氣候變遷下的巨災因應：以預警原則為中心

Abstract

除了整體性的氣候系統變異之外，過去氣象統計中發生機率極低的極端氣候事件大增也是氣候變遷的一大特色。具有「發生時空之不確定性」及「災害強度暴增」兩大特性的極端氣候事件挑戰了現行高度仰賴歷史資料作為建置基礎的災害防救法制，而災害防救法制的失靈將使得高強度的暴雨、熱帶氣旋、熱浪、寒流及乾旱等極端氣候事件釀成巨災，造成人類社會巨大的人身、財產及自然資源損失。從全球視角拉回台灣，氣候變遷下的極端氣候事件將再度惡化原本就因為先天地理環境不良及後天人為過度開發的環境脆弱性，為未來台灣所不可忽視的風險。因此，本文的主要關懷在於如何建立一套能有效因應巨災的災害防救法制，以妥善回應極端氣候事件對人類社會的衝擊。 為了回答上述問題，本文擬從事實面出發，先釐清極端氣候事件所帶來的巨災與過往災害有何不同及相對應的制度需求為何後，再回歸制度面的討論，並提出建言。本文的第二章分析氣候變遷巨災的特性，具體指出因極端氣候事件而生的災害具有「發生時空之科學不確定性」及「災害強度暴增」兩大特性，導致仰賴過去災害統計資料為基礎而設計的災害防救系統無力因應發生時空或強度「出乎預料」極端氣候災害。從而，本文第三章借鏡歐盟及國際海洋法領域運用「預警原則」(The Precautionary Principle)決策於不確定性的經驗，作為回應同樣具有高度科學不確定性的極端氣候事件的理論基礎。本文在理論層面主張，由於「預警原則」高度抽象的規範方式、難以計算成本效益的風險導致其適用效果已從強調「預警性的管制結果」轉移到建構一套「預警性的管制程序」以提供決策者決定是否及如何管制時更堅實的正當性基礎。從抽象到具體，本文在制度設計層面上主張具體化「預警原則」以回應不確定性的決策程序中至少包含：「跨領域的專家參與」、「常民的早期參與機制」、「最壞情況分析(Worst-Case Scenario Analysis)」、「資訊回饋制度」四個特色。 第四章及第五章則回歸我國災害防救法制，應用前兩章的研究成果，分析、批評現有法制之不足，並聚焦於如何提升現有災害防救制度在氣候變遷時代的制度量能。鑒於預警原則的主要效能在於「事前」引導公私部門作成決策的方向及程序。因此，本論文第四章及第五章也將主要關懷置於災害發生前的防災、備災階段。在第四章中，本文將從時空的脈絡分析介紹災害防救法在災前、災中、災後的主要任務以及中央與地方的各類行政機關在災害防救工作的分工。第五章則借鏡於「預警原則」在程序設計的啟示，將理論應用於實際，嘗試建立具備處理氣候變遷災害制度量能的災害防救體系。延續以時空為脈絡的分析方法，本文主張，從時間的面向而言，我國災害防救法制應該建立定期檢討制度走向的循環式資訊回饋系統，也應該把向後看的目光轉向未來，加強事前預測、模擬、分析「最壞情況」的發生情境及回應方案的程序機制。而從空間的面向而言，則可以分成抽象的增加程序參與機制所能涵蓋之意見類型的深度及廣度以及具體的加強中央與地方的資訊回饋系統兩點。

The aim of this thesis, which is also a pressing need of our society nowadays, is to build a legal mechanism that can adequately and effectively cope with catastrophes related to climate change. In the era of climate change, the rise of frequency and intensity of extreme weather and climate events greatly challenges the current legal systems, thus causing serious damages on human society as well as natural environment. Compared to other places in the world, Taiwan is especially vulnerable to catastrophes due to its geological and topographic structure. Hence, the catastrophic risk entailed by climate change cannot be overlooked from both global and local perspectives. This thesis begins with a description of the scientific facts of climate change before turning its focus to the design of an ideal legal mechanism. In Chapter 2, a brief introduction of climate change will be given, and the two characteristics of extreme weather will be induced: “the temporal and spatial uncertainty of its occurrence” and “unexpectedly high intensity.” The current legal system designed based on historical statistics has in many instances been a failure owing to its inability, both scientifically and methodologically, to foresee extreme weather events. To cope with uncertainty, this thesis recourses to “the precautionary principle” as its theoretical basis in Chapter 3. To clarify how the precautionary principle functions, the author analyzes international agreements, EU policies and the relevant case-law of international law of sea and argues that there is a readable shift in the applications of the precautionary principle from “justifying prior intervention to control significant risks” to “serving as a procedural requirement in the decision-making process.” Following the lessons learned from foreign jurisdictions, the author claims that four characteristics-early participation of laypersons, participation of interdisciplinary experts, information feedback system, and worst-case scenario analysis-should be implemented in the decision-making process related to scientific uncertainty, such as catastrophic risk in climate change. Chapter 4 and 5 focus on the domestic perspective of catastrophes related. Based on previous findings and aiming at building a legal mechanism with adequate capacity to deal with catastrophic risk, these sections will analyze, criticize and thereby provide suggestions for the current Disaster Prevention and Protection Act of Taiwan (the “DPP Act”). This thesis claims that the DPP Act should be amended in compliance with the precautionary principle. Temporally speaking, a periodical information feedback system should be implemented in the process of making a “Plan of Disaster Prevention and Protection.” Also, instead of looking back, we should boldly turn our focus on the unknown future. Hence, the foundation on which actions concerning disaster prevention and protection are justified lies no longer on historical statistics, but on the safety threshold set by the worst-case scenario analysis. Spatially speaking, the gap between center and local government experts and laypersons in the decision-making process should be narrowed to provide policy makers with a more comprehensive picture of what people need in dealing with catastrophic risks.