環保專案成果報告查詢系統

專案計畫編號	EPA-94-H103-02-132
經費年度	094
計畫經費	3,580 千元
專案開始日期	2005/03/01
專案結束日期	2006/03/31
專案主持人	陳慈陽
主辦單位	廢管處
承辦人
執行單位	台灣法學會
專案分類	廢棄物管理
中文關鍵字	廢棄物、廢棄物資源、資源回收再利用
英文關鍵字	Waste, Extended Producer Responsibility, the recovery of resource
協同主持人	郭麗珍
共同主持人
計畫聯絡人	台灣法學會
計畫聯絡電話	02-23411620
計畫聯絡信箱	twlaw.society@msa.hinet.net

中文摘要	我國現行廢棄物處理與資源回收制度自民國九十二年七月三日資源回收再利用法實施以來，廢棄物清理法與資源回收再利用法兩法並列之立法模式，在法規適用衝突、相關重要概念與解釋上乃至執行之經濟效益上，皆已出現不少改善與釐清之問題。由於概念與權責不劃分清楚的兩法分立之立法模式，也阻礙了由源頭管制至管末處理作有效的整合管理之目標。資源回收再利用法自公佈實施以來，各界對資源回收再利用法第二條對再生資源構成要件，亦即再生資源之經濟及回收再利用技術可行性要件之認定標準仍存疑竇。因經濟及回收再利用技術可行性要件會跟隨市場因素變動而有所變動，如何制定客觀的認定標準仍有待研擬。再則，資源回收再利用法規定主管「再使用」與「再生利用」之機關不同，加上與現行廢棄物清理法對「再利用」、「處理」之定義亦有異，兩法併行所造成主管機關權責重疊與執法標準相異的結果，造成業者無所適從。更甚者，一方面廢棄物清理法對於「廢棄物」概念並未予以定義，但是另一方面於條文中亦認為廢棄物仍屬「再利用」行為之客體。準此，同為再利用行為之客體之廢棄物清理法的「廢棄物」與資源回收再利用法的「再生物資」二者關係，以及區分界線與標準為何，皆從現行法當中不易清楚得知。綜言之，廢棄物法制是否仍應繼續採取兩法並存之規範方式，或是應該參考國際間目前多數國家之廢棄物與資源合併規範方式，為健全廢棄物管理法制實有刻不容緩著手進行研究的必要。本計畫係針對現行「廢棄物清理法」與「資源回收再利用法」進行整併，並同時藉由此一修法契機亦透過對於巴塞爾公約，以及其他環保先進國家與區域（例如美國、德國、日本以及歐盟）之廢棄物管理相關法制之參酌與引介的方式，以期使我國未來之廢棄物管理法制能完備，並且與世界廢棄物管理政策潮流接軌。本計畫所擬之草案中所包含之具體建議如下：一、未來應採取如巴塞爾公約以及歐盟等相關廢棄物管理法制，採取廣義之廢棄物定義，亦即廢棄物概念應包含既有意義之廢棄物，以及可作為資源再利用之廢棄物。並且參考前述外國立法例之規範方式，將廢棄物與相關規範對象與清理行為之內容明確規定。二、為促進產品綠色設計與生產，以減少產品於未來成為大量且不易處理之廢棄物，應透過責任業者之行為義務取代費用義務的方式，以提高其經濟誘因。對於廢棄物資源利用亦應納入廢棄物法制之規範與管理，避免「以資源利用之名，行非法廢棄物處理之實」的發生。
中文關鍵字	廢棄物、廢棄物資源、資源回收再利用

中文摘要

我國現行廢棄物處理與資源回收制度自民國九十二年七月三日資源回收再利用法實施以來，廢棄物清理法與資源回收再利用法兩法並列之立法模式，在法規適用衝突、相關重要概念與解釋上乃至執行之經濟效益上，皆已出現不少改善與釐清之問題。由於概念與權責不劃分清楚的兩法分立之立法模式，也阻礙了由源頭管制至管末處理作有效的整合管理之目標。資源回收再利用法自公佈實施以來，各界對資源回收再利用法第二條對再生資源構成要件，亦即再生資源之經濟及回收再利用技術可行性要件之認定標準仍存疑竇。因經濟及回收再利用技術可行性要件會跟隨市場因素變動而有所變動，如何制定客觀的認定標準仍有待研擬。再則，資源回收再利用法規定主管「再使用」與「再生利用」之機關不同，加上與現行廢棄物清理法對「再利用」、「處理」之定義亦有異，兩法併行所造成主管機關權責重疊與執法標準相異的結果，造成業者無所適從。更甚者，一方面廢棄物清理法對於「廢棄物」概念並未予以定義，但是另一方面於條文中亦認為廢棄物仍屬「再利用」行為之客體。準此，同為再利用行為之客體之廢棄物清理法的「廢棄物」與資源回收再利用法的「再生物資」二者關係，以及區分界線與標準為何，皆從現行法當中不易清楚得知。綜言之，廢棄物法制是否仍應繼續採取兩法並存之規範方式，或是應該參考國際間目前多數國家之廢棄物與資源合併規範方式，為健全廢棄物管理法制實有刻不容緩著手進行研究的必要。本計畫係針對現行「廢棄物清理法」與「資源回收再利用法」進行整併，並同時藉由此一修法契機亦透過對於巴塞爾公約，以及其他環保先進國家與區域（例如美國、德國、日本以及歐盟）之廢棄物管理相關法制之參酌與引介的方式，以期使我國未來之廢棄物管理法制能完備，並且與世界廢棄物管理政策潮流接軌。本計畫所擬之草案中所包含之具體建議如下：一、未來應採取如巴塞爾公約以及歐盟等相關廢棄物管理法制，採取廣義之廢棄物定義，亦即廢棄物概念應包含既有意義之廢棄物，以及可作為資源再利用之廢棄物。並且參考前述外國立法例之規範方式，將廢棄物與相關規範對象與清理行為之內容明確規定。二、為促進產品綠色設計與生產，以減少產品於未來成為大量且不易處理之廢棄物，應透過責任業者之行為義務取代費用義務的方式，以提高其經濟誘因。對於廢棄物資源利用亦應納入廢棄物法制之規範與管理，避免「以資源利用之名，行非法廢棄物處理之實」的發生。

中文關鍵字

廢棄物、廢棄物資源、資源回收再利用

類型	檔名	檔案大小	說明	最新版公開日期
期末報告	兩法合一（定稿本）3.pdf	9MB	[期末報告]公開完整版	2006/8/1 上午 12:00:00

摘要	The law of resource recycling and recovery has been implement since 2003 on July, 3, the current system of offal treatment and resource recycling in our country, the legislative way that the law of offal cleaning and the law of resource recycling and recovery are formulated side by side has already many questions relevant to improvement and making clear it on the conflict of regulation, relative important concept and the explanation and even in the execution of economy. Because the legislative way of the two laws formulated each other doesn’t been divided clearly on the concept and responsibility, it also hinders the goal of effective management from controlled source to the end. Since the law of resource recycling and recovery has been announced and implemented, there are still suspicions from all walk of life relevant to the condition of §2, resource recycling code which is a feasible confirmative standard of recoverable economy and technology of recovery. Because the feasible condition of technology of economy and recovery will change with market factor, how to make a objective standard still remains to grind and draft. Moreover, the law of resource recycling and recovery rules that the mechanism of re-use and recovery are different; In addition, the current law of offal cleaning relevant to the definition of re-use and treatment is also different with it; the two laws implemented side by side results in the power and responsibility of authority overlapping and the diversity of law-enforced standard, and even making proprietor uncertain what to do. Moreover, on the one hand, offal cleaning code relevant to the concept of the offal doesn’t rule its definition, but on the other hand, it also considers that the offal is still a suitable object for recovery. Hence, it’s uneasy known in current law what’s its boundary line and distinguishing standard between the object of recovery in offal cleaning code, the offal, and reborn materials in the law of resource recycling and recovery. In brief, whether the offal code should take the norm that two laws are formulated side by side as before, or should consult international norm of merger offal with resource at present, there is a very urgent necessity about carrying on research in fact in order to perfect the managing system of offal. This plan is combining the offal cleaning code with the law of resource recycling and recovery, and making our country’s offal cleaning code complete in the future by the opportunity of revising the law through the referential and guiding way relevant to offal manage of Basel Convention and other environmental protection advanced countries and areas (for example U.S.A, Germany, Japan and European Union) at the same time, and integrating with the trend of the offal managing policy in the world. The concrete suggestion included in the draft that this plan drafts is as follows: First, we should adopt broad definition of offal in the future such as the relevant managing system of offal in Basel Convention and European Union. Namely the concept of the offal should include fixed meaningful offal, and the offal can be re-utilized as resource. And consulting the above-mention foreign legislative example way of standardizing, we should clearly formulate the offal, regulative object and contents of cleaning behavior. Second, we should replace the duty of expense with the behavior of responsible proprietor in charge to improve its economic inducement for promoting the green design and production of products, in order to reduce becoming a large number of intractable offal in the future. We should also take the norm and management of offal’s code relevant resource recovery for avoiding emergence on “with name of utilization of resource, walk illegal offal treatment real”.
英文關鍵字	Waste, Extended Producer Responsibility, the recovery of resource

摘要

The law of resource recycling and recovery has been implement since 2003 on July, 3, the current system of offal treatment and resource recycling in our country, the legislative way that the law of offal cleaning and the law of resource recycling and recovery are formulated side by side has already many questions relevant to improvement and making clear it on the conflict of regulation, relative important concept and the explanation and even in the execution of economy. Because the legislative way of the two laws formulated each other doesn’t been divided clearly on the concept and responsibility, it also hinders the goal of effective management from controlled source to the end. Since the law of resource recycling and recovery has been announced and implemented, there are still suspicions from all walk of life relevant to the condition of §2, resource recycling code which is a feasible confirmative standard of recoverable economy and technology of recovery. Because the feasible condition of technology of economy and recovery will change with market factor, how to make a objective standard still remains to grind and draft. Moreover, the law of resource recycling and recovery rules that the mechanism of re-use and recovery are different; In addition, the current law of offal cleaning relevant to the definition of re-use and treatment is also different with it; the two laws implemented side by side results in the power and responsibility of authority overlapping and the diversity of law-enforced standard, and even making proprietor uncertain what to do. Moreover, on the one hand, offal cleaning code relevant to the concept of the offal doesn’t rule its definition, but on the other hand, it also considers that the offal is still a suitable object for recovery. Hence, it’s uneasy known in current law what’s its boundary line and distinguishing standard between the object of recovery in offal cleaning code, the offal, and reborn materials in the law of resource recycling and recovery. In brief, whether the offal code should take the norm that two laws are formulated side by side as before, or should consult international norm of merger offal with resource at present, there is a very urgent necessity about carrying on research in fact in order to perfect the managing system of offal. This plan is combining the offal cleaning code with the law of resource recycling and recovery, and making our country’s offal cleaning code complete in the future by the opportunity of revising the law through the referential and guiding way relevant to offal manage of Basel Convention and other environmental protection advanced countries and areas (for example U.S.A, Germany, Japan and European Union) at the same time, and integrating with the trend of the offal managing policy in the world. The concrete suggestion included in the draft that this plan drafts is as follows: First, we should adopt broad definition of offal in the future such as the relevant managing system of offal in Basel Convention and European Union. Namely the concept of the offal should include fixed meaningful offal, and the offal can be re-utilized as resource. And consulting the above-mention foreign legislative example way of standardizing, we should clearly formulate the offal, regulative object and contents of cleaning behavior. Second, we should replace the duty of expense with the behavior of responsible proprietor in charge to improve its economic inducement for promoting the green design and production of products, in order to reduce becoming a large number of intractable offal in the future. We should also take the norm and management of offal’s code relevant resource recovery for avoiding emergence on “with name of utilization of resource, walk illegal offal treatment real”.

英文關鍵字

Waste, Extended Producer Responsibility, the recovery of resource