After Nearly 4 Years of Review, Tainan Great Wall Theme Park's EIA Proposal Rejected

(Central News Agency reporter Chang Hsiung-feng, Taipei, 29th) The EIA proposal for the Tainan Baihe Great Wall Theme Park underwent its fifth preliminary subcommittee review today. The environmental commissioners believed that the report content and related planning still did not meet the professional standards required for EIA review. After nearly four years of review, it was ultimately recommended to return the case to the competent authority. The Ministry of Environment today convened the fifth preliminary subcommittee meeting for the "Tainan City Baihe District Taiwan Great Wall Theme Park Development Application Environmental Impact Statement." The development unit for this case is Wanli Changcheng Co., Ltd., and the competent authority is the Tainan City Government Tourism Bureau. The base is located in Baihe District, Tainan City, with an area of approximately 9.99 hectares, applied for use as a theme park (some theme facilities have already undergone trial operation). The review began in 2023 (during the former Environmental Protection Administration period), and after four previous preliminary reviews, the conclusion was always to revise and re-review. Environmental commissioners stated that the four previous reviews raised issues such as "identification of original topography," "drainage and emergency response mechanisms under extreme rainfall scenarios," "slope stability," and "ecological surveys," requesting the development unit to supplement and revise. To this day, many areas remain unclear; for example, for surface runoff prevention measures during rainfall, it only states how many tons of water can be handled annually, but does not detail the temporary storage capacity of the drainage system, its bearing capacity under high-intensity rainfall, and emergency response mechanisms. In addition, environmental commissioners pointed out that the report still does not provide reasonable maps and data of the original topography as a basis for judgment, making it difficult to assess the potential impact risks of the development on local topographic and geological characteristics and its corresponding measures. Furthermore, past review comments were not concretely addressed. Environmental commissioners stated that an important prerequisite for EIA is that it must be forwarded by the competent authority based on the developer's development plan. However, the document currently submitted to the competent authority is only an "undertaking plan," meaning it has not yet obtained the qualification for a development plan, raising legal concerns. The meeting lasted over two hours. Environmental commissioners finally stated that the overall report's analysis of key issues did not meet the professional standards required for EIA review. This case is returned to the competent authority and will be sent to the EIA Council for confirmation. If the development unit subsequently thoroughly supplements and revises, it can resubmit for review in accordance with relevant provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. (Edited by Wu Su-jou) 1150429