한·중 환경영향평가 비교연구

Abstract

Since the 1960s, a growing` environmental awareness has increasingly focused attention on the interactions between development activities and their environmental consequences. In the developed countries this has led the environmental factors be explicitly considered in the decision-making processes. A similar situation is now occurring in Korea and China. In this regard, this study aims at contributing to a better knowledge of environmental conservation policies in both countries through the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) systems. This report is divided into twinfolds of EIA systems and case studies in Korea and China. The first part of the report reveals that although the EIA systems in both countries were initiated in 1980s, the actual supporting policies and actions began in the early 1990s. In Korea, the EIA Act was enacted in 1993, and this has been replaced by the Integrated Impact Assessment Act in December 1999. The independent law of EIA has been adopted in 2002 and enacted in September 2003 in China. Based on the current EIA regulations, while activities requiring EIA consists of 62 project types in 17 fields in Korea, China utilize the screening methods to decide the activities subject to the three EIA categories of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Environmental Impact Report Form, and Environmental Impact Registration Form. The EIA investigations are incorporated in an EIS, reversing Korean procedures in ter`minology. The newly adopted Chinese EIA Act includes the public participation as one of the processes while public hearing has long been a compulsory in the Korean EIA process. Finally, the detailed regulation of the EIA in China is prepared at the prefecture level to incorporate the local environment appropriately. At the second part of this report, case study on the EIA of golf course development comparison between Korea and China based largely on their EIS was carried out. The EIS of both countries were prepared by agencies who were certified by both governments. Review or inspection process of the EIS was similar, but operation was slightly different from each other. The draft, EIS, and 3 supplements were prepared and reviewed for approval of the EIA in Korea, whereas only the draft and EIS were prepared and inspected for ratification in China. The duration for EIS preparation and for approval processes in Korea are usually longer than in China. Natural environment of both sites was similar, except for the weather conditions. The EIS of Korea has a simple list, but treats various items, and try to focus on systematic and formal contents instead of reflection on the real situations. The EIS of China is opposite to that of Korea in terms of important assessment items selection. Korea had 8 items for the EIS, whereas 3 items for the China. Scope, season, and number of investigation on the item(especially ecosystem) are more detailed in the EIS of Korea, whereas they are comparatively not so specific in the EIS of China. An advanced assessment technique for ecosystem of the projected area, such as a landscape ecological method was applied in the Chinese EIA, but not in Korean EIA. The section of impact evaluation and mitigation methods in Korean EIS was written more likely by a fixed, superficial format rather than by specific reflection of environmental impacts generated by work processes. The techniques or methods of mitigation of Chinese EIS were theoretical and was not really specific to minimize the impacts. After the golf course development, problems might be raised in water quality, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem, causing habitat alterations in Korea. In contrast, China is more concerned with damage of slope caused by road construction, scenery effect of building, water quality, hydrology, freshwater ecosystem. The method of public participation is different. Exhibition of the draft to public and an explanatory meeting are used in Korea to collect public opinions. Investigation of a questionnaire on the local residence is used to collect public opinions in China. The following policy recommendations were suggested based on the findings from this study: firstly, enhance the social awareness that EIA is a consultation process, not a final decision-making step; secondly, the screening system should be introduced in Korea for giving the flexibility of the EIA system; thirdly, to predict the future environmental situation more correctly, both Korea and China need an accumulated database; fourthly, practical integration of various impact assessment systems is needed for increasing the efficiency of national resource uses; and lastly, innovative and deliberative method of public participation approach should be adopted to solve the environmental problems efficiently.