US embassy cable - 05TAIPEI1974

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 TAIPEI 001974 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EAP/RSP/TC AND OES/IHA 
 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO AIT/W, USEPA AND USTR 
 
USEPA FOR OIA/THOMPSON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC, SENV, PREL, TW 
SUBJECT:  Environmental Sustainability Index - Taiwan 
Shortchanged 
 
 
1. (SBU) Summary.  In January 2005, Yale, Columbia and the 
World Economic Forum published a joint study that ranked 
Taiwan as the world's second worst economy in terms of 
environmental stewardship.  The low ranking troubles policy 
makers in Taiwan because of significant environmental 
progress in the last decade.  One of the principal 
organizers of the report met with Taiwan's Environmental 
Protection Agency (TEPA) on April 20.  During that meeting 
several flaws in the input data used for Taiwan became 
apparent.  Taiwan policy makers are likely correct to 
believe that Taiwan's ranking is unjustly low.  One reason 
for the low ranking may be that, due to Taiwan's unique 
political status and lack of access to international 
organizations, the study had limited access to reliable data 
for Taiwan.  End Summary. 
 
---------- 
Background 
---------- 
 
2.   (U) Taiwan recently ranked 145 out of 146 "nations" in 
the "Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)" published by 
Yale's Center for Environmental Law and Policy, the Center 
for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) 
at Columbia University, and the World Economic Forum. 
According to the ESI Executive Summary, ESI 
 
"benchmarks the ability of nations to protect the 
environment over the next several decades.  It does so by 
integrating 76 data sets tracking natural resource 
endowments, past and present pollution levels, environmental 
management efforts, and the capacity of a society to improve 
its environmental performance - into 21 indicators of 
environmental sustainability." 
 
ESI then compares each "nation" and rank orders them. 
Taiwan was ranked only second to North Korea in terms of 
worst performances. 
 
------------------------ 
Ranking Counterintuitive 
------------------------ 
 
3.  (SBU) As soon as the report came out, environmental 
policy makers and academics in Taiwan expressed surprise and 
disbelief.  The report defies common sense for anyone who is 
familiar with some of the notable improvements in Taiwan's 
environment over the past decade.   Looking at Taipei's 
efforts with respect to solid waste alone explains why 
Taiwan's environmental leaders find it hard to believe that 
Taiwan's "ability to protect the environment" was ranked at 
the bottom of the ESI.  In the early 1990s, Taiwan's largest 
city Taipei was notorious for the trash heaps common to most 
street corners.  Now, as a result of environmental 
stewardship spelled out below, Taipei's streets are notably 
litter free. 
 
4.  (SBU) In 1992 Taipei instituted a regular recycling 
program.  Then in 1995, Taipei implemented daily trash 
collection service, effectively eliminating garbage piles 
from Taipei's streets.  In 2000, Taipei implemented a 
program to charge consumers for the costs of trash disposal 
by charging for mandatory government garbage bags instead of 
incorporating the fee into their water bills.  This has led 
to a 47.2 percent reduction in the annual amount of solid 
waste generated in Taipei.  In 2003, recycling in Taipei 
became mandatory for many products and each year new 
measures enhance the amount and range of materials that must 
be recycled.  Beginning in 2005, even kitchen food waste is 
required to be separated and recycled. 
 
5. (SBU) Taiwan also boasts some of the world's strictest 
air emission regulations (and fines) and has similarly 
demonstrated significant progress in reducing air pollution 
over the past decade.   For example, the proportion of days 
that Taiwan had a composite Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) 
level above the "unhealthful" level of 100 fell to 2.61 
percent in 2003 from 6.98 percent in 1994.  (The PSI is an 
indicator that measures air pollution levels of five major 
pollutants - ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen dioxide, and particulates).  To provide 
perspective, using a similar air pollution composite index 
called the "Air Quality Index" (which in addition to the 
five pollutants in the PSI also measures lead levels), in 
2003, 17.5 percent of the days in Washington, DC were above 
the unhealthful level of 100. 
 
6.  (SBU) Though Taiwan has made progress in reducing its air 
pollution and solid waste generation in recent years, Taiwan 
still has plenty of room for improvement in its 
environmental stewardship.  For instance Taiwan has been 
notably less effective in addressing water pollution than 
air and waste pollution.  In fact, currently less than 10 
percent of Taiwan's wastewater is treated as compared to an 
average wastewater treatment level of approximately 59 
percent in OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development) countries.  Taiwan also faces some other major 
environmental challenges.  In addition to being highly 
industrialized, Taiwan has one of the highest urban 
population densities and vehicle per capita densities in the 
world.  As a result, while Taiwan has had some success in 
reducing industrial air pollution, motor vehicle air 
pollution has increased. 
 
7. (SBU) Comment.  While it might have been equally surprising to 
find Taiwan at the top of the ESI ranking, given Taiwan's 
notable progress over the past decade in reducing air 
pollution and solid waste, Taiwan's rock bottom ESI ranking 
is simply counterintuitive.  End Comment. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
Taiwan's Special "Status" May Explain Low Ranking 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
8.  (U) Marc Levy, one of the principle collaborators of the 
ESI study (the Associate Director for Science Applications 
at Columbia's Center for International Earth Science 
Information Network) met with Taiwan's Environmental 
Protection Agency (TEPA) on April 20 to discuss Taiwan's 
ranking. 
 
9.  (SBU) Mr. Levy noted that the "strong" preference of the 
investigators on the project was not to use data from 
governments, but instead to rely on data from international 
organizations.  Levy recognized that, in Taiwan's case, 
collecting data was extremely difficult because Taiwan is 
not a member of most of the international organizations from 
which the ESI project collects its data.  Levy noted that 
Taiwan has been "systematically excluded from the data 
collection systems upon which the ESI relies" and that the 
ESI receives the largest proportion of Taiwan's data through 
"alternative" routes.  In fact, where for most economies, 2- 
5 percent of the data came from the national government, in 
Taiwan's case over 40 percent of the data came from Taiwan 
government sources.  Levy stated that, as a result, much of 
the input data used for Taiwan have not gone through the 
same "comparability tests" as the data used for other 
economies. 
 
------------------ 
Questionable Data 
----------------- 
 
10.  (SBU) During Levy's meeting with TEPA officials, 
several flaws in the data used for Taiwan were illuminated. 
Most notably, one of 21 indicators used for all of the 
"nations" compared in the study was supposed not to have 
been applied to Taiwan.  That indicator called, 
"participation in international collaborative efforts" ranks 
the "nations" on how well they cooperate with international 
organizations.   According to Levy, the researchers were 
supposed to exclude this indicator from Taiwan's ranking 
because of Taiwan's unique political situation.  Upon a 
closer look, a clear mistake on the part of the ESI project 
was revealed.   Instead of putting a blank for Taiwan on 
this indicator as intended (thereby nullifying the impact on 
its ranking), Taiwan was given a numeric zero, the lowest 
possible ranking for that category. 
 
11.  (SBU) Further questions about the veracity of the input 
data used for Taiwan were raised during the meeting between 
TEPA and Levy.   One TEPA official while flipping through 
the report noticed that Taiwan scored extremely low on the 
indicator called "reducing waste and consumption pressures." 
TEPA looked at the input data used for Taiwan for that 
indicator and found that the figure the ESI used was 100 
times greater than the one published by TEPA.  In fact, the 
figure ESI used suggests that Taiwan with a population of 
approximately 23 million generates the same amount of waste 
as the United States with a population of approximately 296 
million. 
12.  (SBU) During the meeting between Levy and TEPA, AIT's 
ESTOFF also noted that Taiwan appeared to have scored 
particularly low with respect to the indicators on "land" 
and "biodiversity."  While this makes intuitive sense with 
respect to the 29 percent of Taiwan's mostly flat and highly 
populated land in the northern and western coasts of Taiwan, 
it would not appear to account for the close to 70 percent 
of Taiwan's land that is highly mountainous, forested and 
sparsely populated.  Upon a closer look at the data used to 
calculate Taiwan's grade for "land", Levy revealed that the 
report qualified only .1 percent of Taiwan as "wilderness." 
 
13.  (SBU) Levy was most concerned about the outright 
mistake in putting down a "zero" instead of a blank for the 
indicator regarding cooperation with international 
organizations for Taiwan.  With respect to the other 
apparent incongruencies discussed, he conceded that the 
figures should be further researched.  Levy, however, made 
clear that the report would not be repealed and that the 
best Taiwan could hope for was that a correction notice be 
sent out or posted on the Project's website.  Levy's main 
goal was to improve the data collection for Taiwan in 
anticipation of the next ESI report in about two years.  To 
that end, it was agreed that TEPA would send a 
representative to meet with the ESI collaborators at Yale 
and Columbia Universities and review in more detail the 
input data used for Taiwan.  TEPA also invited the ESI 
collaborators to come to Taiwan to work with TEPA towards 
improving the project's data collection methods for Taiwan. 
 
---------- 
Conclusion 
---------- 
 
14.  (SBU) Based on the meeting between Levy and TEPA, it 
appears that the data used for Taiwan was flawed and that 
Taiwan's dismally low grade and ranking are unwarranted. 
As Levy noted, the poor quality data is largely a result of 
Taiwan not being a member of the international organizations 
upon which the bulk of the data used is collected.  This is 
also the first year in which Taiwan has been included in the 
index.  Taiwan was not a part of the ESI pilot studies 
conducted in 2001 and 2002.  As a result, the scope of the 
difficulties in data collection for Taiwan may not have been 
realized until now.  This is a clear case where Taiwan has 
been disadvantaged by its inability to participate in 
international organizations.  However, ESI is apparently 
quite willing to work with Taiwan to improve data collection 
for the future.  More reliable data collection methods 
should enable Taiwan to repair its likely undeserved 
exceptionally poor rating for environmental stewardship. 
 
PAAL