臺灣濕地保育法的典範分析

本研究以國際上保護區典範由傳統菁英集權的科學管理逐步走向分權及參與的趨勢為本，2013年最新創制的濕地保育法為材料，剖析其法條所蘊含的制度設計，並透過參與觀察及深度訪談了解宜蘭地區重要濕地的個案實務執行狀況，論述濕地保育法的典範與挑戰。研究結果發現，濕地保育法的條文顯現多元目標、具參與元素的劃設、修訂及廢除程序、彈性的資源明智利用、跨界整合的區域考量、公告劃設前的暫時保育措施、棲地補償機制等新典範；但仍具中央機關科學科層集權、政府經費獨撐等舊典範特徵。爬梳宜蘭地區重要濕地的個案實務經驗，發現濕地法第40條認定法前公告的國家級與國際級重要濕地，雖表面顧慮成全了行政效率的考量，卻掩蓋了程序容許民眾參與的制度善意。忽視人文面向的因子，引發私有地主對保護區的反彈與對政府的不信任。與既有保護區的高度重疊，也有浪費行政資源之虞。參照國際保護區的發展路徑，審視臺灣社會的演進氛圍，顯然民眾參與是典範轉移的關鍵。濕地法終究是在制度設計上跨出了一步，雖然被第40條所崩壞。未來臺灣保護區勢必應越來越看重社會人文的因子與權益關係人，特別是在地社區的參與，治理的型態也應益漸多元。

關鍵字

參與；典範轉移；保護區；明智利用；區域保育；個案實務

並列摘要

Based on the paradigm shift of global protected areas from traditional centralization and scientific management to decentralization and participation, in this study, we analyzed the newest Wetland Conservation Act enacted 2013, discussed its institutional design, and collected implementation experiences of the Wetlands of Importance in Yilan County, to explore its paradigm and challenges. We found that there were several characteristics of new paradigm shown in the Wetland Conservation Act, such as diverse objectives, public participation in the designation, amending and abolishing processes of Wetlands of Importance, flexible wise use on resources, transboundary and regionalism on conservation, temporary protection before announcement, and wetland compensatory mitigation measures. Somehow, it still kept those traditional paradigm like centralization and science management approach, and dependence on governmental funding. Learnt from implementing experiences of Wetlands of Importance in Yilan County, it set off the original design to open for public participation and ignored social considerations by the article 40 which authorized the Government to recognize those Wetlands of International and National Importance claimed before the enactment of the legislation, though this could promote efficiency of administrative procedure. This caused protests and distrust with the Government by the private land owners. Another problem was that about 40% of Wetlands of Importance overlapped with existing protected areas, which attracted criticism on over investment of resources. Refer to the development path of global protected areas and social evolution of Taiwanese society, obviously public participation should be regarded as one of key elements for paradigm shift. It has showed the importance of public participation for the Wetland Conservation Act, thought ruined by its article 40. In the future, there must be more attentions on social factors and participation of stakeholders, especially local communities for protected areas in Taiwan. So do more diversified governance types.