Erenlai - Development as Fairness 創造公平的資源分配
Development as Fairness 創造公平的資源分配

Development as Fairness 創造公平的資源分配

The world needs strategies for creating more wealth and distributing it where it is needed in a fair way. In 2000, national leaders officially committed the United Nations to Millennium Developments Goals regarding water, poverty, education and international migrations. Here you will find materials that throw light on these issues and challenge us to work harder where we are falling behind.

聯合國在兩千年訂定的千禧發展目標是一樁美意。可是當年討論的貧窮、教育、水資源跟國際移工等的窘境,改善了多少呢?有什麼策略可以創造財富並公平分配給需要的人呢?資源過度集中造成的貧富差距越來越大,這真是我們想要的世界嗎?

 

Thursday, 26 July 2012

Gaël Giraud's Proposals for Capitalism

Gaël Giraud, Economic Researcher at the CNRS, tells us about his book "20 proposals to reform Capitalism"(20 propositions pour réformer le capitalisme) and discusses topics ranging from the economic crisis to green development.

Monday, 26 March 2012

Fukushima one year on: nuclear workers and citizens at risk

An interview with Paul Jobin

Paul Jobin’s research on Japanese (and Taiwanese) nuclear plant workers began in 2002, mainly at Fukushima Daiichi. After March 2011, he conducted further interviews in Fukushima and joined rounds of negotiation launched by labor groups with the Ministry of Health and Labor.

Could you summarize the policies towards radiation protection in Fukushima, and what characterizes the current situation, one year after the nuclear disaster?

 

Even before the disaster, TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) employed a large pool of workers in order not to exceed the annual quota of radiation per person. The latest statistics from TEPCO (dated November 30, 2011) reported 3,745 workers on the site in March (about 1700 TEPCO employees and 2,000 subcontractors), and 14,000 for the time from April to October. The overwhelming majority of the latter, more than 12,400, were subcontractors. These figures, already substantial, might not take into account level 5 to 8 subcontractors who perform the tasks that are the most directly exposed to ionizing radiation.

 

Level 1 refers to TEPCO employees and level 2 to those employed by the reactor manufacturers, Hitachi, Toshiba, and GE. These are the “upper crust”, executives and technicians who enjoy high salaries and good social security benefits. Beneath them, levels 3 and 4, are composed primarily of employees of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) specialized in nuclear power. These are the most highly skilled workers (plumbers, heating engineers, electricians, etc.). Many of the SMEs are local, but their employees include many "gypsies" who go from one plant to another in search of work. Levels 5 to 8 form a very opaque world, with recruitment methods that range from hiring by temporary agencies to yakuza. The result is that half of the workers do undergo little or no health and radiation checks. We can say that there is systematic camouflage of the collective radiation of the most exposed front line workers.

 
Since the 11th of March 2011, TEPCO has employed many people to attempt to bring under control the remnants of Fukushima Daiichi, so as to stabilize the dangerous situation of the reactors and the pools which contain radioactive fuel rods requiring constant cooling. A lot of temporary workers have been employed for a short period to collect the debris from the explosions that occurred during the first week of the disaster. At a rate of 3,000 workers per day on average, a year later we have a theoretical figure of more than one million workers who have spent at least one day on the Fukushima Daiichi site. This figure does not mean much, however, because most of the workers have been on site at least three days, and since June they have been on site for an average of over one month. Thus, if we double the numbers mentioned above by TEPCo, we may reach a more exact number of workers who have gone through Fukushima Daiichi since March, perhaps around 30,000 in all. It is they who have been exposed to significant levels of radiation. And there will be many more. Because, contrary to what the Prime Minister Noda said on December 16, the reactors are far from a "cold shut down".
 

At what level does radiation become dangerous?

 
This question does not only concern nuclear workers; it stirs controversy globally. Since the 1990s, the consensus of the international community of doctors and epidemiologists specialized in radiation is that there is no threshold of a non-hazardous level. This is notably the position of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which is more or less independent from the nuclear lobby. Their latest recommendations (2007) advocate a limit on exposure of 20 millisieverts (mSv) per year for workers and a rate of 1 mSv for the rest of the population. Until 1990, these standards were 50 mSv and 5 mSv; they have been continuously revised downward since the creation of the Commission in 1928.
 
 

In fact, the debate has been greatly distorted since World War II, starting with the American “Atoms for Peace” program of 1953 that promoted nuclear power globally and in Japan sought to sweeten the pill of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by clearly distinguishing the ravages of nuclear weapons from the benefits of nuclear power.[1] The result is that, for sixty years, nuclear industry-subsidized pseudo-scientific research has greatly simplified the health consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. [2]

 
 
Thus the epidemiologists who advise the Prime Minister of Japan hold that below 100 mSv per year, there is no proven risk of radiation. In Fukushima Prefecture, including the urban areas where many children still reside, the rates range from 10 to over 80 mSv annually, levels which, in the long-term, pose a severe threat particularly to the health of children and young adults. One expert, a special advisor to the cabinet on radiation, Tokyo University radiation specialist Prof. Kosako Toshisō, resigned in April 2011 refusing to go along with the recommendation of his colleagues which insisted on the safety of 20 mSv for Fukushima children.[3] Most of these industry specialists base their conclusions on studies that were conducted on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they claim that below 100 mSv, there is a negligible abnormal high death rate from cancer, and that more generally, there are no 'stochastic' effects, i.e. observable consequences which would require assigning a certain probability of risk to a given population.
 

At the same time, nuclear workers can file an application for recognition of an occupational disease if they can show a total cumulated dose of 5 mSv. This is a major contradiction since, according to ICRP last recommendations (2007), workers can be exposed to 20 mSv per year in normal time, and up to 1000 mSv in case of emergency. On this subject, I interrogated twice Nagataki Shigenobu, an adviser to the Japanese Prime Minister[4]: he evaded the issue by separating "Science" - that is to say the epidemiological studies of UNSCEAR and WHO, which are closely monitored by the IAEA - from "Policy", that is to say, the various “social compromises” that a government must make depending of the situation. So, if the nuclear industry exposes workers to dangerous radiation levels in order to solve the crisis, or in normal time to perform the maintenance of power plants, in return, the industry agreed to pay a certain level of compensation for those who “accept to take that risk”.

 

Regarding the "social compromise" mentioned by the Prime Minister’s expert, we note that since 1991, fourteen Japanese workers have been recognized as victims of an occupational disease due to their employment in nuclear power plants. Some contracted leukemia after exposure to 50 mSv per year. However, in Fukushima City, which stands nearly 50 miles away from the nuclear plant, some neighborhoods show levels close to 60 mSv per year. Such levels are similar to a nuclear plant’s "controlled areas", which are exposed to high rates of radiation. For example, in 2009, even at Fukushima Daiichi which is one of the oldest Japanese nuclear plant (thus cumulating more radiation), according to the figures from TEPCO and NISA, no worker was exposed over 20 mSv a year.

 


A hot spot in the suburbs of Fukushima city, August 2011: 6.25 microsieverts per hour per hour (54,75 mSv a year). (Photo: Paul Jobin)

But so far, Fukushima city has not been evacuated by the authorities, and evacuating it is not on their agenda, since this would mean government commitment to compensate its 290,000 residents.
 

Thus, it is obvious that the workers are not the only ones who are at risk from over-exposure to external radiation; the population is at risk too, as if the entire prefecture of Fukushima has become a vast "controlled area".

 

What is the government’s response to internal contamination when radioactive particles are inhaled or when contaminated food is ingested?

 
The major problem is that the government is not investing enough in monitoring devices for food. Of course, these devices are more expensive than simple dosimeters, and there is also the high cost of the labor force required to perform the tests.
 

However, this would be more effective than the "decontamination" operations being conducted in Fukushima. For example, the nuclear lobby has urged the Government to provide grants for cleaning with pressurized water guns!

josen_iidate_jan2012
Decontamination work (josen) in Iidatemura, 13 January, 2012. (Photo: Kristopher Stevens)

 
This is really not a good idea as, at best, it transfers the contamination to the rivers. And as farmers in Minamisoma and Iitate - two cities in Fukushima Prefecture - explained to me, it is even more absurd that these operations are conducted in residential areas and farmlands, ignoring the tops of the hills, the woods and forests, which are the most contaminated areas. Since these areas are neglected, when rain falls, it carries the pollution back downstream!
 

It would be wiser to compensate farmers and encourage those who wish to move to depopulated and aging rural areas, which are numerous in Japan. But this is obviously not the priority of the industrial sector nor the “social compromise” planned.

 

genpatsu_sae_nakereba
A testament written with chalk on a desk by a farmer of Iitate before he committed suicide.
''Genpatsu sae nakereba": "If only there was no nuclear plants"
(Photo: Hasegawa Ken’ichi)

 
What is the attitude of the public and the media toward this issue?
 

Many prefer to turn a blind eye as it is reassuring to believe TEPCO’s nonsense and the nostrums provided by scholars associated with the nuclear lobby. But there is also a growing awareness of the problem, which can be observed for example through the vast mobilization in the region of Fukushima and Tokyo among citizens and on the Internet. In mid-January, a conference organized in Yokohama by a forum of antinuclear associations brought together 11,500 people including researchers and activists over two days.

conf
Conference for a Nuclear Free World, Yokohama, Jan.14-15, 2011. (Photos by Aiya Hsu)

yokohama_conf_children
Children during Conference for a Nuclear Free World, Yokohama, Jan.14-15, 2011. (Photo: Aiya Hsu)

 
In the first month of the crisis, the mainstream media mostly conveyed the partial and untrue information released by TEPCO and the nuclear safety authority (NISA). It would have been better to highlight the information published by organizations like the Citizen Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), which reacted more quickly and provided independent information through the Internet. Today, the situation has changed in part. Some mainstream media now contribute significantly to public awareness of the dangers of radiation. This includes the Tokyo Shinbun and Mainichi Shinbun newspapers, the weekly Sekai and Shūkan kinyōbi, the monthly magazine Days Japan, and some programs of the national television broadcaster NHK. For example, in a documentary broadcast last December, the NHK has challenged the economic biases of the ICRP recommendations. The nuclear lobby then protested this documentary had biases itself![5]
 

Are nuclear workers more aware of the risks posed by radiation?

 
It depends on which workers. Temporarily hired workers who have never entered a nuclear plant before probably have a very vague perception of these risks. For senior nuclear power plant workers, awareness varies.
 

During the first week of the crisis, those who remained or returned to work at Fukushima Daiichi were well aware that it was very dangerous. Some wanted to take responsibility and from the month of June, the worst seemed to have been avoided. But this did not mean that all the workers on-site had precise knowledge of the risks they were taking. I remember for example a young skilled worker, TS, whom I met for the first time in late June. He provided a very genuine and sincere account of the first weeks of the disaster. He had very good technical knowledge of the power plant operating system, including the reactor buildings. However, he had very limited understanding of the consequences for health of a sudden or prolonged exposure to significant amounts of radiation. At our second meeting, in late July, he agreed to meet in the company of a friend who is involved in union negotiations with the Ministry of Health and Labor. They kept in touch afterwards, and today, TS regularly informs his co-workers of the risks.

 
At the symposium on occupational exposure in nuclear plant, held within the Yokohama conference in January 2012, journalist Fuse Yūji invited Mr. Ookawa to give his testimony. He was employed for 16 years in the nuclear sector, in the fourth level of subcontracting, working on air conditioning and plumbing. In early April 2011, he received a dose of 16 mSv in just four days, whereas the average dose was about 2 mSv per year before the disaster. He said that, given his age, he was not afraid at the time. Still, he stopped working and is thinking about filing a lawsuit against his employer or TEPCO for having subjected him to overexposure without warning.
 

Gradually, thanks to contact with anti-nuclear associations, trade unions based in Tokyo or Osaka and some journalists and researchers, these workers have realized the price they might pay themselves, or their children.[6] Associations are trying to negotiate with the Ministry of Health and Labor to restore the maximum level of exposure to the previous level of 20 mSv per year. They are also calling for a precise definition of the notion of "emergency work", as the “emergency” could justify maintaining high standards of radiation exposure for many years to come.

 

What defines the urgency and the gravity of the situation?

 
This is a never-ending question. I interviewed the deputy head of the emergency response unit of the IRSN (French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety), who was sent to the French embassy in Japan on March 12, 2011. He commented that at that time, the major challenge was to save the storage pools of used fuel rods from meltdown. This was even more vital than saving the reactors, since if the fuel rods in the pools melt, they would produce radioactivity levels that could not be measured in hundreds of millisieverts but would need to be measured in hundreds or thousands of sieverts! In that case, TEPCO would have been unable to intervene by sending in workers. It would lose complete control of the site. The result might then be something like a Godzilla movie, an apocalyptic scenario. As a recent ‘independent’ report suggests, at the very least, Tokyo should have been evacuated.[7] I doubt the authors’ independence because they focus their criticism on Prime Minister Kan Naoto, avoiding discussion of the responsibility of the nuclear industry lobby, which, unlike the former Prime Minister, is still very active. Nevertheless, the report confirms that the tremendous risk posed by the nuclear meltdown, is indeed far “beyond expectations”. The storage pools, in particular those of reactor no 4, might not survive another significant seismic event. The recent interview of nuclear scientist Koide Hiroaki by Asahi Television made that crystal-clear.[8]
 

In short, if the nuclear "risk managers" themselves tell us that the industry’s risk exceeds the probability calculations, a risk so great that they do not even want to think about it, we had better take their word for it.

 

This interview was translated from French by Cerise Phiv, edited by Daniel Pagan Murphy for eRenlai.com, with further editing by Paul Jobin and Mark Selden for the Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus.

A previous version was published in Nouvel observateur: http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/374383-centrale-de-fukushima-que-sont-devenus-les-ouvriers-du-nucleaire.html

See also Paul Jobin, “Back to Fukushima”: http://www.etui.org/en/Topics/Health-Safety/HesaMag

And Japan Focus: http://japanfocus.org/-Paul-Jobin/3523

 

[1] Yuki Tanaka and Peter Kuznick, Japan, the Atomic Bomb, and the “Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Power” The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 9, Issue 18 No 1, May 2, 2011. http://www.japanfocus.org/-Yuki-TANAKA/3521

[2] Sawada Shōji, emeritus professor at the University of Nagoya, explained very clearly how the neglect of internal contamination on the cohorts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki hibakusha have led to an obvious minimization of the consequences of low-doses radiation. See http://peacephilosophy.blogspot.com/search?q=%E6%B2%A2%E7%94%B0%E6%98%AD%E4%BA%8C

[3] 20 Millisieverts for Children and Kosako Toshiso’s Resignation, The Asia-Pacific Journal, May 1, 2011 http://www.japanfocus.org/events/view/83.

[4] Shushō kantei genshiryoku senmonka gurupu: http://www.kantei.go.jp/saigai/senmonka.html

[5] Tsuiseki shinsō fairu, NHK, 26 December 2011: http://nanohana.me/?p=10335

See also the defense of that documentary by Prof.Sawada Shōji against the protest of the nuclear lobby, in Days Japan, March 2012. Another NHK documentary, on January 15, 2012, "Umi kara no hokoku" was an outstanding investigation in collaboration with scholars on the marine contamination. Hot spots were found so far as 100 km downward of Fukushima Daiichi: $BCN$i$l$6$kJ| $B!A3$$+$i$N6[5^Js9p (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnq56z_20120115-yyyyyyyyyy-yyyyyyyy_news?start=2#from=embediframe

[6] See the report by the German TV-channel ZDF (with English subtitles): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1T4Ac9nHeY

[7] http://rebuildjpn.org/fukushima/report

[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJi-o4F8eOo&feature=youtu.be

Tuesday, 03 May 2011

俄羅斯大洋洲研究浮沉錄

那些個遙遠又陌生的熱帶小島嶼啊,要雄踞一方的俄羅斯拿它們如何是好?

胸懷壯志的俄國有時磨刀霍霍,有時又棄之不理,就這樣被意識形態牽著鼻子跑。

Thursday, 20 January 2011

在坎昆會場外

2010年11月8日至9日,台北利氏學社和台北縣(現為新北市)政府合辦「低碳城市首長高峰會」,邀請多位城市首長、NGO和專家學者,於坎昆會議召開前,討論如何降低氣候變遷的衝擊和發展綠色能源,期望城市與在地公民團體擔起永續發展的責任。畢竟現今國際社會在對抗氣候變遷上可謂欲振乏力——例如2009年眾所矚目的哥本哈根會議,最後只由五個國家在密室會議中訂出長僅數頁、進展細微的《哥本哈根協定》。

Wednesday, 01 December 2010

哥本哈根的綠色生機

Signe Gaarde

•歷史學碩士
•在哥本哈根市工作了兩年半(負責COP15會議中哥本哈根市的參與,以及會議之後的城市綠色成長策略之政策制定)。
•在哥本哈根市的工作之前,在比利時布魯塞爾工作了兩年,工作內容為氣候變遷之因應政策。

共同參與此次「台北縣低碳城市首長高峰會」,接受e人籟專訪,暢談哥本哈根的綠能環保政策。

Monday, 13 September 2010

Europe-China Cooperation in the Digital Era by R. Prodi

On September 10, Romano Prodi, former president of the European Commission and former Italian Prime minister, was the guest of the Xu-Ricci Dialogue Institute at Fudan University, Shanghai. Together with Professor Melloni, director of the John XXII Foundation for Religious Science in Bologna, he was introducing to a Chinese audience the flagship project of the Foundation: a database regrouping the editions of all Ecumenical Church Councils, in all languages and writing systems in which they had been acted

What follows is a slightly abridged English version of the speech he pronounced in Italian on this occasion:

Wednesday, 30 June 2010

廉價外勞挽救台灣經濟?

外勞薪資與基本工資脫勾,究竟能提升台灣經濟,還是會侵害外勞人權、殘害本國勞工?

Thursday, 01 April 2010

创造供需双赢农业策略

目前农委会对于大宗蔬菜价格主要调节手段为:若评估菜价低于监控价格及分析将出现失衡情况,即补助农民,启动田间耕锄(不进行采收,直接用耕耘机处理,当作有机肥)以减少市场供给。然而,这个非常手段未必能产生效果,因为农民辛勤种植并非为了领取小额的耕锄补助,何况耕锄与蔬菜上市有时间上的落差,农民多半期待能在市场上卖到好价钱,不愿提前耕锄。

Wednesday, 31 March 2010

創造供需雙贏農業策略

目前農委會對於大宗蔬菜價格主要調節手段為:若評估菜價低於監控價格及研判將出現失衡情況,即補助農民,啟動田間耕鋤(不進行採收,直接用耕耘機處理,當作有機肥)以減少市場供給。然而,這個非常手段未必能產生效果,因為農民辛勤種植並非為了領取小額的耕鋤補助,何況耕鋤與蔬菜上市有時間上的落差,農民多半期待能在市場上賣到好價錢,不願提前耕鋤。

Monday, 22 March 2010

給所有人一個家

住宅具有雙重性格。一方面住宅提供人生存、庇護之所,可以滿足人最基本的居住需求;另一方面,住宅也是商品,在資本主義社會,房產既象徵財富,也是理財的重要籌碼。一旦房價被過度炒作,住宅的商品性格將被放大,造成許多需要住屋的人無力負擔,這也是目前台灣社會的一大問題。

然而高房價並不是近來才有的現象,觀察歷史,台灣房價雖然曾短期波動,但整體來說,1950年代以後台灣房價即呈現一路上升的趨勢,尤其是1980年代後半期房價飇升,也造就了二十年前的無住屋運動(無殼蝸牛運動)。


政府與民眾都需有新思考

面對住屋問題,過去政府曾有相關政策,但並未取得良好效果。最早的住宅補貼政策,受惠者主要是軍公教人員;後來政府興建國宅,得以申請國宅者,也非社會最弱勢的族群。事實上,台灣一直沒有較積極的住宅政策來解決民眾住的問題。由之前的政策來看,社會中最弱勢的族群,往往無法得到真正的救助。因此,政府的住宅政策有必要改弦更張,民眾的觀念也應順應時代的變遷有新的思考。

從民眾觀念來說,傳統華人社會相信有土斯有財,尤其對男性而言,婚姻、房子、車子是成家立業的象徵,是以台灣社會多數人希望擁有自有住宅,許多人寧可背負高額房貸,也要擁有自己的房子。然而在經濟不充裕的狀況下,將高比例的財產投入置屋所需,勢必排擠其他需求的費用。如能以租屋代替購屋,就個人而言也能將錢省下來,投入改善生活品質或子女教育等項目,更有助於脫貧。


弱勢族群應予補助

此外,資本主義全球化的發展趨勢,造成貧富懸殊日增的M型化社會,因而弱勢族群扶助成為更重要的社會課題。就政府而言,雖然目前已有租金補貼、首購低利貸款等政策。但在房價抑制效果有限的情況下,更應正視目前「租屋」已是常態的事實,致力健全租屋市場。此外,社會中無住屋者,往往是經濟、性別、年齡、族群上的多重弱勢,如單身老人或受家暴的婦女。這些弱勢族群即使政府給予經費補助,也可能因為房東怕惹麻煩,面臨無屋可租、可住的窘境。因此政府有必要透過掌握更多的住宅資源,加上配套的社會福利政策加以協助。

以北市為例,台北因土地成本昂貴,要興建新的出售用途的公共住宅顯有困難;但北市目前還約有3700戶出租國宅,居住者部分為經濟弱勢,如能給予他們租金補貼,使他們有能力至他處租屋,則空出來的國宅,便可用以安置多重弱勢族群。而北市以外的其他縣市,雖然多數沒有出租國宅,但土地取得成本較低,或可考慮興建只租不售的公共住宅。此外部分財政拮据的地方政府,在少子化的趨勢下,日後各級學校的減班甚至廢校也成為日後轉型為社會住宅的最佳選擇。

擁有棲身之所,是人的基本需求,希望政府抓對政策方向,並拿出更有魄力的作為,使每個人都能有遮風蔽雨的地方。


攝影/This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

本文亦見於 2010年2月號《人籟》論辨月刊

No68

想知道更多關於時事的評論,請購買本期雜誌!

您可以選擇紙本版PDF版

海外讀者如欲選購,請在此查詢(紙本版PDF版訂閱全年份

banner



Monday, 22 March 2010

失落的氣候正義

備受全球 期待的哥本哈根聯合國氣候變化綱要公約締約國會議,在爭議中落幕,大會以附註的方式,認知(take note of)了《哥本哈根協定》(Copenhagen Accord),內容包括全球均溫上升應控制在工業革命前的攝氏2度內;今年1月底前,工業化國家須提報2020年前溫室氣體減量的目標;同時在2020年前,每年提供發展中國家1000億美元的援助;而發展中國家,則應宣示適合國情的減量行動。這一份未經大會議決,且缺乏政治、法律約束力的文件,勉強保住了與會119位國家領袖的顏面,卻無法掩蓋後京都氣候談判缺乏氣候正義的事實。

 

現實利益凌駕一切

氣候正義的倡議,在於批判全球暖化議題所造成的不正義、剝削、及資源與風險分配不均的問題。氣候變遷這項當代人類最大的挑戰,反映了極為不公平的現實:富有國家享受了工業革命以來近兩百年主要的經濟成果,而許多小島型與低度發展國家卻要承擔氣候變化的苦果。

為期兩週的哥本哈根會議一開始就挑起了南北國家長期以來的矛盾,由丹麥、英國與美國等國代表祕密草擬的《丹麥文本》提案曝光後,立即引起發展中國家的憤怒。這份提案試圖將《京都議定書》空殼化,模糊工業化國家與發展中國家的界限,同時淡化工業化國家的減量責任與提供資金的義務,這份文本最後在中國、巴西等發展中國家的強烈抗議下未被提出,然而工業化國家試圖撇清歷史排放責任的企圖,使得氣候正義在各國現實的利益政治下不得不低頭。

以中國為首的G77發展中國家集團則強烈捍衛其「發展權」。他們強調,消除貧窮才是發展中國家的首要目標,而非減碳。因此,在工業化國家提供資金援助與技術移轉的前提下,發展中國家才願意進行兼顧發展的減量行動。

 

期待公民力量的崛起

誠然,工業化國家必須承擔較大的減量責任,不過,根據國際能源總署估計,從現在起到2030年全球所增加的溫室氣體排放,97%來自發展中國家,其中約七成五來自亞洲及中東的新興經濟體。因此,就世代間的公平正義而言,發展中國家不應迴避適當的減量行動。

會議期間公民團體的抗議不斷,也成為歷屆聯合國氣候會議之最。哥本哈根會議湧進了近45000名參與者,大會祕書處卻以會場僅能容納15000人為由,技術性的限制公民團體的參與,將大部分的NGO聲音排除在外。對照工業化國家要求發展中國家在減排機制的透明化,一方面卻又自己關起門來玩起大國們的密室政治,極為諷刺。

公平正義是氣候政治的核心議題,全球氣候制度不應成為替富有國家服務的工具。2009年9月舉辦的全球暖化世界公民高峰會,全球38個國家4000多位公民表達了對於全球訂定一個符合公平正義的新氣候公約之願景。錯過了哥本哈根的政治機會,也唯有期待草根的公民力量,開啟另一些可能。


攝影/Hamed Saber



本文亦見於2010年2月號《人籟》論辨月刊

No68

想知道更多關於時事的評論,請購買本期雜誌!

您可以選擇紙本版PDF版

海外讀者如欲選購,請在此查詢(紙本版PDF版訂閱全年份

banner


Monday, 22 March 2010

ECFA是台灣經濟救命良方?

台灣政府認為由於東協加一(中國)已在今年元月生效,東協與中國將逐步成為自由貿易區,但台灣卻遲遲未能與美國、日本與中國等主要貿易國家簽訂自由貿易協定,使得我國有在世界貿易體系中被邊緣化的危險。

然而,中國商務部國際司副司長朱洪先生指出,自由貿易協定(FTA)涉及主權問題,因此中國現在不讓台灣與他國簽訂FTA,我方政府卻希望藉與中國簽訂ECFA而尋求解套,此舉不僅緣木求魚,還可能掉進泥沼。


ECFA帶來的挑戰

從1996年2月起,WTO總理事會下設有區域貿易協定審查委員會(CRTA),以審查各會員國間之自由貿易區(包括ECFA等過渡性自由貿易區協定)提案。各國FTA提案應依其優惠涵蓋內容,分別依其法源向商品貿易理事會或服務貿易理事會提出申請,經討論審查後再呈交CRTA審查。

台灣對中國尚有兩千餘項農工產品,本應根據台灣加入WTO時所作的承諾向中國開放進口,但因中國不願在WTO爭端解決機構與台灣平等地成為原被告,而使台灣有不對其開放(WTO之平均稅率約6﹪)的空間。

由於FTA貿易是比WTO更進一步的貿易自由化(WTO Plus),因此,CRTA當然也會審查相關國家是否已落實加入WTO時所作的承諾。台灣若與中國簽訂ECFA,首次送審時即會受到此一挑戰,而向中國以平均稅率約6%的關稅進口此等中國農工產品。


簽與不簽的兩難

台灣若與中國簽訂ECFA,則最長在十年之後,台灣與中國必須將雙邊經濟合作協定的內涵擴及於商品貿易及服務業貿易的絕大多數部門。由於符合WTO要求的區域貿易協定(除短期過渡性者外)須涵蓋絕大多數部門產業,因此,大部分農業與傳統產業皆須被納入。

若台灣不願將ECFA擴大到絕大多數產業,則有兩個選項:即將兩岸十年來所為之既有零關稅等減讓以及其他貿易條件開放,由其他所有WTO會員國無條件享受;或是與中國終止ECFA,並補償WTO會員中任何因此而貿易利益受到減損或剝奪之會員國的損失。

若論前者,其他WTO會員國不必對台灣為對等互惠之開放。很顯然地,此一選項並不可行。後者的話,其他WTO會員國仍可請求WTO爭端解決機構對台灣在該十年中對中國所為的開放及關稅減讓等,以違反最惠國待遇原則之義務為由,請求台灣補償其因此所受到的貿易利益減損或利益剝奪的損失。因此,此一選項亦不可行,而只有將ECFA擴大到絕大多數產業一途。


需考慮後續問題

簽訂ECFA之後,不僅中國對台灣出口增加,台灣對中國的出口也會增加,但同時也將排擠台灣對美國、日本、東南亞與歐洲的出口。其次,電機、電子與醫療器材等產業為現代科技(包括資訊科技與網路科技等)的基礎,而且其技術更是現代國防武器所仰賴。在台灣,上述產業還吸納了許多科技精英。

此外,這些產業不僅是較低污染較高附加價值的產業,更是台灣產業中比較能與歐美日競爭的部分。台灣政府捨此產業而造就化學、塑膠、機械、紡織(上游)、石油、煤製品及鋼鐵等較高污染的產業實在令人不解。


攝影/Sam Ose & Olai Skjaervoy



本文為節錄,完整內容請見2010年2月號《人籟》論辨月刊

No68

想進一步知道簽訂ECFA為台灣帶來的影響,請購買本期雜誌!

您可以選擇紙本版PDF版

海外讀者如欲選購,請在此查詢(紙本版PDF版訂閱全年份

banner


Page 1 of 3

Help us!

Help us keep the content of eRenlai free: take five minutes to make a donation

AMOUNT: 

Join our FB Group

Browse by Date

« April 2017 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

We have 3921 guests and no members online