환경평가 절차 효율화를 위한 스크리닝의 단계별 도입방안

Abstract

Introduction of Staged Screening to Improve Efficiency in Environmental Assessments The purpose of this study is to differentiate assessment proceedings for projects in consideration of their environmental impact as a means to improve efficiency in environmental impact assessment ("EIA") proceedings. In developed countries, "screening"of projects is sometimes used to determine whether to perform an EIA (and if an EIA is performed, to what extent), in due consideration of the characteristics and conditions of the locality. Screening, however, has not been adopted in Korea, and instead, the scale of the project in question determines whether to proceed with an EIA. Notwithstanding the real need for such assessments however, carrying out EIA for projects with lesser environmental impact using the same proceedings as for larger projects has result in significant inefficiencies. Accordingly, this paper attempts to devise means of increasing efficiency in EIA for projects with lower environmental impact. The details of this study are as follows: 1) Current status of environmental assessments ("EA") in Korea and case studies (Chapter 2) Current EA operating procedures were observed, and projects with low environmental impact were targeted for improvements in procedural efficiency. The first round of cases was selected based on the project description, local environmental information, the format of the project, KEI's PERS report, the draft EIA report, the report for the proposal itself, and the final consultation EIA report. Case studies were examined by 10 specialists and researchers at KEI, and were then further arranged according to duration and reviews. The specialists and researchers thereafter confirmed the need for separate and simpler EIA proceedings for lower impact projects. 2) Domestic case studies on attempts to simplify the EA process (Chapter 3) The current EA system in Korea has already attempted to introduce separate proceedings for certain projects, though for somewhat different reasons. Most separate processes were introduced to reduce red tape and lighten burdens on developers. Some of these include "rapid EIA," as well as "exemption from scoping and collection of opinions." In addition, local environmental offices have attempted to shorten the duration of consultation through initiatives like "one-stop service," "pre-screening," and "pre-consulting for project location. "Likewise, the City of Seoul has also established a drive to reduce consulting times, and has attempted to expedite proceedings by drafting "Special provisions on EIA" as part of the relevant regulations. Tangible results from these efforts, however, have been limited. 3) Screening in other countries (Chapter 3) Other countries have adopted a "screening" system to determine whether EIA is applicable to a particular project, and if so, what proceedings will be used therein. The screening systems used in Mackenzie Valley (Canada), the State of California in the U.S., and by the Japan International Cooperation Agency in Japan were used as case studies. As screening in these cases emerged organically from the environmental assessment systems of each country, direct introduction of screening into Korea's EIA system may be impractical. However, aspects of screening as used in other countries may be applicable in Korea, including ways in which screening increases productivity in assessment proceedings, as well as the particular criteria, issues, and procedures used therein. 4) Staged introduction of screening (Chapter 4) For the purposes of convenience, "screening" as it pertains to the Republic of Korea was divided into two stages: Stage 1 screening, to determine the need for prior environmental review systems ("PERS"), and Stage 2, to determine the need for EIA. This study proposes the introduction of Stage 2 screening, and suggests guidelines for administering the system. Stage 2 screening is the process wherein need for EIA is determined with respect to projects which have undergone PERS and which appear to have comparatively negligible environmental impact. In this case, EIA can be omitted and the developer can then draft a mitigation plan instead. Assessment is regarded as completed with the bestowal of final approval by the relevant authority. Applicability of the Stage 2 screening process in Korea was confirmed by the collection of opinions from specialists at KEI, as well as focus group interviews with environmental assessment experts (including 10 committee members from the Systems Subcommittee at the Environmental Impact Assessment Association). 5) Expected effects and limitations of findings (chapter 4) This study found that exempting certain projects deemed as having low environmental impact can considerably shorten the duration required for both environmental assessment and consultation, thereby improving efficiency. This constitutes an improvement over existing attempts which have focused solely on reducing the time required for consultation. However, reductions do not affect the duration required for planning, as integration of the assessment system has little relationship with the planning period. Further research will thus be required to address this relationship. Other expected effects from the adoption of Stage 2 screening include reduction in delays in project execution due to environmental assessments and reduced red tape through the provision of increased autonomy to developers and the approving authorities. This research proposes Stage 2 screening for projects with minimal environmental impact, as a short-term modification to improve the effectiveness of the EA system as it now stands. Stage 1 screening, however, was excluded from consideration, as it would require drastic modifications to the existing framework. To further develop EA in Korea, particularly in regard to Stage 1 screening, more in-depth discussion and research will be required