Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Study on the Improvement of the Environmental Assessment system -Comparison of Environmental Impact Assessment System among Different Countries-

환경평가제도개선에 관한 연구 -국내외 환경평가제도의 비교 고찰-

  • Received : 2010.10.14
  • Accepted : 2011.05.28
  • Published : 2011.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Over the past three decades, Korea has undertaken a series of reforms to improve development policy, plans and programs, including measures to mainstream the environment across all major sectors. Despite of these efforts, there has been still the lack of capacity to fully assess the environmental impacts as well as sustainable implications of development projects and strategies. At the level of regional and sectoral development plans, the development of strategic environmental assessment SEA systems continues to remain at a relatively early stage in the region with fewer examples of fully operational processes or effective practice. This study shows a further information to our understanding of the EIA and SEA systems and their implementation in Korea. It affords a number of insights into strengths and weaknesses of the current action in different countries, and identifies an agenda of needs and options for capacity building for implementing the EIA enactment.

Keywords

References

  1. 김임순 외, 2003, 최신환경영향평가 -이론과 실제-, 동화기술, 서울, 456-467.
  2. 대한민국국회, 2009, 환경영향평가법 전부개정 법률안.
  3. 한상욱, 2007, 환경평가의 새로운 패러다임과 대응 과제, 전략환경평가포럼-KEI 정책자료집,31-114.
  4. 환경부, 2011, 해외환경관국제동향보고 2011년, 김원태 과장, UN ESCAP Green Economy, Green Growth의 개념 및 관련 쟁점,42-44.
  5. 環境省, 2004, 諸外国の環境影響評国制度調査報告書: 米国, オランダ, 韓国, 1-1-3-41.
  6. 環境省, 2005, 諸外国の環境影響評国制度調査報告書: 英国, カナダ, ドイツ, フランス,イタリア, 中国, EU, i-xi.
  7. 環境省, 2011, 環境影響評評法の一部を改正する法律案.
  8. ERM日本株式?社,2009,平成20年度環境影響評技術手法等にする海外知見及び事例調査業務報告書,27-79.
  9. Barry Sadler, 1996, International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, 1-36.
  10. ESCAP, State of the Environment in Asia and the Pacific 2005: Economic Growth and Sustainability (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.06.11.F.30) available at ,1-48.
  11. European Commission, 2009a, DG ENV, Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, Final report, JUNE,1-222.
  12. European Commission, 2009b, DG ENV, Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC)Final report,April.1-153.
  13. IAIA, 1999, Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice,1-4.
  14. IAIA, 2002a, The Linkages Between Impact Assessment and the Sustainable Development Agenda and Recommendations for Actions, Statements and Policy Briefing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development Submitted by International Association for Impact Assessment August 2002,1-16.
  15. IAIA, 2002b, IMPACT ASSESSMENT in the CORPORATE CONTEXT, Business & Industry Series 1,.
  16. IAIA, 2002c, SEA Performance Criteria,Special Publication Series No.1,1.
  17. IAIA, 2003, Social Impact Assessment, International Principles. Special Publications Series No.2,1-15.
  18. IAIA, 2005, BIODIVERSITY IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT, Special Publication Series No.3,1-4.
  19. IAIA, 2006a, Guidelines for IA Lead Professionals. 1-2.
  20. IAIA, 2006b, Public Participation Best Practice Principles, Special Publications Series No.4, 1-3.
  21. IAIA, 2006c, Health Impact Assessment, International Best Practice Principles, Special Publication Series No.5, 1-4.
  22. IAIA, 2007, EIA Follow-up, Special Publications Series No.6, 1-4.
  23. IAIA, 2009, What is IA?, 1-4.
  24. IAIA, 2010, Guideline Standards for IA Professionals. indd (10/10),1-4.
  25. ICON et al., 2001, SEA and Intergration of the Environment into Strategic Decision making Final Report, May 2001, CEC Contract No. 134-3040/99/c36634/MAR/B4, 1-9.
  26. Imperial College London Consultants, 2005, The Relationship EIA and SEA Directives, 15-17.
  27. Mayor of Faro, 2010, Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on improving The EIA and SEA Directives. 84th plenary session 14 and 15 April 2010, 1-8.
  28. NECRAC, 2005, National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee, Final Report, Submitted to the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, April 2005, 1-189.
  29. NCEA, 2009, Views and Experiences from the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, 8-25.
  30. OECD, 2001, The DAC Guidelines Strategies for Sustainable Development, 1-73.
  31. OECD, 2008, OECD Insight Sustainable Development; Linking Economy, Society, Environment, 1-6.
  32. OECD, 2010, OECD Economic Surveys: KOREA, June 2010, 1-21.
  33. OECD, 2011, Green Growth Strategy,1-7.
  34. Rae Kwon Chung, 2006, "Opening Statement", Second Green Growth Policy Dialogue: the Role of Public Policy in Providing Sustainable Consumption Choices: the Resource-saving Society and Green Growth, Beijing, 23 to 25 May 2006,1-116.
  35. Steve Bass, 2007, A New ERA in Sustainable Development; An 11ED Briefing,1-4.
  36. Thomas B Fischer,2009,On the role(s) of (strategic) environmental assessment in 'greening' decision making Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool (fischer@liverpool.ac.uk),1-22.
  37. United Nations, 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development United Nations General Assembly A/42/427.
  38. United Nations, 2002, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1-167.
  39. UNCSD, 2009, The History of Sustainable Development in the United Nations, 1.
  40. UNEP, 2002, EIA Training Resource Manual 2nd Edition, Revised, 539-545.
  41. UNEP, 2004a, Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach, 113-133.
  42. UNEP,2004b, Integrated Assessment and planning for Sustainable Development, 1-25.
  43. UNEP, 2009, Global Green New Deal _ A Policy Brief, 19-28.
  44. UNEP, 2011, Towards a Green Economy, pathway to Sustainable Development and poverty Eradication, A Synthesis for policy makes, 3-6.

Cited by

  1. 환경영향평가제도를 둘러싼 한미FTA 투자분쟁의 가능성: Bilcon 대 캐나다 투자자-국가 간 소송 사례를 통한 교훈 vol.21, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2012.21.4.525