反思臺灣原住民族地區地熱能開發－治理僵局與次政治競合的浮現

Abstract

臺灣在 2050 淨零碳排的承諾下積極推動再生能源，其中地熱能因低碳與穩定特性被視為潛力基載能源。然而，既有研究多聚焦於技術與資源評估，對於地熱開發進入原住民族地區後所引發的制度矛盾與社會衝突關注仍不足。本研究以此為切入點，結合檔案分析、半結構式訪談及參與式觀察，聚焦在臺東縣太麻里鄉金崙村為核心的原住民族地區，探討制度遲滯治理與社會信任的交互作用。 研究結果顯示，地熱發展的主要瓶頸並非技術不足，而在於治理體系的結構性缺陷。地熱能從《礦業法》轉移至《溫泉法》管轄，發生規範過於繁瑣的問題，雖然政府於《再生能源發展條例》之中增訂地熱專章，但子法設計也無法有效強化投資誘因。同時，《原住民族土地或部落範圍土地劃設辦法》將傳統領域限縮於公有地，架空部落集體諮商同意權，進而加深「制度性風險」。並且，環評程序排除與回饋機制缺位，更導致部落、政府與業者之間陷入更深層的不信任關係。此外，本研究亦觀察到地熱能開發過程中次政治力量的行動與競合，繼承自數十年來原住民族運動的能量，並在公民團體的協力下逐步擴展。原住民族社群在運動經驗累積下，結合 NGO、學界與跨國人權框架，逐漸由被動抗爭者轉變為能提出治理提案的行動主體。這種轉變不僅使社群具備更穩健的知識基礎與組織力量來監督政策，也使地熱能開發過程成為檢驗國家制度正當性的重要場域。 理論層面上，本研究將風險社會在地化為源於治理失靈的「制度性風險」與「風險內爆」，並透過次政治的理論框架，闡明原住民族行動由抵抗轉化為建構「社會強健知識」的制度創新過程，最後透過反身性治理視角，揭示制度反身性修正的動態。政策建議則主張建立資源共管單位以確保決策對等，並推動混合式共同所有權以強化部落實質賦權，並以在地治理與開發契約填補法制空白，以期奠定未來更完善的原住民族權利保障基礎。 綜上所述，臺灣原住民族地區的地熱開發經驗表明，能源轉型不僅是技術與資源的問題，更是土地正義、文化保存與治理正當性的考驗。此研究不僅深化對臺灣能源治理的理解，也對全球能源正義的比較研究提供重要啟示。

Committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, Taiwan is actively promoting renewable energy development. Among these sources, geothermal energy is viewed as a potential baseload power source due to its low-carbon nature and stability. However, existing research predominantly focuses on technical and resource assessments, paying insufficient attention to the institutional contradictions and social conflicts triggered when geothermal development enters indigenous territories. Taking this as a point of departure, this study combines archival analysis, semi-structured interviews, and participant observation. Focusing on indigenous areas centered around Jinlun Village in Taimali Township, Taitung County, it explores the interplay between institutional lag, governance, and social trust. The results indicate that the primary bottleneck for geothermal development lies not in technical insufficiency but in structural defects within the governance system. The regulatory jurisdiction for geothermal energy has shifted from the Mining Act to the Hot Spring Act, resulting in overly cumbersome regulations. Although the government added a specific chapter on geothermal energy to the Renewable Energy Development Act, the design of the subsidiary laws has failed to effectively strengthen investment incentives. Simultaneously, the Regulations for the Demarcation of Indigenous Land or Tribal Land restrict traditional territories to public lands, effectively undermining the indigenous right to consultation and consent, thereby deepening "institutional risk." Furthermore, the exclusion from environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures and the absence of benefit-sharing mechanisms have plunged the relationship between tribes, the government, and developers into a deeper state of mistrust. In addition, this study observes the mobilization and contestation of sub-political forces during the geothermal development process. These forces inherit the energy from decades of indigenous movements and are expanding with the collaboration of civil society groups. Accumulating movement experience and aligning with NGOs, academia, and transnational human rights frameworks, indigenous communities are gradually transforming from passive protesters into active agents capable of proposing governance initiatives. This transformation not only equips communities with a more robust knowledge base and organizational capacity to monitor policy but also turns the geothermal energy development process into a critical arena for examining the legitimacy of state institutions. Theoretically, this study localizes "risk society" as "institutional risk" and "risk implosion" stemming from governance failure. Utilizing the theoretical framework of sub-politics, it elucidates the process by which indigenous actions shift from resistance to institutional innovation that constructs "socially robust knowledge." Finally, through the lens of reflexive governance, it reveals the dynamics of institutional reflexive correction. Policy recommendations advocate for establishing resource co-management bodies to ensure decision-making parity, promoting hybrid co-ownership models to enhance substantive tribal empowerment, and utilizing local governance and development contracts to fill legal voids, thereby laying the foundation for more comprehensive indigenous rights protection in the future. In conclusion, the experience of geothermal development in Taiwan's indigenous areas demonstrates that energy transition is not merely a technical or resource issue but a test of land justice, cultural preservation, and governance legitimacy. This study not only deepens the understanding of Taiwan's energy governance but also offers significant insights for comparative research on global energy justice.