한·중 환경영향평가 비교연구

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author 최재용 -
dc.contributor.other 권영한 -
dc.contributor.other 정익철 -
dc.contributor.other Zhe Zhen NAN -
dc.contributor.other Wei-Hong ZHU -
dc.contributor.other Ying NAN -
dc.contributor.other Chunjing LI -
dc.date.accessioned 2017-07-05T01:34:54Z -
dc.date.available 2017-07-05T01:34:54Z -
dc.date.issued 20031230 -
dc.identifier A 환1185 2003 WO-05 -
dc.identifier.uri http://repository.kei.re.kr/handle/2017.oak/19132 -
dc.identifier.uri http://library.kei.re.kr/dmme/img/001/003/001/[03_WO05]Kor-China(최재용)1.pdf -
dc.description.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 In Korea, the EIA Act was enacted in 1993, and this has been replaced by the Integrated Impact Assessment Act in December 1999.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. -
dc.description.tableofcontents Chapter 1. Introduction 1 <br> <br>Chapter 2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System in Korea 5 <br> <br>1. Historical Context of Environmental Legal Status and EIA 5 <br>a. Introduction period (1977~1981) 7 <br>b. Implementation Period (1982~1992) 9 <br>c. Enhancement Period (1993 ~ present) 12 <br> <br>2. Current EIA system 15 <br>a. Projects and Items for EIA 15 <br>b. Procedure of EIA 17 <br>1) Preparation state 17 <br>2) Consultation stage 20 <br>3) Management stage 21 <br>c. Public participation in EIA 23 <br>d. EIA Practice 26 <br> <br>Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System in China 31 <br> <br>1. The establishment of China’s EIA System 31 <br> <br>2. Development of China EIA System 32 <br>A. Standardization and construction period (1979~1989) 33 <br>1) Legal standard 33 <br>2) The regional regulations 35 <br>b. Strengthening and perfecting period (1990~1998) 38 <br>C. Enhancement period (1999~present) 42 <br> <br>3. Characteristics of China’s EIA sy -
dc.description.tableofcontents Chapter 1. Introduction 1 <br> <br>Chapter 2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System in Korea 5 <br> <br>1. Historical Context of Environmental Legal Status and EIA 5 <br>a. Introduction period (1977~1981) 7 <br>b. Implementation Period (1982~1992) 9 <br>c. Enhancement Period (1993 ~ present) 12 <br> <br>2. Current EIA system 15 <br>a. Projects and Items for EIA 15 <br>b. Procedure of EIA 17 <br>1) Preparation state 17 <br>2) Consultation stage 20 <br>3) Management stage 21 <br>c. Public participation in EIA 23 <br>d. EIA Practice 26 <br> <br>Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System in China 31 <br> <br>1. The establishment of China’s EIA System 31 <br> <br>2. Development of China EIA System 32 <br>A. Standardization and construction period (1979~1989) 33 <br>1) Legal standard 33 <br>2) The regional regulations 35 <br>b. Strengthening and perfecting period (1990~1998) 38 <br>C. Enhancement period (1999~present) 42 <br> <br>3. Characteristics of China’s EIA system 44 <br> <br>4. Legal system of China’s EIA system 47 <br> <br>5. The administrative procedure of government’s EIA 48 <br>a. Classified selection of the environmental protection. 48 <br>b. The inspection of the assessment outline 50 <br>c. Quality control for the EIA 50 <br>d. Examination and approval of the EIA 51 <br> <br>6. Work procedure for the EIA 53 <br>a. EIA procedures 53 <br>b. Determination of the EIA grade. 53 <br>c. The drafting of the EIA outline. 55 <br> <br>7 .EIA public participation in China 58 <br> <br>8. Summary of EIAs of Korea and China 59 <br> <br>Chapter 4. EIA of golf courses in Korea and China 63 <br> <br>1. General descriptions on the golf courses 63 <br> <br>2. Site descriptions of golf courses 65 <br> <br>3. Comparison of the Basic Outline of the EIA Report 66 <br> <br>4. Comparison of Relevant Legislations for the Golf Course EIA 68 <br> <br>5. Comparison of the EIA Processes 69 <br> <br>6. Comparison of the EIA Items 71 <br>a. Korea 71 <br>1) In Construction 71 <br>2) Operation 72 <br>b. China 74 <br> <br>7. Comparison of contents on the focused assessment components 75 <br>a. Korea 75 <br>b. China 77 <br> <br>8. Distinctive difference in EIA between Korea and China 81 <br> <br>9. Strong and weak point of EIS in Korea and China 84 <br>a. Strong points in the EIS in China 84 <br>b. Weak points of the EIS in China 85 <br>c. Strong points of the EIS in Korea 87 <br>d. Weak points of the EIS in Korea 86 <br> <br>10. Operational impacts of the golf course in Korea and China 86 <br>a. In the case of China 86 <br>b. In the case of Korea 87 <br> <br>11. Conclusion 88 <br>Chapter 5. Discussion and Recommendation 91 <br> <br>1. Rectification of social awareness of EIA 91 <br> <br>2. Standardized regulations on EIA 91 <br> <br>3. The necessity of relevant basis for EIA 93 <br> <br>4. Practical integration of various environmental regulation 93 <br> <br>5. Deliberative process for public Participation in EIA system 94 <br> <br>References 97 <br> <br>101 <br>A. EIS Contents ? Korea 101 <br>B. EIS Contents ? Chinese 104 <br> <br>: 中華人民共和國 環境影響評價法 108 <br>: 환경·교통·재해등에관한영향평가법 119 <br>: Agreement of Collaborative Research 141 <br> <br>144 -
dc.format.extent 172p. -
dc.language 한국어 -
dc.publisher 한국환경정책·평가연구원 -
dc.title 한·중 환경영향평가 비교연구 -
dc.title.alternative 골프장사례를 중심으로 -
dc.type 수시연구 -
dc.title.original Comparative study on the environmental impact assessment between the Republic of Korea and China -
dc.title.alternativeoriginal in case of golf courses -
dc.title.partname 정책보고서 -
dc.title.partnumber 2003-05 -
dc.description.keyword 환경영향평가 -
dc.description.bibliographicalintroduction 1960년대부터 개발행위와 그에 따른 환경적 결과와의 관계가 주목을 받기 시작했고, 선진국에서는 이미 그러한 관계에 있어 의사결정단계에서 환경적요소가 고려될 수 있도록 제도적으로 보완이 되어왔다. 현재 한국과 중국에서는 비슷한 상황이 진행 중에 있는 시점에서 동 보고서는 환경영향평가의 비교연구를 통하여 양 국가의 환경보호에 관한 정책에 관한 이해증진에 목적이 있다. 동 보고서는 크게 두 부분으로 나뉘어 있다. 첫 번째 부분에서는 양국의 환경영향평가제도의 비교를 다루었는데, 양국의 환경영향평가는 1980년대부터 시작하였으나 본격적으로 시행된 것은 1990년대라 할 수 있다. 특히 한국은 1993년 환경영향평가법이 1993년 발효되고, 1999년 12월 통합영향평가법이 제정되었다. 중국의 경우 환경보전법에 의해 시행되어온 환경영향평가가 독립 법으로 2002년 제정되어 2003년 9월 발효되었다. 현재의 환경영향평가는 중국에서는 스크리닝을 통하여 대상사업이 환경에 미치는 영향정도에 따라 환경영향평가서, 환경영향평가보고표, 환경보호관리등기표 등 3가지 분류에 따라 작성하도록 규정된 반면 한국에서는 17분야 64개 대상사업이 환경영향대상사업으로 규정되어있다. 또한 한국과는 다르게 중국에서는 환경영향평가 검토의견이 환경영향평가서에 반영되어 작성토록 되어있다. 주민공청회제도가 한국에서는 오랫동안 시행되어온 반면 중국에서는 새로운 법에서 주민의 참여가 처음으로 규정화 되었다. 마지막으로 중국에서는 각 성(省)에서 현재 자율적으로 환경영향평가 세부규정을 작성하고 있다. 국문요약 두 번째 부분에서는 한· 중골프장에 대한 환경영향평가를 비교하였다. 양국의 평가서는 정부의 허가를 득한 대행업체가 작성하였다. 평가서의 검토과정은 비슷하였으나 운영면에서 약간 차이가 있었다. 한국의 경우 평가서 초안, 본안, 1, 2, 3차 보완서가 협의를 위해 작성되었으나 중국은 대강(大綱)과 평가서가 비준을 위해 작성되었다. 평가서 준비기간과 협의과정은 한국이 중국 보다 길었다. 골프장의 환경적 입지는 양국이 기후를 제외하고 비슷하였다. 한국의 평가서는 목록이 단순하나 여러 항목을 취급하고, 실제 상황을 반영하여 작성되기 보다 체계적이고 형식적인 면이 많았다. 반면 중국의 평가서는 한국과 정 반대였다. 중점평가항목은 한국이 8개 항목이었으며 중국은 3개항목이었다. 현황조사는 한국이 비교적 상세하고 구체적이었다. 생태계 평가를 위해 중국은 경관생태학적 기법을 적용하였으나 한국은 사용하지 않고 있다. 저감대책의 경우 한국은 공정에서 발생하는 영향을 반영하기 보다 정형화된 형식적인 포맷인데 비해 중국은 현실을 반영하여 영향을 예측하나 기술적인 방법들이 이론적이거나 저감대책으로 구체적이지 못한 경향이 있었다. 운영시 발생할 수 있는 문제가 한국에서는 수질, 생태계 훼손 등에서 발생할 수 있으며, 중국의 경우 도로사면의 훼손, 경관, 수질, 수문, 수생태계 등에서 발생할 가능성이 있었다. 주민의견의 수렴을 위해 한국은 초안에서 주민공청회와 설명회를 실시하였으며, 중국의 경우는 주민들을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였다. 동 보고서에서는 연구결과를 바탕으로 다음과 같은 환경영향평가에 관한 정책제언을 제시한다. 첫째, 환경영향평가는 의사결정을 위한 조언과정이지 의사결정단계가 아니라는 사회 인식증진의 노력이 필요하다. 둘째, 평가대상사업 결정의 유연성을 갖기 위해 한국에서는 스크리닝제도의 도입이 필요하다. 셋째, 환경에 대한 미래예측의 정확도를 높이기 위해서는 현재의 환경파악을 위한 환경정보시스템을 갖추어야 한다. 넷째, 국가 자원의 효율성을 높이기 위하여 통합영향평가시스템의 실재적 운영이 필요하다. 마지막으로, 환경문제의 효율적인 해결을 위해 새로운 주민참여방식 필요하다. -
dc.contributor.authoralternativename Choi -
dc.contributor.authoralternativename Jae-Young -
dc.contributor.otheralternativename Kwon -
dc.contributor.otheralternativename Young-Han -
dc.contributor.otheralternativename Jeong -
dc.contributor.otheralternativename Ick-Cheol -
dc.contributor.otheralternativename Zhe Zhen NAN -
dc.contributor.otheralternativename Wei-Hong ZHU -
dc.contributor.otheralternativename Ying NAN -
dc.contributor.otheralternativename Chunjing LI -
Appears in Collections:
Reports(보고서) > Policy Study(정책보고서)
Files in This Item:

qrcode

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

Browse