台灣環評制度設計與執行爭議－－反思美麗灣案

The Miramar Resort Case: Controversy over the Design and Enforcement of Taiwan's Environmental Impact Assessment

美麗灣渡假村是近年備受爭議的環評案，本文目的為回顧學術文獻所討論的我國環評制度之主要問題，並分析美麗灣個案中所暴露的環評制度執行與制度設計問題，以提出制度修正建議。對於先前學界指出的主要問題，本文發現，文獻所指出經濟開發壓力對環評執行面所造成的侵蝕，在美麗灣案中得到清楚的印證。該案也再次顯示出，環評制度亟待全面強化公民參與機制。關於集中審查制與否決權制，本文認為，美麗灣案已經擴大民眾對環評的不信任，即使未來制度朝向由各決策機關承擔環評責任，我國仍應先強化公民參與機制，始為較可行的制度變革路徑。關於該案所呈現的、先前較少被我國各界所觸及的制度設計議題，本文提出數項制度修正建議，包括：修正以面積作為實施環評的門檻條件；建立應否實施環評的發動與決定機制；應先完成促參法開發行為環評程序方得簽訂開發契約；為強化公民參與的監督作用，環評委員會應實質回應民眾參與意見；限縮環評主管機關組成環評委員會的權限，以縮小環評委員會運作與環評法立法意旨的落差。

The Miramar Resort represents one of the most controversial Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) cases in recent years. This article first reviews the major issues regarding Taiwan's EIA regulatory system raised by the literature, then analyzes the particular regulatory and enforcement problems exposed by the Miramar Resort case, and finally proposes amendments to the EIA system.The article finds that two out of three issues raised by the literature were also confirmed in the Miramar Resort case. First, the competent authority of the EIA Act did not enforce EIA properly under the pressure of economic development. Second, public participation mechanisms needed to be reinforced in every respect. Regarding the third issue- releasing the reviewing and veto power enjoyed by the competent authority- the article argues that while the reviewing and veto power will eventually be released, the more feasible amendment roadmap is to reinforce public participation mechanisms first to make sure that the public can effectively exert monitoring pressure on the decision made by the agent.The case study also reveals several EIA system design issues which have not been addressed in the literature. The article proposes several EIA regulatory amendments to resolve these issues, including the following: to correct illegal circumvention of EIA procedures, the project area as a threshold needs to be amended and the triggering and decision mechanisms need to be established to officially confirm whether an EIA is required; the agent shall not enter into an agreement with the private entity under the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects until it is finalized that EIA is not required or the EIA procedures are completed; to enhance the external pressure exerted by public participation, the EIA Reviewing Committee shall substantially respond to public opinion; and the adequacy of EIA review needs to be improved by minimizing the gap between the operation of the EIA Review Committee and the legislative intent set by the EIA Act.