氣候變遷主流化於官方發展援助之研究: 以台灣與西班牙在瓜地馬拉的案例研究

Abstract

在氣候變遷加速及開發中國家與最不發達國家對氣候調適需求日益增加的背景下，將氣候目標有效納入官方發展援助（ODA）已被經濟合作暨發展組織（OECD）、聯合國開發計劃署（UNDP）及歐盟等主要發展行動者廣泛認可。儘管已有大量關於傳統援助國氣候主流化措施的研究，關於新興援助國如何回應這些氣候行動要求的研究仍然有限。本研究即旨在填補此一研究缺口，通過比較分析西班牙與台灣這兩個援助體系之下的氣候主流化實踐加以探討。西班牙為OECD發展援助委員會（DAC）及歐盟成員國，台灣則為一個外交受限、未被多邊援助體系正式承認的新興援助國；以瓜地馬拉為案例地進行實證分析。 本研究運用氣候政策整合（CPI）的方法論，並以四階段的政策循環框架──議程設定、政策過程、政策輸出及政策執行──作為分析依據，評估氣候目標在機構策略、規劃工具、項目設計與執行層面中的整合程度。研究結果顯示，西班牙展現出較為結構化與制度化的氣候主流化做法，其推動動能主要來自外部規範體系。然而，其整合行動仍侷限於與氣候直接相關的部門，反映出的是對程序的遵循，而非真正的轉型性改變。相較之下，台灣的做法更具彈性，反映外交務實性與受援國需求導向的邏輯，使得即便是在高度氣候風險部門，其氣候整合仍呈現零散與選擇性特徵。本研究最終強調，要實現有效的氣候主流化，政治意願、制度能力，以及援助國與受援國間的互動關係，皆為不可或缺的關鍵因素。

In the context of accelerating climate change and the growing need for climate adaptation in developing and least developed countries, the effective integration of climate objectives into Official Development Assistance (ODA) has been recognised by major development actors such as OECD, UNDP, and the EU. While extensive research exists on the climate mainstreaming efforts of traditional donors, much less is known about how emerging donors engage with these imperatives. This study addresses this research gap by conducting a comparative analysis of climate mainstreaming practices within the development cooperation systems of Spain, a member of the OECD-DAC and the European Union, and Taiwan, a diplomatically constrained emerging donor not formally recognised within multilateral aid frameworks; with Guatemala as a case study. Drawing from the Climate Policy Integration (CPI) methodology, this study uses a four-stage policy cycle framework: agenda-setting, policy process, policy output, and policy implementation — to evaluate the extent to which climate objectives are embedded across institutional strategies, planning tools, project design, and execution. The results reveal that Spain demonstrates a more structured and institutionalised approach to climate mainstreaming, largely driven by external normative frameworks. However, its integration remains concentrated in climate-relevant sectors, reflecting procedural compliance rather than transformative change. Conversely, Taiwan’s approach is characterized by its flexibility, diplomatic pragmatism, and a demand-driven logic that results in ad hoc and selective climate integration, even within sectors directly impacted by climate risks. Ultimately, this research emphasises the importance of political will, institutional capacity, and donor–recipient dynamics in achieving effective climate mainstreaming.