한·중 환경영향평가 비교연구

Title
한·중 환경영향평가 비교연구
Other Titles
골프장사례를 중심으로
Authors
최재용
Co-Author
권영한; 정익철; Zhe Zhen NAN; Wei-Hong ZHU; Ying NAN; Chunjing LI
Issue Date
2003-12-30
Publisher
한국환경정책·평가연구원
Series/Report No.
정책보고서 : 2003-05
Page
172p.
URI
http://repository.kei.re.kr/handle/2017.oak/19132
Language
한국어
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 In Korea, the EIA Act was enacted in 1993, and this has been replaced by the Integrated Impact Assessment Act in December 1999.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.

Table Of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction 1

Chapter 2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System in Korea 5

1. Historical Context of Environmental Legal Status and EIA 5
a. Introduction period (1977~1981) 7
b. Implementation Period (1982~1992) 9
c. Enhancement Period (1993 ~ present) 12

2. Current EIA system 15
a. Projects and Items for EIA 15
b. Procedure of EIA 17
1) Preparation state 17
2) Consultation stage 20
3) Management stage 21
c. Public participation in EIA 23
d. EIA Practice 26

Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System in China 31

1. The establishment of China’s EIA System 31

2. Development of China EIA System 32
A. Standardization and construction period (1979~1989) 33
1) Legal standard 33
2) The regional regulations 35
b. Strengthening and perfecting period (1990~1998) 38
C. Enhancement period (1999~present) 42

3. Characteristics of China’s EIA system 44

4. Legal system of China’s EIA system 47

5. The administrative procedure of government’s EIA 48
a. Classified selection of the environmental protection. 48
b. The inspection of the assessment outline 50
c. Quality control for the EIA 50
d. Examination and approval of the EIA 51

6. Work procedure for the EIA 53
a. EIA procedures 53
b. Determination of the EIA grade. 53
c. The drafting of the EIA outline. 55

7 .EIA public participation in China 58

8. Summary of EIAs of Korea and China 59

Chapter 4. EIA of golf courses in Korea and China 63

1. General descriptions on the golf courses 63

2. Site descriptions of golf courses 65

3. Comparison of the Basic Outline of the EIA Report 66

4. Comparison of Relevant Legislations for the Golf Course EIA 68

5. Comparison of the EIA Processes 69

6. Comparison of the EIA Items 71
a. Korea 71
1) In Construction 71
2) Operation 72
b. China 74

7. Comparison of contents on the focused assessment components 75
a. Korea 75
b. China 77

8. Distinctive difference in EIA between Korea and China 81

9. Strong and weak point of EIS in Korea and China 84
a. Strong points in the EIS in China 84
b. Weak points of the EIS in China 85
c. Strong points of the EIS in Korea 87
d. Weak points of the EIS in Korea 86

10. Operational impacts of the golf course in Korea and China 86
a. In the case of China 86
b. In the case of Korea 87

11. Conclusion 88
Chapter 5. Discussion and Recommendation 91

1. Rectification of social awareness of EIA 91

2. Standardized regulations on EIA 91

3. The necessity of relevant basis for EIA 93

4. Practical integration of various environmental regulation 93

5. Deliberative process for public Participation in EIA system 94

References 97

101
A. EIS Contents ? Korea 101
B. EIS Contents ? Chinese 104

: 中華人民共和國 環境影響評價法 108
: 환경·교통·재해등에관한영향평가법 119
: Agreement of Collaborative Research 141

144

Appears in Collections:
Reports(보고서) Policy Study(정책보고서)
Files in This Item:
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse