution channel for the purpose of cleaning up and development mechanism for affected parties of interests. This issue has yet to be concluded. Professor Shih also suggested that in addition to fulfill and improve the current diverse market-oriented flexible mechanism, we could also look into the successful European experiences in creating new needs and activating carbon markets.

Chia-Wei Chao: Taiwan Climate Change Policy Should Not Lost its Own Way in Doha Trend

Mr. Chia-Wei Chao, Executive Committee of Green Citizens’ Action Alliance reviewed the development of COP from a civil group point of view, emphasizing that we should incorporate international trend into Taiwan’s climate change policies. Executive Chao deemed that when the action of reduction is not a sufficient method in rising temperatures, a delicate country such as Taiwan should emphasize more on efficient disaster adjustment strategies. One of the issues that the civil groups in Taiwan should address our government into notice is to build a damage-coping mechanism with responding financial mechanism similar to the one in resolution of 2010 Cancun Agreements. So far we haven’t seen any strong progression. On the other hand, we should discuss how to incorporate the concept of climate change into foreign aid mechanism.

Liang-Yi Chang: Encourage the New Generation to Actively Participate in Climate Change Negotiation

Mr. Liang-Yi Chang, representative of Taiwan Youth Climate Coalition has recently been elected the focal point delegate of YOUNGO. Mr. Chang shared with us his experiences in related field as a young representative participating in fund raising events. Mr. Chang also encouraged the new generation should combine our own profession with climate change issues, actively participates in related activities to reinforce the influence in decision making as a systemic power.

The participants were enthusiastic during the discussion of the seminar. Topics covered during the seminar include how we could build a systematic research organization to support civil groups in participating climate change discussion, how Taiwan, as a non-UN member country could substantially contribute to the issue of climate change through bilateral agreements or foreign aid policies, and how the climate change policies in China affect global negotiation.

PLES and Environmental Jurists Association (EJA) co-hosted the seminar of Environmental Mainstream: The 10^th anniversary Seminar of Basic Environment Act in discussing the meaning, functions and outcomes of Basic Environment Act. Here are the notes of the three presentations.

Presentation A

Topic: The Historical Contexts and Future References of Basic Environment Act

Presenter: Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh

Panel Participators: Robin J. Winkler, Thomas Shun-guei Jhan

While the Basic Environment Act has been enacted for almost a decade, National Taiwan University PLES coordinator Professor Jiunn-rong Yeh presented the historical contexts, functions and its implementation of Taiwan’s Basic Environment Act, giving us some thoughts about its future threads.

Professor Yeh first addressed the four traits of historical contexts in Basic Environment Act:

1. Basic Environment Act is of attempt in trying out a new method of mass restrictive legislation since 1970s.
2. The target of Basic Environment Act has advanced the environmental purpose of sustainable development from the slender perspective of dealing public pollution.
3. The legislation of Basic Environment Act has gone through UNCED in 1992, and the international movement has brought this act valuable experiences and international perspectives.
4. Since after the democratic transformation, the driving force of civil society has brought the environmental issues into legislation, and finally enacted the law.

As to the nature of Basic Environment Act, Professor Yeh expounded that Basic Environment Act is in fact, “basic law.” The main focus of understanding this law is to clarify the doubts that whether we could apply the basic theoretical foundations and the principle regulations of this law in real cases. With this point of view, Professor Yeh has elaborated from the point of views of “restrictive legislation” and “policy legislation,” and that Basic Environment Act is “policy legislation” instead of traditional general rules of law. While the “general rules of law” are intended to satisfy the logical requests of legal system, “policy legislation” is however, in motion. It has its expansion on issues. With the activation of the dialogues between civil society and the environment, and the bridged connections of Taiwan and international environmental topics, the Basic Environment Act has expanded its convergence of environmental public pollution into the purpose of environmental sustainability. With the unrestricted characteristic of time and space, the same articles of policy legislation law will move under the occurrence of new environmental incidents, civil requests or new elaboration encountered under international conformity. More importantly, policy legislation law directs the future operation of guiding national organization and policy making. The administrative department shall execute policy under the guidelines of Basic Environment Act. The legislative department is under the obligation to specify law to accomplish the policy guidelines of Basic Environment Act. The court ought to explain the environmental principles while reviewing cases to strengthen the functions and roles of the court in environmental issues.

Even though the Basic Environment Act should hold the above characteristics and function, however, during the past ten years since the legislation enacted, there had been rules unaccomplished. Professor Yeh specifically pointed out the two issues of nuclear-free homeland and GHG emission reductions. The principles of Basic Environment Act have not been widely discussed as the foundations of nuclear policy in nuclear-free homeland issues. It was forgotten by people. Meanwhile the GHG emission reductions policy, the GHG emission reductions law has yet to pass. The lack of climate change policies and insufficient government funds have left Taiwan behind the international trend of climate change issues.

As to the future of Basic Environment Act, Professor Yeh recognized that we should bear in mind of the situations in recent ten years. Incidents including two political parties rotation, the reorganization of Environmental Protection Administration and Environment Resources Department, Typhoon Morakot, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake in Japan and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the climate change related environmental issues, the industrial transformation as China rises, the largely increased demand of energy…etc. While it has been a global issue of economic weakness, social justice and inequality of resource distribution in the recent decade, the legislation is challenged to incorporate the demand of Basic Environment Act to make appropriate law. Professor Yeh hoped that the national organization and civil society will cherish and extend the strength of Basic Environment Act as it was first established, and scholars, attorneys, and the courts are all obligated to play a more active role in creating a deeper operation of Basic Environment Act.

Primordial Law Firm Attorney Thomas Shun-guei Jhan agreed with Professor Yeh’s point of view, recognizing that the principles of Basic Environment Act and Policy Directives should be important references for the court to rule the cases. Taiwan courts should first get rid of the thinking model of the concept of “rights” in continental legal system. Attorney Jhan also pointed out that the purpose of either economic progression or environmental protection is to make human live better lives and we should look after both sides. Attorney Jhan urged that the political officers should carry out Basic Environment Act, while the corporate shouldn’t see environmental protection as a stumbling stone of economic progression. President of Environmental Jurists Association, attorney Robin J. Winkler further pointed out that Professor Yeh’s report reminded us that the direction might be more important than the solution, and that Basic Environment Act is a law that provides “direction.” Attorney Winkler addressed that a solution which is tailored in dealing a specific case might overturn the correct direction in the long run. Attorney Winkler concluded that there are common grounds between economic environment, social environment and nature environment. The relationship of these three categories is that the economic environment is built upon social and nature environment, and that social environment lies upon nature environment. If the economic exceeds social or nature environment, human development will inevitably lose its concrete foundation.

Presentation B

Topic: Basic Environment Act, Quo Vadis?

Presenter: Professor Yu-cheng Wang

Panel Participators: Chia-chi Chiang, Ziling Lin

Associate Professor Yu-cheng Wang of National Cheng Kung University Department of Law introduced the legislative proceeding of Basic Environment Act, its purposes of protecting environment and environmental sustainability. Associate Professor Wang pointed out that Basic Environment Law does not have a supervising organization, thus the Environmental Protection Association is not the department in charge. As to the directive functions of Basic Environment Act, Associate Professor Wang deemed that most environmental related regulations passed before the enactment of Basic Environment Act, which ruled out the directive function of Basic Environment Act. Even the laws passed and enacted after Basic Environment Act were not influenced under Basic Environment Act during the legislative and discussing procedures. Currently, Basic Environment Act wasn’t the foundation of different levels of governmental organization in pushing forward environmental protections; however this situation should be solved by activating the essence of Basic Environment Act through section 2 of article 25 in Basic Environment Act.

Associate Professor Wang addressed that it is necessary for Basic Environment Act to further expand its fundamental principle system, definition and contents, possibly through complementing legal loopholes through judicial rulings. However, Associate Professor’s studies show that the judicial application of Basic Environment Act is not sufficient. If the parties involved quote Basic Environment Act, only less than thirty percent of court ruled in response. Of those responded courts, most of them took a passive explanation on Basic Environment Act, suggesting that Basic Environment Act is merely a policy proclamation, instead of a legal claim of right. Only a few examples such as the Mira Bay ruling, while in this case, Basic Environment Act was not directly quoted, however, impacts of Basic Environment Act could be found in the ruling. In order for Basic Environment Act to be broadly and more practically applied, there should be more constructive elaborations to fulfill its contents by the judicial side, or making use of Basic Environment Act through the discussion ground of the third generation of human rights. Associate Professor Wang anticipated that the awareness of environmental civil society will put environmental issues in its mainstream.

Associate Professor Chia-chi Chiang of Chung-Cheng University Department of Law questioned the nature of Basic Environment Act, proposing that the position of Basic Environment Act in the legal system is unclear and needed to be addressed. The Basic Environment Act and its position in legal system is important since its related to understanding how Basic Environment Act could guide other law, solving the confrontation of Basic Environment Act and other basic laws, and establishing the self-defense system of such laws to avoid arbitrarily modification. Associate Professor Chiang further confirmed that judicial elaboration and application is one important method in complementing Basic Environment Act.

Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association Secretary General Zhi-ling Lin addressed that it is also one of the important methods for civil groups to propose opinions in amendment or legislation, hoping to get more assistance from legal professionals during the process.

In response, Associate Professor Wang pointed out that to apply Basic Environment Act, the long-term goal is to influence society and legislators by putting the environmental issues in the mainstream. The short-term goal is to supplement cases through judicial explanations. Associate Professor Wang hoped there will be different cooperation with legal professionals and professionals from other fields, in creating more impacts.

Professor Yeh also delivered opinion in the legal position of Basic Environment Act, pointing out that the levels of effects on legal system or formality isn’t the most urgent topic, and that the most important value is to think how we could manage to increase the environmental values through Basic Environment Act in order to strengthen the policy legislation aspect of environmental law.

Presentation C

Topic: Basic Environment Act, ICCPR and ICESCR: Human Rights Inspiration on Taiwan Environmental Movement.

Presenter: Associate Professor Wen-chen Chang

Panel Participators: Shin-Min Shih, Yung-cheng Kao

During the presentation, PLES member, Associate Professor Wen-chen Chang addressed that on March 31, 2009, Taiwan Legislative Yuan has incorporated ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) as passed treaties, while legislating Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Started from December 10^th, 2009, human rights issues covered in ICCPR and ICESCR were incorporated into part of the national law of Taiwan. Through the procedure of incorporating international human rights into Taiwan Law, Taiwan society has then created a moment of human rights. Environmental issues are also the main focus of human rights promulgation.

Associate Professor Chang pointed out that, there are many environmental related regulations in ICCPR and ICESCR. There has been regulations and general opinion in substantial and procedural environmental human rights protecting regulations. Environmental Human Rights protections include right of life, right of health, meeting the basic needs to live and rights derived such as water rights, privacy rights, family rights, right to self-determination, cultural rights, and rights to enjoy environmental information, rights to participate in environmental policy making, rights to legal remedies when environmental human rights were invaded. The principles of Basic Environment Act such as environmental protection and sustainability, protection of health rights and environmental assessment and prevention of health and environmental risks, information closure of the environment, and requests for remedies as basic human environmental rights are all related to the protection scope of the environmental rights and environmental human rights of ICCPR and ICESCR. As to the future linkage of ICCPR, ICESCR and Basic Environment Act, on one hand, we should actively apply ICCPR and ICESCR, implementing environmental human rights protection and environmental rights of ICCPR and ICESCR in aligned with revealing the values of Basic Environment Act. On the other hand, since Basic Environment Act mainly deals with regulations in policy directions, principles, systems and mechanisms, we should look into the depths of human rights in ICCPR and ICESCR if we wish to deepen and strengthen the mechanism and directive regulations aspects.

Panel Participator Professor Shin-Min Shih further mentioned that although Basic Environment Act has been enacted for ten years, it has not been valued enough by government, corporations, or in academic fields. The obstacles from industrial sides and the incompleteness of the law both resulted to the insufficiency of environmental protection. Another Panel Participator Yung-cheng Kao addressed the triplet national obligation reflected in ICCPR and ICESCR: the obligation to respect, the obligation to protect, and the obligation to fulfill. Human rights mechanism is indeed the important method in substantializing and fulfilling the regulations of Basic Environment Act.

Download the outline of the seminar

Download the slides of Lawyer Thomas Shun-guei Jhan

Download the slides of Professor Chin-Shou Wang