環評的未來轉型：從機關同意到公衆接受

The Future Transformation of Taiwan's EIA System: From Institutional Approval to Public Acceptance

自我國引進環評制度以來，基於對經濟部門的不信任，以及環境法規的管制密度過低，因此在制度設計上便由環保機關内以獨立的環評委員會行使同意權，並把審核與評估的標準與範疇全數交由環評會逕行決定，成為全球獨一無二的制度；但雖然環評會同時扮演風險評估與風險決策的雙重角色，卻缺乏明確的審查標準與健全的環境資料庫，以至於難以跳脫政治力干擾或是專業盲點。以2018年引發軒然大波的深澳電廠與觀塘接收站為例，其決策結果便極大程度凸顯了環評程序與社會期待的落差。由於目前我國環評的審查效率與管制成果皆不理想，因此政府亟思仿效美國環評法的原型，將環評業務返還給業務主管機關，儘管這項芻議有其法理依據，但無論如何，現行風險決策由「專家」或「行政機關」片面決定顯然已難以提供決策的正當性基礎，而是需改以贏得「公眾接受度」為目標。為了加強公眾接受度，本文參考國際案例，認為我國環評應該致力於以下三項作法：（1）加強對地方政府與社區的法律權益保障，（2）透過第三方中立機制將科學家轉型為促談與調解者；（3）強化社會影響評估與民情諮詢。本文認為：唯有把討論並決定風險的主體性返還給民眾，才能提昇風險評估的審查與評估能力，並建立社會的重要風險資本。

Due to the mistrust against economic planning authorities and relatively low level of environmental regulations, the EIA system in Taiwan, with EIA committee independently run by experts and government representatives, was granted veto power. Therefore, with double-folded roles of scientific experts on both risk assessment and risk decision-making, this distinguished system could hardly run without political intervention and expert's blindness, while the government failed to establish robust reviewing standards and sound environmental databases. The political turmoil originated from Shen-ao and Guan-tang cases both suggested that there has been a huge gap between EIA procedures and social expectation. Owing to the unsatisfactory reviewing results, Taiwan government intended to copy American prototype of EIA and returned the decision-making power to agencies in charge of the development projects. Although this proposal has its political rationales, there has been skepticism against this idea. However, no matter Taiwan government would realize this proposal soon, current decision-making pattern mainly based on scientific experts and government representatives could barely provide the social foundation of legitimacy, and must shift its focus to earning public acceptance instead. In order to do so, this article drew from international EIA practices and suggested that the Taiwan's EIA could seek for a better change via three measures: (1) enhancing legal protection on local governments and communities, (2) turning scientists into meditators and facilitators via neutral third-party, (3) strengthening the application of SIA and public consultation. Only if the citizen's autonomy of discussing and making decisions on risk affairs can be claimed, the assessing capacity of EIA system and social capital coping with risks can both be better enhanced.