國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

我國環境影響評估程序之研究 = Research on Domestic...

國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班

我國環境影響評估程序之研究 = Research on Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure：Take EIA Two Stage Pprocedures and the Veto System as Topic : 以環評二階段程序與否決權制度為中心

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : 單行本
並列題名:	Research on Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure：Take EIA Two Stage Pprocedures and the Veto System as Topic
副題名:	以環評二階段程序與否決權制度為中心
作者:	謝宏緯,
其他團體作者:	國立高雄大學
出版地:	[高雄市]
出版者:	撰者;
出版年:	2012[民101]
面頁冊數:	181面圖，表格 : 30公分;
標題:	環評說明書
標題:	EIA report
電子資源:	http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/23622443911332622973
附註:	參考書目：面165-170
其他題名:	以環評二階段程序與否決權制度為中心
摘要註:	世界各國致力於經濟發展之際，常忽略環境保護問題。在已建立環境影響評估（Environmental Impact Assessment）制度國家中，不論是已開發或開發中國家，各國重視此制度之程度差異甚鉅，法制亦迥然不同。就制度整體而言，開發中國家實施EIA之目的，係為配合發展經濟為優先之各目的事業主管機關，已淪為附屬品，而已開發國家，其係以滿足地方民眾保有較佳環境狀態為訴求點，我國既已自詡邁入已開發國家之林，自應採高規格的標準來檢視EIA制度。從環境影響評估法第1條「預防及減輕開發行為對環境造成不良影響，藉以達成環境保護。」之立法目的觀察，含有「預防原則」的精神，因此，我國環評制度在程序上創設雙主管機關、二階段、多階段程序，實體上賦予環評審查結論對於開發行為具有否決之效力，看似多層關卡，應可達「預防原則」之目的。然而，卻在最近的中科三、四期開發案、新店安康掩埋場設置案及台東美麗灣渡假村開發案等等，發現各方往往各持己見而無法理性溝通，使得環境影響評估的審查，原本是期待環境價值可以在決策過程中被重視與考量，在我國反而成為衝突對立的場域，這也是令人始料未及的。而最大的原因在於一開始的環評說明書由開發單位自行或委託環境顧問公司調查撰寫，公正性即遭到質疑；又大部分案件並沒有進入第二階段的實質審查，嚴重欠缺公眾的參與；環評審查結論的獨立性不足，以致於無法使公眾信服。雖然環評法施行以來經過三次小幅度修改，卻未見有全盤性的檢討修正，不少專家學者都主張光靠目前的環評制度，要讓環境永續真的很難，應該要進行全面的修法。本文認為為避免上開問題的產生，首先，除了增加公眾參與及資訊公開程序之強度外，環評一開始的階段，環評說明書應如德、美國兩國係由目的事業主管機關選任公正之第三者負責調查撰寫，以避免偏頗。其次，二階段的制度雖然立意良好，但從實際運作下，比較德、美制度，我國第一階段充其量僅能是篩選程序，因此，在此階段不應賦予否決權的權限，僅能從程序審查而非實質作出審查結論。再者，環境影響評估委員會的組織及職權行使欠缺獨立性及有效調查，不但有違責任政治之嫌且作出的環評結論恐難讓人信服，因而引起主張廢除否決權制度的聲浪，但依我國目前的政治氛圍下，是否廢除否決權制度，環評程序就能達到環境保護之目的，恐必須再從多種角度再探討。最後，政府決策機關若能從各領域的施政落實，重視民意，遵守法治，以及求真的科學精神，如此才是永續發展最堅實的制度條件。 Nations of the world committed to economic development often ignored the environmental protection issues. In those countries either developing or developed which has established their own Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act have showed different extent of deviation in both contents and execution. In general, the purpose of implementing EIA in developing countries is mainly for endorsing governing agencies in public projects to act like a subsidiary body in order to achieve their economic development. While the developing countries are to satisfy the people to live and maintain a better environment. We are a developed country; a higher standard should be taken to execute EIA. In our system, Article 1 of EIA stated: ‘To prevent and to alleviate the adverse effect caused by the developing actions.’ With the intention to include the principle of precautionary in legislation, the setup of our EIA contains two governing agencies, two stages approval and multiple procedures. It provides substantial veto power to the reviewing entities for their conclusions. It seems equipped with multiple protections to ensure the accomplishment of the precautionary purpose. However, in observing the recently reviewed projects, such as the new development of Academia Sinica, Phase III and Phase IV, the site of Xindian Ankeng Buried In Field and the development of Taitung Beautiful Bay Resort … etc., one can easily found that those cases could not be discussed in a rational way due to parties involved insisting on their own view. Thus, unexpectly, making EIA reviewing procedure a furious and conflict process which is contrary to the intention of the law to have the environment value be fully reviewed, respected and considered. The main reason causing the conflict is that the composer of an EIA report is the developer itself or a consulting company they commissioned. The composer’s impartial position is in doubt from the very beginning of the process. Besides that, most EIA cases did not go into the second stage for a substantial review causing it lack of public participation. The lack of independence of an EIA reviewing conclusion leads to a non-persuasive result. Although the Act has been amended for three times, many experts feel that the Act needs to be overhauled in order to be able to maintain a sustainable environment. This article proposes that, First, the Act should not only add weight on public participation and enhance the ability of free access of information, but also to stipulate the qualification of a composer of a EIA report be an impartial third party chosen by the governing agency similar to United States and Germany in the first stage to prevent bias. Second, comparing the actual practice with the system in United States and Germany, the first stage in our system can only be considered as a qualifying process which a veto rights should not be assigned at this stage. This stage can only be concluded in the process of qualification. Third, the lack of independency and effective investigation of the EIA committee is not only against its responsibility but also inconvincible. The voice of abolishing the veto rights can now be heard. We should study cases from different points of view to predict whether the EIA process can achieve the purpose of protecting the environment without veto rights under the current circumstance of our political system. The last, should the policy making body of the government be able to consider the execution of the law from all levels of the people, be able to listen to the people, be able to conform the law, and be able to pursue the true spirit of the science, the foundation of a sustainable environment could be formed.

我國環境影響評估程序之研究 = Research on Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure：Take EIA Two Stage Pprocedures and the Veto System as Topic : 以環評二階段程序與否決權制度為中心
謝, 宏緯

我國環境影響評估程序之研究 = Research on Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure：Take EIA Two Stage Pprocedures and the Veto System as Topic : 以環評二階段程序與否決權制度為中心 / 謝宏緯撰 - [高雄市] : 撰者, 2012[民101]. - 181面 ; 圖，表格 ; 30公分.
參考書目：面165-170.
環評說明書EIA report

我國環境影響評估程序之研究 = Research on Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure：Take EIA Two Stage Pprocedures and the Veto System as Topic : 以環評二階段程序與否決權制度為中心
LDR:08087nam0a2200289 450 001 346041
005 20230619201657.0
009 346041
010 0 $b 精裝
010 0 $b 平裝
100 $a 20121108d2012 k y0chiy05 e
101 1 $a chi $d chi $d eng
102 $a tw
105 $a ak am 000yy
200 1 $a 我國環境影響評估程序之研究 $e 以環評二階段程序與否決權制度為中心 $d Research on Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure：Take EIA Two Stage Pprocedures and the Veto System as Topic $z eng $f 謝宏緯撰
210 $a [高雄市] $c 撰者 $d 2012[民101]
215 0 $a 181面 $c 圖，表格 $d 30公分
300 $a 參考書目：面165-170
314 $a 指導教授：張永明博士
328 $a 碩士論文--國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班
330 $a 世界各國致力於經濟發展之際，常忽略環境保護問題。在已建立環境影響評估（Environmental Impact Assessment）制度國家中，不論是已開發或開發中國家，各國重視此制度之程度差異甚鉅，法制亦迥然不同。就制度整體而言，開發中國家實施EIA之目的，係為配合發展經濟為優先之各目的事業主管機關，已淪為附屬品，而已開發國家，其係以滿足地方民眾保有較佳環境狀態為訴求點，我國既已自詡邁入已開發國家之林，自應採高規格的標準來檢視EIA制度。從環境影響評估法第1條「預防及減輕開發行為對環境造成不良影響，藉以達成環境保護。」之立法目的觀察，含有「預防原則」的精神，因此，我國環評制度在程序上創設雙主管機關、二階段、多階段程序，實體上賦予環評審查結論對於開發行為具有否決之效力，看似多層關卡，應可達「預防原則」之目的。然而，卻在最近的中科三、四期開發案、新店安康掩埋場設置案及台東美麗灣渡假村開發案等等，發現各方往往各持己見而無法理性溝通，使得環境影響評估的審查，原本是期待環境價值可以在決策過程中被重視與考量，在我國反而成為衝突對立的場域，這也是令人始料未及的。而最大的原因在於一開始的環評說明書由開發單位自行或委託環境顧問公司調查撰寫，公正性即遭到質疑；又大部分案件並沒有進入第二階段的實質審查，嚴重欠缺公眾的參與；環評審查結論的獨立性不足，以致於無法使公眾信服。雖然環評法施行以來經過三次小幅度修改，卻未見有全盤性的檢討修正，不少專家學者都主張光靠目前的環評制度，要讓環境永續真的很難，應該要進行全面的修法。本文認為為避免上開問題的產生，首先，除了增加公眾參與及資訊公開程序之強度外，環評一開始的階段，環評說明書應如德、美國兩國係由目的事業主管機關選任公正之第三者負責調查撰寫，以避免偏頗。其次，二階段的制度雖然立意良好，但從實際運作下，比較德、美制度，我國第一階段充其量僅能是篩選程序，因此，在此階段不應賦予否決權的權限，僅能從程序審查而非實質作出審查結論。再者，環境影響評估委員會的組織及職權行使欠缺獨立性及有效調查，不但有違責任政治之嫌且作出的環評結論恐難讓人信服，因而引起主張廢除否決權制度的聲浪，但依我國目前的政治氛圍下，是否廢除否決權制度，環評程序就能達到環境保護之目的，恐必須再從多種角度再探討。最後，政府決策機關若能從各領域的施政落實，重視民意，遵守法治，以及求真的科學精神，如此才是永續發展最堅實的制度條件。 Nations of the world committed to economic development often ignored the environmental protection issues. In those countries either developing or developed which has established their own Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act have showed different extent of deviation in both contents and execution. In general, the purpose of implementing EIA in developing countries is mainly for endorsing governing agencies in public projects to act like a subsidiary body in order to achieve their economic development. While the developing countries are to satisfy the people to live and maintain a better environment. We are a developed country; a higher standard should be taken to execute EIA. In our system, Article 1 of EIA stated: ‘To prevent and to alleviate the adverse effect caused by the developing actions.’ With the intention to include the principle of precautionary in legislation, the setup of our EIA contains two governing agencies, two stages approval and multiple procedures. It provides substantial veto power to the reviewing entities for their conclusions. It seems equipped with multiple protections to ensure the accomplishment of the precautionary purpose. However, in observing the recently reviewed projects, such as the new development of Academia Sinica, Phase III and Phase IV, the site of Xindian Ankeng Buried In Field and the development of Taitung Beautiful Bay Resort … etc., one can easily found that those cases could not be discussed in a rational way due to parties involved insisting on their own view. Thus, unexpectly, making EIA reviewing procedure a furious and conflict process which is contrary to the intention of the law to have the environment value be fully reviewed, respected and considered. The main reason causing the conflict is that the composer of an EIA report is the developer itself or a consulting company they commissioned. The composer’s impartial position is in doubt from the very beginning of the process. Besides that, most EIA cases did not go into the second stage for a substantial review causing it lack of public participation. The lack of independence of an EIA reviewing conclusion leads to a non-persuasive result. Although the Act has been amended for three times, many experts feel that the Act needs to be overhauled in order to be able to maintain a sustainable environment. This article proposes that, First, the Act should not only add weight on public participation and enhance the ability of free access of information, but also to stipulate the qualification of a composer of a EIA report be an impartial third party chosen by the governing agency similar to United States and Germany in the first stage to prevent bias. Second, comparing the actual practice with the system in United States and Germany, the first stage in our system can only be considered as a qualifying process which a veto rights should not be assigned at this stage. This stage can only be concluded in the process of qualification. Third, the lack of independency and effective investigation of the EIA committee is not only against its responsibility but also inconvincible. The voice of abolishing the veto rights can now be heard. We should study cases from different points of view to predict whether the EIA process can achieve the purpose of protecting the environment without veto rights under the current circumstance of our political system. The last, should the policy making body of the government be able to consider the execution of the law from all levels of the people, be able to listen to the people, be able to conform the law, and be able to pursue the true spirit of the science, the foundation of a sustainable environment could be formed.
510 1 $a Research on Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure $e Take EIA Two Stage Pprocedures and the Veto System as Topic $z eng
517 1 $a 以環評二階段程序與否決權制度為中心 $z chi
610 0 $a 環評說明書 $a 公眾參與 $a 資訊公開 $a 獨立機關 $a 否決權
610 1 $a EIA report $a Public participation $a Information disclosure $a Independent agency $a Veto rights
681 $a 008M/0019 $b 380101 0432 $v 2007年版
700 1 $a 謝 $b 宏緯 $4 撰 $3 576273
712 0 2 $a 國立高雄大學 $b 法律學系碩士班 $3 166036
801 0 $a tw $b NUK $c 20121107 $g CCR
856 7 $z 電子資源 $2 http $u http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/23622443911332622973