• Korean Journal of Social Welfare
• /
• v.59 no.3
• /
• pp.59-73
• /
• 2007

The compensation system in industrial accident insurance is systemized with "either receiving all or no benefits at all" according to "admited or denied as an industrial accident". Therefore, they are centered on the decision as "industrial accident" or "non-industrial accident", but judging between the two is very complicated, and has inherent conflicting factors. In the early stage of industrialization, industrial accident compensation was based on the indemnity liability for employer's faults. In order to be compensated any damage, the injured worker should prove that the accident was not due to his or her faults. However it was very difficult for injured worker or his or her family to prove the employer's faults, so it was almost impossible to get compensation. Thereafter industrialization progress and improvement of workers' political status lead to conversion from principle of liability with employer's faults to principle of liability without employer's faults. In addition to that, coverage of industrial accident compensation was also expanded. This improvement strengthened the benefit payment principle of "All or Nothing". Even though the "All or Nothing" principle provokes tremendous criticism, the reason why it's difficult for industrialized countries to adopt partial compensation system, is that partial compensation system worsens the administrative hardship, therefore industrialized countries overcome the restrictions of the "All or Nothing" principle with making balance in provisions for any risk to some extent. However, in Korea because the general compensation system for covering medical cost and income loss from accidents, is not equipped, it could be possible to cause acute conflicts with regard to coverage of industrial accidents. Therefore it is required to improve the industrial accident insurance with the acceptance of the significance and logic of discriminated compensation, and create the integrated compensation system in the long run.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology
• /
• v.21 no.6
• /
• pp.55-69
• /
• 2018

As disaster risk and climate change volatility increase, there are more efforts to adapt to disasters such as forest fires, floods, and landslides. Most of the research, however, is about influence of human activities on disaster and there is few research on disaster adaptation for species. Previous studies focusing on biodiversity in selecting conservation areas have not addressed threats of disaster in the habitats for species. The natural disasters sometimes play role of drivers of ecological successions in the long run, but they might cause serious problems for the conservation of vulnerable species which are endangered. The purpose of this study is to determine whether soil loss (SL) is effective in selecting habitat management areas for amphibians and reptiles. RUSLE model was used to calculate soil loss (SL) and the distribution of each species (SD) was computed with MaxEnt model to find out the biodiversity index. In order to select the habitat management area, we estimated the different results depending if value of soil loss was applied or not by using MARXAN, a conservation priority selection tool. With using MARXAN, conservation goals can be achieved according to the scenario objectives, and the study has been made to meet the minimum habitat area. Finally, the results are expressed in two; 1) the result of soil loss and biodiversity with MATRIX method and 2) the result of regional difference calculated with MARXAN conservation prioritization considering soil loss. The first result indicates that the area with high soil loss and low species diversity have lower conservation values and thus can be managed as natural disturbances. In the area where soil loss is high and species diversity is also high, it becomes where a disaster mitigation action should be taken for the species. According to the conservation priorities of the second result, higher effectiveness of conservation was obtained with fewer area when it considered SL in addition to SD, compared to when considered only biodiversity. When the SL was not taken into consideration, forest area with high distribution of species were important, but when SL considered, the agricultural area or downstream of the river were represented to be a major part of habitats. If more species data or disaster parameters other than soil loss are added as variables later, it could contribute as a reference material for decision-making to achieve various purposes.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.27-56
• /
• 2006

Today's financial institutions usually take environmental issues seriously into consideration as they could not evade lender liability in an increasing number of cases. On the international scene, a brand-new concept of the "Equator Principles" in the New Millenium has driven more and more international banks to adopt these Principles in project financing. Sustainable development has been a key word in understanding new trends of the governments, financial institutions, corporations and civic groups in the 21st century. The Equator Principles are a set of voluntary environmental and social guidelines for sustainable finance. These Principles commit bank officers to avoid financial support to projects that fail to meet these guidelines. The Principles were conceived in 2002 on an initiative of the International Finance Corporation(IFC), and launched in June 2003. Since then, dozens of major banks, accounting for up to 80 percent of project loan market, have adopted the Principles. Accordingly, the Principles have become the de facto standard for all banks and investors on how to deal with potential social and environmental issues of projects to be financed. Compliance with the Equator Principles facilitates for endorsing banks to participate in the syndicated loan and help them to manage the risks associated with large-scale projects. The Equator Principles call for financial institutions to provide loans to projects under the following circumstances: - The risk of the project is categorized in accordance with internal guidelines based upon the environmental and social screening criteria of the IFC. - For Category A and B projects, borrowers or sponsors are required to conduct a Social and Environmental Assessment, the preparation of which must meet certain requirements and satisfactorily address key social and environmental issues. - The Social and Environmental Assessment report should address baseline social and environmental conditions, requirements under host country laws and regulations, sustainable development, and, as appropriate, IFC's Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines, etc. - Based on the Social and Environmental Assessment, Equator banks then make agreements with borrowers on how they mitigate, monitor and manage the risks through a Social and Environmental Management System. Compliance with the plan is included in the covenant clause of loan agreements. If the borrower doesn't comply with the agreed terms, the bank will take corrective actions. The Equator Principles are not a mere declaration of cautious banks but a full commitment of lenders. A violation of the Principles in the process of project financing, which led to an unexpected damage to the affected community, would not give rise to any specific legal remedies other than ordinary lawsuits. So it is more effective for banks to ensure consistent implementation of the Principles and to have them take responsible measures to solve social and environmental issues. Public interests have recently mounted up with respect to environmental issues on the occasion of the Supreme Court's decision (2006Du330) on the fiercely debated reclamation project at Saemangeum. The majority Justices said that the expected environmental damages like probable pollution of water and soil were not believed so serious and that the Administration should continue to implement the project seeking ways to make it more environment friendly. In this case, though the Category A Saemangeum Project was carried out by a government agency, the Supreme Court behaved itself as a signal giver to approve or stop the environment-related project like an Equator bank in project financing. At present, there is no Equator bank in Korea in contrast to three big banks in Japan. Also Korean contractors, which are aggressively bidding for Category A-type projects in South East Asia and Mideast, might find themselves in a disadvantageous position because they are generally ignorant of the environmental assessment associated with project financing. In this regard, Korean banks and overseas project contractors should care for the revised Equator Principles and the latest developments in project financing more seriously. It's because its scope has expanded to the capital cost of US$10 million or more across all industry sectors regardless of developing countries or not. It should be noted that, for a Korean bank, being an Equator bank is more or less burdensome in a short-term period, but it must be conducive to minimizing risks and building up good reputation in the long run.