It has been 30 years since the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system was introduced as a preventive policy against environmental pollution in 1977. More recently, however, the demand for post-evaluation is increasing due to rising concerns about the efficacy of the EIA system in the face of social conflict-induced EIA.
The Meta-Evaluation of the EIA mainly focused on the current problems in the EIA system and sought solutions for its improvement. In order to do this effectively, NABO established standards for the systematic evaluation of the EIA system, and evaluated it via those standards.
Evaluation results demonstrated that the scoping system is becoming formalized and static, although it should be dynamically determined by the content and scope of contemporary business characteristics. Evaluators, who consisted mainly of engineering technicians, were limited to evaluation on a general level due mainly to insufficient ability to comprehend the upper levels of plans and policies. Also, public hearings and presentations that typically provide opportunities for citizens to share their opinions have simply been recognized as a formal part of the process; it is difficult for citizens to understand the content of the EIA because the terminology used in the report has been both excessively specific and technical. In addition, the current monitoring system is inadequate because of insufficient awareness in approval authorities and the limited number of employees in local ministries of environment.
Based on these findings, government needs to establish a scoping system to determine the content and scope of evaluation as well as alternatives to projects; then, government must subsequently compare and review alternatives. Evaluators’ roles also need to be shifted from investigation and estimation to environmental consultation through provision of various kinds of environmental information to developers. Additionally, government needs to increase public opportunities to share opinions, and it must allow public access to information at all levels of the evaluation process.
EIA reports need to use terminology that can be easily understood, and evaluation effectiveness needs to be improved by reinforcing monitoring systems and integrating post-evaluation results derived by these systems.
Hence, the primary function of the EIA system needs to be converted to types of decision-making support that encourage developers to implement development projects based on both business values and environment simultaneously.
Kim Sangwoo
The Meta-Evaluation of the EIA mainly focused on the current problems in the EIA system and sought solutions for its improvement. In order to do this effectively, NABO established standards for the systematic evaluation of the EIA system, and evaluated it via those standards.
Evaluation results demonstrated that the scoping system is becoming formalized and static, although it should be dynamically determined by the content and scope of contemporary business characteristics. Evaluators, who consisted mainly of engineering technicians, were limited to evaluation on a general level due mainly to insufficient ability to comprehend the upper levels of plans and policies. Also, public hearings and presentations that typically provide opportunities for citizens to share their opinions have simply been recognized as a formal part of the process; it is difficult for citizens to understand the content of the EIA because the terminology used in the report has been both excessively specific and technical. In addition, the current monitoring system is inadequate because of insufficient awareness in approval authorities and the limited number of employees in local ministries of environment.
Based on these findings, government needs to establish a scoping system to determine the content and scope of evaluation as well as alternatives to projects; then, government must subsequently compare and review alternatives. Evaluators’ roles also need to be shifted from investigation and estimation to environmental consultation through provision of various kinds of environmental information to developers. Additionally, government needs to increase public opportunities to share opinions, and it must allow public access to information at all levels of the evaluation process.
EIA reports need to use terminology that can be easily understood, and evaluation effectiveness needs to be improved by reinforcing monitoring systems and integrating post-evaluation results derived by these systems.
Hence, the primary function of the EIA system needs to be converted to types of decision-making support that encourage developers to implement development projects based on both business values and environment simultaneously.
Kim Sangwoo