The study of Taiwan strategic environmental assessment-By the view point of deliberative democracy

隨著環保運動的推展，環境影響評估制度也應運而生。然而長期以來，環評制度的發展多著重在開發行為的環境影響評估，其進行的時間點太晚、無法整體考量社經環境、缺乏累積性影響評估，也使環評制度難以發揮保護環境的效果。近年來受到重視的政策環評，則是將環評層次提升到政府的政策、計畫與方案，其評估的重點，在於整合的角度、多面向的關心並評估策略對整體國家發展的影響，過程中廣納各種意見，與公共政策緊密相關，以達到環境、經濟及社會永續發展的目標。相較於開發環評，政策環評過程中的民眾參與更加重要。然而，過去國內在政策環評的相關研究中，鮮少針對民眾參與進行研究。 本文以民眾參與為基礎，從規劃理論及審議式民主觀點中所重視的「溝通」為出發，探討各理論的理念，期望能以其為借鏡，爲我國政策環評民眾參與途徑尋得新的啟發。同時，全面檢視我國政策環評制度及實施個案，檢討制度缺失及民眾參與情形，以對我國制度提出建言。 經過檢討後發現，我國政策環評發展已超過十年，相關法令規則雖經過多次檢討修正並與世界先進國家發展趨勢相近，但實務執行案例有限，在民眾參與及社會反應情形上的評估，亦未落實，尚難見民眾參與在政策環評過程中的效果；而政策環評不論在評估時點、範疇、適用範圍或細節程度等，均與開發環評有所差異，兩者適用之民眾參與程序亦不應等同視之。本文借鏡審議式民主的落實方式，及行政程序法所賦予民眾表示意見的權利，嘗試將公民會議及聽證制度與政策環評流程結合，透過制度設計，讓一般民眾也能參與環評程序並實質對環評結果產生影響。實際作法為： 一、在政策、計畫或方案構想提出之際，即舉辦公民會議，提供公眾議題的相關資訊及討論場域。 二、結合行政程序法中「計畫確定程序之聽證」的舉行，使民眾意見透過政策環評程序納於決策之中。 最後，本文建議，未來在制度修正方面，應要能突破政策環評適用的侷限性，擴大其適用範圍，提早其進行的時間點；並且強化民眾參與機制，使其意見能在各階段發聲，納入決策，同時加強重視價值思考及追蹤管理，以使政策環評機制能更加完備。With the promotion of the environmental movement, environmental impact assessment (EIA) system also began to develop. However, the EIA system primarily emphasized the development process, and because the EIA was often conducted too late in the project cycle for the socio-economic environment to be considered on a larger scale, the lack of cumulative impact assessment makes it difficult for the EIA system to be effective for environmental protection. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA), which has received much attention in recent years, applies the EIA process to government policies, plans and programs. The focus of its evaluation is integrated perspectives, multi-oriented care, and the impacts of SEA on the overall national development. Integrated consideration of opinions and close association with public policies in the SEA process contribute to continuing environmental, economic, and social sustainable development. Therefore, public participation in SEA is more important than which in EIA. However, few domestic researches on public participation in SEA have been done in the past. This paper is based on public participation and written from the perspective of communication which is valued by planning theories and deliberative democracy. Through exploring the various theories, this paper intends to find a new way for which the public in Taiwan can opt to participate in the SEA. At the same time, the paper does a comprehensive review of the domestic SEA system and the implemented cases and evaluates the shortcomings of the system and the public participation in the cases to offer suggestions for the improvement of the system. Following the review, this paper finds that while the domestic SEA system has been developed for more than a decade and the related laws and regulations have been reviewed and revised numerous times to catch up with the world trend, cases of implementation of the SEA are few, and public participation and assessment of social responses have not yet been fully carried out. Moreover, since the EIA and SEA are different in terms of assessment timing, scope, or detail level, the EIA and the SEA should adopt different procedures of public participation. Referring to the practice of deliberative democracy and the Administrative Procedure Act which gives people the right to express their views, this paper attempts to combine a consensus conference, the hearing policy, and the SEA process to allow the general public to participate in the SEA process and influence decision-making. The implementations are described as the following: First, when a concept of a policy, plan or program is proposed, a consensus conference should be held promptly to provide the public with information and a forum. Second, combine the SEA and hearing with planned procedures to include the public’s feedback in decision-making. Finally, this paper suggests that when the government amends the system in the future, it should break the limitations of the SEA, expand its scope of application, conduct the SEA early in project planning, and strengthen the public participation mechanisms to include the public’s opinions at each stage of the process and in decision-making. Meanwhile, consideration of values and monitoring are strengthened to make the mechanisms more complete