환경분야 갈등유형 및 해결방안 연구

Abstract

In recent years, social recognition on seriousness of environmental conflicts has grown and accordingly, resolving those conflicts are in great demand. However, practical and effective conflict resolution programs have not been introduced. These environmental conflicts and disputes result in project delay and socially-ill effects such as social costs incurred by unproductive disputes, distrust on the government, and clash among the stake-holders. The purpose of this study is to analyze the causes of environmental conflicts, to identify legislative system that needs improvement, and to set the basic direction for conflict resolution through examining environmental conflict cases selected by 'The Participatory Government'. According to causes of conflict, environmental conflicts can be classified into conflict on values, conflict on interests, conflict on facts, and conflict on structure. Value conflict reflects confrontation between development and preservation. Fact conflict is related to uncertainty of information and knowledge on environment. Conflict on facts occurs especially when dealing with a large-scale project where we are not able to accurately measure the degree and scope of conflicts. Lastly, structural conflict can be resolved to some degree by reorganizing systems and putting sensible and transparent process in place. Environmental conflict cases that 'The Participatory Government' has faced are all featured by four causes of conflict mentioned above. To take Seoul Ring Road and Gyeongbu rapid-transit railway for example, the aspect of value conflict has become an issue when the aspect of interest is insignificant. Other cases such as Gyeongin canal, Saemangeum, Bu-an, and Han-tan river reflect the aspects of both the value conflict and interest conflict together. To some degrees, fact conflict and structural conflict appear in all the cases. For most disputed environmental conflict cases, it is not easy to judge validity or discriminate between truth or error. To ease and resolve environmental conflicts, we need to set up a cooperative framework for mutual agreement on a long term basis. In order to achieve this, Strategic Environmental Assessment needs to be introduced by modifying the current Environmental Impact Assessment and Prior Environmental Review System. In addition, we need to encourage citizens to participate in planning and implementation of business projects or programs from the early stages of a development activity. Since every environmental conflict can not be prevented, ex post facto conflict managing system can be considered. When the government gets involved as one of the stake-holders in environmental conflicts such as Gyeongin Canal, Bu-an, and Han-tan river, National Environmental Dispute Resolution Commission is not able to play a role of mediator. Therefore, the establishment of the third party that can mediate conflicts when the government becomes a stake-holder is necessary. It is desirable to consider establishing a third party mediator in the context of alternative means of dispute resolution. Enactment of the 'Conflict Management Fundamental Law'(a provisional name) and the Establishment of 'Conflict Management Support Center'(a provisional name), that are presently driven by the Presidential Commission on Sustainable Development, will be the first step in institutionalization of Alternative Dispute Resolution.