我國能源政策實施政策環評之成效分析：以離岸風電區塊開發政策之政策環評為例

The Effectiveness Analysis of the SEA on Taiwan's Energy Policy: The SEA on Offshore Windfarm Cluster Development Policy

為解決以環評（EIA）為基礎的風險治理零碎問題，國際上已普遍從EIA衍生出具有政策協調與法規盤點性質的「政策環評」（又稱「策略環評」，本文稱SEA），在政策初期釐清潛在利害相關人脈絡和現行法規疏漏，以民主工具確立風險全貌與上位價值排序，以提供更好的政策選項。有鑑於我國推動能源轉型經常遭遇風險爭議，2016年我國也進行了離岸風電第三期區塊開發政策的SEA，這是我國首次針對能源轉型特定政策預先啟動SEA。此次SEA經過9個月的意見蒐集，環評會做出若干決議作為政策規劃與EIA審查參考，本文以IAIA所提的6項SEA成效指標分析SEA過程以及對後續EIA的影響，認為此次SEA在6個層面各有不同成果，其中表現最好的是「聚焦力」和「漸進學習」，其主要成果體現於技術規範和保育規範的明確化，以及由官方承擔建構本土長期海洋資料庫的責任；但在「永續導向」、「整合力」、「可問責性」和「參與度」等四個指標上，則因為繼承現有環評體制問題而存在隱匿風險疑慮，因此亟需推動法制改革。本文總結指出，此次SEA運作仍不脫EIA的舊有框架，雖能協助政策聚焦和創造學習空間，但體制仍嚴重缺乏民主元素，成果雖難令人滿意，但與國際SEA之制度演進經驗也若合符節。由於SEA和EIA本就有不同的目標，本文提出若干國際制度改革作法供政府取法，SEA需要更全面的體制性民主工具運用，才能超越EIA的傳統科學理性分析，並在政策前端規劃、中端評估和後端管制具體提昇國家治理和政策推動的能量。

To deal with the fragmentation of risk governance based on the environmental impact assessment (EIA), the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has been widely adopted internationally, which helps laying out the inter-relationships of potential stakeholders and probes the flaws of current regulations in the early stage of policy making. This democratic device enables the evaluation of risks comprehensively and thus prioritization of values during policy-making process. Furthermore, the SEA also applies the concepts of cumulative impacts and prioritization of values to the higher level decision-making process through risk reviews. Due to the recurrent risk disputes accompanied with the promotion of energy transitions in Taiwan, the government adopted the SEA for the third-stage offshore wind farm development policy in 2016. It was the first time that the pre-cautionary SEA was employed on a specific energy policy in Taiwan. After 9-months' examinations of opinions from various parties, the EIA committee concluded several guiding principles for subsequent EIA reviews and future policy formulation. This article applied 6 SEA effectiveness indicators proposed by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) based on the analysis of the process of the SEA and its impacts on succeeding EIAs. It suggests that this SEA had different attainments at distinct aspects. Among them, "focused" and "iterative" were demonstrated most fruitful, for the SEA helped concretize technology specifications and conservation norms, as well as holding government responsible for establishing long-term local marine databases. Nevertheless, in the aspects of "sustainability-led," "integrative," "accountable," and "participative," the concealment of risks in the SEA seemed to exist and hence further legal reforms may be needed to achieve more satisfactory results. This study concludes, while the SEA in this case improved policy-planning and created prospects for learning, it was still constrained by the existing EIA institutional structure. Despite the severe lack of elements of democracy resulted in unsatisfactory outcomes, the evolution, however, showed similar patterns as the practices of international SEAs. Since the SEA and the EIA serve different goals, this article proposes several procedures conducted by international SEAs for future reforms. The SEA requires more comprehensive employment of institutionalized devices of democracy to operate beyond EIA, which merely focuses on scientific reviews, and to elevate the government's capacity in governance and policy implementation during phases of preliminary planning, in-process evaluating, and pipe-end regulations.