環境影響評價制度에서 代案의 檢討 필요성: 合理的 代案과 不作爲 代案

The fact that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of Korea have been made by the concerned companies of EIA’s projects (not by the national government (like the U. S. federal agency)) can hardly guarantee their credibility and fairness. The Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA) of Korea has been amended several times to make the EIA system more efficient. Nevertheless, the EIA system has still focused on whether or not the environmental standards are satisfied by EIA’s projects. It is hard to expect to perform the system’s fundamental functions, such as providing enough information and leading the pro-environmental attitude so on. As a solution for these problems, “alternatives” excluded when the EIA system had been introduced into Korea were suggested. Enforcement of Decree of EIAA newly provides that “alternatives” should be included in EIAs. I feel sorry that alternatives were not provided by the EIAA itself. With the newly amended EIAA, it is not easy to get the existing problems of Korea’s EIA system solved. The examples of the United States having alternatives included in Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) should be reviewed by Korea. First, Korea’s EIAA provides fewer regulations for substantive review of EIAs than NEPA of the United Sates. Second, EIAA needs procedural mandates to control EIAs. Third, its procedural mandates should be ensured for government officials to follow. Forth, words used above, “Reasonable” and “No-Action” alternatives are not clearly defined, but it cannot help use these for alternatives.