Research on Domestic Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure －Take EIA Two Stage Pprocedures and the Veto System as Topic

• Main Authors: Hung-wei Hsieh, 謝宏緯
• Other Authors: Yeong-ming Chang
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2012
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/37163270526593624149

碩士 === 國立高雄大學 === 法律學系碩士班 === 100 === 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.