環境影響評價制度에 관한 硏究 : 導入에 있어서의 問題點을 中心으로 Focussing on the Problems followed by the Introduction of the System = A Study on the Environmental Impact Assessment System

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

1) The environment once contaminated or disrupted can not be easily restored by the power of self-purification of nature, and it costs too much expenses and time to recover to the original state by means of humans' technical skills.
So the most suitable method of preserving environment is to prevent beforehand the environmental pollution or disruption.
Recently many countries show the prominant tendency that their environmental administrations are converting to the pre-protection of pollution from the post control of environmental disruption.
In Korea also the environmental administration is moving toward the environmental preservation policy based on the prio-prevention of pollution, with the improvement of the environmental legal system as the enactment of "The Environment Preservation Act" followed by the nulification of "the Pollution Protection Act."
2) The most effective and essential system in administration for the prevention of pollution is the system of the environmental impact assessment, which is adopted by the article 5 of our environment preservation act.
The existing system of EIA is seemed to be influenced in its legislation by the similiar system of U.S.A (NEPA). But the adoption of this system resulted in a formal and unsubstantial one with immaturity and imperfection through the process of enactment of this system which aimed at specialization of the system so to meet the actual circumstances of our country.
3) Our EIA system is legislated so as to meet the development administration of semi-advanced country as Korea.
4) In Korea EIS is not a requisite requested in licenses or permits for proposed action but a necessary document for the consultation with the chief of Environment Agency. But the chief of EA, the opponent party of consultation is no more than a affiliated agency of the ministry of helth and society.
So the procedure of consultation is apt to be only a process to satisfy the procedural condition in order to proceed the decided project of government or regional public bodies.
Abovementioned incliation shows the need of elevation of the status and strengthening the rights of the Environment Agency.
At the same time the request of consultation to the chief of EA should be amended as request for licenses or permits in order to get practical effect in the procedure of EIA.
5) As the objective of EIS lies in finding the most reasonable method which has less narmful effects on the environment, the introduction of alternative is indispensable in prepaying EIS. It is stipulated in article 4·2 of the enforcement ordinance of the Environment Preserving Act that the chief of EA can claim 'adjustment' or 'amendment' agains: the request of agreement of administrative agency planning the development project.
But it is not likely that the claim of adjustment or amendment of the chief of EA can discharge the substitive role of alternatives.
The system of alternatives must be adopted at least in the regulation of EIS which is now under drafting by EA.
6. Existing EIA system does not adopt the system of citizen participation, that shows one of backwardness of our EIA system. Nowadays the system of citizen participation, has become very important one in the democratic administration.
Therefore it is against the democratic administration that informational participation is not allowed to the citizen who is now admitted as a subject of the environmental right. But the citizen participation often brings about the delay of development works and unnecessary friction between citizens and administrative agency concerned. So the seems inevitable that existing EIA system should take conservative attitude against citizen participation especially in Korea where most development projects are planned and practiced by government.
It is desirable that the first stage of citizen participation such as offer of information and presentation of opinion at least should be admitted.
7. The concerned provisions about EIA system are too simple and abstract, but there is no sign of positive supplement and amendment on the side of government.
8. In addition, we have less experience of working and no accumulation of technics of EIA. It is general demand that the regulation of EIS now under drafting be early made public.
9. After all special law about EIA should be stipulated in order to attain effective EIA system.
Since every systems are to be operated by human, the solution of problems caused by the adoption of EIA system also depend upon the conversion of consciousness toward the development based on the priority of environment.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 序論
• Ⅱ. 環境影響評價制度의 背景
• Ⅲ. 環境影響評價制度의 背景의 目的·機能·評價의 類型
• 1. 目的
• 2. 機能
• 3. 環境影響評價의 類型
• Ⅳ. 우리나라 環境行政의 法制와 環境影響評價制度
• Ⅴ. 諸外國에 있어서의 環境影響評價制度
• Ⅵ. 環境影響評價制度의 實施上의 問題點과 對策
• 1. 環境影響評價制度의 一般的 問題點
• (1) EIS 作成時期와 作成時間
• (2) EIS 作成과 作成費用
• (3) EIS의 形式的 文書化 傾向
• (4) NEPA 運用의 基本的 姿勢
• (5) NEPA 訴訟
• (6) NEPA 節次에의 公衆參加
• (7) EIS의 內容
• 2. 우리나라 環境影響評價制度의 問題點과 對策
• (1) 制度上의 問題點
• 가. 開發指向的 環境行政
• 나. 地域住民의 無關心
• 다. 簡素한 形式的立法
• 라. 協議制와 環境影響評價의 形式化
• 마. 環境廳의 格上과 權限强化의 必要
• 바. 環境影響評價書 作成과 適正判定
• 사. 影響評價對象事業
• 아. 代替案制度와 協議節次
• 자. 住民參加制度
• 2) 實施上의 問題點
• 가. 環境影響評價書 作成時期
• 나. Program Assessment
• 다. 環境影響評價書의 形式化 傾向
• 라. 環境影響評價書 內容의 不實化 傾向
• 마. 環境影響評價書 資料와 技術의 蓄積
• Ⅶ. 結論