[[alternative]]The Research of Environmental Impact Assessment and Consensus Procedure via Communicative Theory: a Case Study of Hushan Reservoir

[[abstract]] 2009年2月12日行政院環境保護署訂定「環境影響評估審查旁聽要點」，終於開放民眾得出席環評會議，雖然還不能直接參與決定，但已有旁聽及現場發言的機會，而這一小步，環保署卻走了二十餘年，這期間正值國內重大公共建設、工商業鼎盛的時期，環評開發案件數達到高峰，卻因溝通體制建立緩慢，屢傳抗爭事件，影響社會層面甚廣。但以環評作為一種專業審查制度，究竟應將公眾參與角色定位在哪裡？如何創造三贏的局面？以目前環評程序上，溝通的合理性及合法性的效度為何？如何使達成共識成為可能？在在都值得深入探討。 溝通行動理論是德國大哲學家哈伯瑪斯（Jürgen Habermas）最重要的創見，對於工具理性的批判與辯證，投入更多人文與社會的關懷，在生活世界中，人與人、人與自然的溝通行為，有相當深刻的論述，尤其在影響公共政策的法制面，對於事實性和有效性分析別具意義。本研究以哈伯瑪斯的溝通理性探討環評制度之相關性，認為應在程序理性上建立溝通機制，在生活世界的價值上追求共識。 同時從研究分析提出四項觀點，可供制度建立參考：（一）以建立溝通能力、聽證的論證、程序理性、環境價值優先來對應可理解性、真實性、正當性及真誠性等環評的有效性聲稱；（二）以公開及參與作為環評普遍性的表徵，並注重範疇界定提升命題的層次；（三）在互為主體的主體間性中，將環評轉換語言的地方性，並以理想的言辭情境推動審議式共識；（四）在背景知識的基礎下，從外在自然、社會環境及內在自然的批判反省，掌握價值選擇的依據，及共識來自於對土地倫理的認同。 另以研究生居住地之湖山水庫環評開發過程，檢視環評所有書件、會議紀錄及相關報導，發現該水庫自水利單位規劃以來，對於興建與否在正反兩面均有下，其差異原因分析計有：開發目的是為工業用水或民生用水迄無定見、對帶動區域（觀光）發展憂喜兩極、水資源開發是減緩地層下陷還是減少地下水補注各有解讀、開發單位的安全保證信賴度及對生態環境的重視程度看法不同等，再與之專家學者或環評委員意見作交叉比對，進一步探討相關參與者之主體間性。並對時下在環評爭議上最流行的一句話「理性溝通，達成共識」，研擬實踐的條件和達成共識的程序。[[abstract]] In February 12th, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency has finally set up the ＂Environmental Impact Assessment Review Observe Points＂. The public eventually have the right to attend open meetings of EIA process. Although they do not directly involve in the decision-making, the public have the opportunity to attend and speak on the scene. and for this small step, however; EPA has strived for over 20 years, which was the right time that national significant public works, industry and commerce prospered. The number of environment development assessment project has come to a peak, but the communication system build slowly, and the resistant event burst out frequently had impacted the whole society in many aspects. Taking environment assessment for a professional censorship, after all, what should we regard public participation character as? How can we create the situation of triple win? In current environment assessment procedure, what's the validity of the reasonableness and legality of communication? How can we make it possible to approach to consensus? Every these questions is worth discussing deeply. The theory of communicative action is the most significant creative viewpoint of a great German philosopher. Jürgen Habermas, has a quite profound discussion in the critique and argumentation to the instrumental rationality, inputting more concern of humanities and society and the communicative action between human to human, human to nature in our life-world, especially in the aspect of law which influences public policy, which is meaningful to the analysis of factuality and validity. This research uses Habermas’s communicative reason to probe the EIA process and the related. The main point is that we should build communication mechanism above the procedural rationality and pursue consensus in the values of our daily life. I put forward four viewpoints that could be the reference for building the new EIA system. (a) Making “establishing communication ability” “argumentation of hearing” “Procedural Rationality” “environmental value priority” correspond to “comprehensibility claim” “truth claim” “rightness claim” “truthfulness claim”in the effective claim in the EIA process. (b). Making “opening” “participation” as the characterization of the university of EIA and putting emphasis on scoping to increase the level of propositional. (c).Transforming EIA to the regional language in intersubjectivity and promote deliberate-like consensus by ideal discussion situation. (d) Under the basis of background knowledge, people can grasp the value-choosing‘s foundation after critique and re-thinking from the external/internal nature and social environment while consensus comes from the identity of land ethic. In addition to the theory above, I also chose the EIA process of the Hushan Reservoir which is near my hometown as the discussion object. After viewing all the documents, meeting record and related news, we can find that the opinion of building the reservoir or not has both appear after the Water Resource institution set up the developing plan. The difference includes: the reservoir will serve for the people’s livelihood or the industry? Would the reservoir promote local tourism? Did this water resource developing plan save the land subsidence or decrease the supplementary of groundwater? How is the developer’s security insurance and their emphasis on the environment and ecology? I cross-compare the comments of the EIA members with experts’ and further explore the intersubjectivity between them. In the end I will try to find out the appropriate condition of practice and process to reach the consensus of the slogan “communicate in rational and reach the consensus” for the EIA controversy