abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English

Artikel

2 Dez 2020

Autor:
Taipei Times

Taiwan: Court halts Solar Farm construction to protect aboriginal and local rights

"EDITORIAL: The right move for Aboriginal rights," 02 Dec 2020

Aborigines in Katatipul village yesterday received good news regarding their fight against a proposed solar energy farm being built on their land, with the High Administrative Court’s Taipei branch ordering that construction be temporarily halted.

In January 2018, the Taitung County Government launched the bidding process for the 226 hectare “special area for solar power facilities and education demonstration,” which would become the nation’s largest solar farm if completed, but the Puyuma people say that they were not involved in the planning process as required by Article 21 of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民族基本法)...

[There were] concerns about the facility’s potential impact on the environment and the community’s oyster farms... and [that] the developers failed to negotiate and communicate with them beforehand...

...the administrative court said that while the developers might suffer some monetary setbacks because of the decision, no amount of compensation could make up for the loss of the autonomy, dignity and cultural pride that the residents deserve, and that the rights of the villagers should be put first. If the project were allowed to go on, it would only further harm the community’s right to self-determination, the court added.