COR Point 30 Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Nuclear Waste and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

100. In responding to the Concluding Observations and Recommendations to the first State report (Paragraphs 85-88), the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) stated that it has already begun dialogue in preparation for referenda on possible low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) repositories. In the future, the location of a possible LLRW final repository may be decided by referendum, in which at least 50 percent of resident citizens. If a proposed LLRW repository site is near indigenous peoples communities, the plan will require prior approval by nearby indigenous peoples villages before the county-level referendum is held, according to Article 31 of the IPBL. Nevertheless, this kind of narrative is overly simplified and cannot explain the exact implementation plan.

101. During two meetings convened on August 28 and November 6, 2013 by the CIP, indigenous peoples organizations and representatives of affected villages proposed that based on Article 31 of the IPBL (which mandates that “The government may not store toxic materials in indigenous peoples regions in contrary to the will of indigenous peoples”) such a referendum should be based in the scope of the areas influenced by the establishment of such a repository. Indigenous peoples representatives agreed that the threshold for passage should be raised to two-thirds approval and that success in finding a site not be a precondition for the transfer of low-level radioactive waste from Lanyu (Orchid Island). However, during the past three years, there has been no sign that the MOEA has turned these recommendations into substantial policies or any indication of what the current situation is.

102. There has also been no concrete action taken by the Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) with regard to the demands that it immediately remove nuclear waste from Lanyu and the MOEA also admits that there are difficulties in meeting this demand.³⁵ According to the proceedings of the eight review meeting of the second round off the Second Regular Report on the ICCPR-ICESCR held on October 22, 2015 provided by the Ministry of Justice, Taipower and the Lanyu Township government had completed on April 17, 2015 procedures for an extension of the land lease for the nuclear waste storage facility on the grounds that the lease extension was in the public interest. These statements are clearly contrary to the expectations of indigenous people and are not in accord with the resolutions reached at the CIP public hearing. The fact that this narrative was not included in the final “Response to the Concluding Observations and Recommendations” issued in April shows the government’s intention to evade this issue.³⁶

103. Discussion of the controversy over nuclear waste storage not only impinges on the issue of the threshold and scope of related referenda, but also must probe the background for the policy decision to designate Lanyu as the site to store low-level radioactive waste in the mid-1980s. At the time, Taipower deposited the nuclear waste at Lanyu without obtaining the free, advance and knowing consent of the Dawu people on Lanyu.

104. In addition, based on the “Regulations on the Final Disposal of High Level Radioactive Waste (HLRW) and Safety Management of the Facilities” first issued by the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) in August 2005³⁷ and the “Preliminary Technical Feasibility Evaluation of Our Country’s Final Repository Site for Spent Nuclear Fuel” issued by Taipower in June 2010,³⁸ the government is scheduled to select a HLRW final disposal facility during 2017-2028. During the survey and evaluation of several sites, Taipower has violated Article 21 of the IPBL. Without securing the permission of local indigenous peoples villages, Taipower drilled exploratory wells and carried out other related geological structural survey operations in the area of Xiulin Township in Hualien County and Nanao Township in Yilan County. The AEC even cooperated with the Ministry of Science and Technology to carry out at “Area 146” the border of Xiulin and Nanao townships “the AEC-MOST underground tunnel research office program to study the experience of Finland’s Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository and aim to design the underground tunnel that will link with the proposed HLRW final depository. Despite numerous protests by indigenous people, the MOEA and AEC still refuse to disclose complete information or to legally obtain the agreement of local indigenous people for this research project.

105. The events related above are developments concerned with the issue of nuclear waste storage that surfaced after the international review of the first State report in January 2013. Despite numerous reminders, information and data regarding the above mentioned disputes were still not included in the second State report. We call on the government to provide a comprehensive and concrete explanation and clearly respond to the concerns of indigenous peoples organizations and affected communities.

35. See “A Broken Promise! MOEA: It will be difficult to remove nuclear waste from Lanyu,” New Talk (Chinese), February 29, 2016; Loa Iok-sin, “Taipower still wants to ship nuclear waste overseas,” Taipei Times, March 12, 2016.
36. That paragraph was not included in the final version of the State report. The original version was as follows: “Removal of the Lanyu Depository is government policy, but before the completion of the establishment of a final repository for low-level radioactive waste, the extension of the operating and the land leases for the Lanyu repository are necessary to maintain positive interaction with Lanyu. The Taiwan Power Co and the Lanyu Township Government completed the extension of the land lease for the Lanyu Depository on April 17. Besides avoiding sparking protest activities by local residents, this extension is accord with the public interest.”
37. See http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=J0160070/.
38. The feasibility evaluation can be accessed at http://ppt.cc/DeN18/.