• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.129-167
• /
• 2021

The emission trading system is an essential policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and converting low-carbon society. EU ETS is a good benchmark that is ahead of Korea's emission trading system in terms of operating period and design know-how. Therefore, this study focused on the key design elements of EU ETS phase 4 such as total emission allowances issued (Cap), free allocation method, carbon leakage list, market stability reserve, and innovation supporting system. In addition, we analyzed the impact of key design elements and their changes during EU ETS Phase 1 to 4 on the design and operation of Korea emission trading system in the future. First of all, the expected impact on the design of Korea emission trading system is to increase three demands: preparing benchmark renewal plans, establishing criteria for selecting free allocation industries that reflect domestic industrial structure and characteristics and introducing two-stage evaluations for free allocation industries, and preparing specific plan to support innovation and industries using allowance auction revenues. The next three impacts on the operation of Korea emission trading system are the increased needs for objective and in-depth impact assessment of plan and amendments, provision of system stability and response opportunities by quickly confirming plan and amendments prior to the implementation, and coordination of the emission trading system governance and stakeholder participation encouragement.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Organic Agriculture Conference
• /
• 2009.12a
• /
• pp.281-281
• /
• 2009

Although national and regional environmentally friend agriculture (EFA) and food development programmes such as the Life-Food Development Plan (LFDP) have been established in Korea, some policy measures in these programmes seem to be unsuitable for Korean organic farming development. Policy measures tend to support external input purchases of organic fertilizers rather than market development actions such as providing consumer information, research, education, training and statistical data collection. The development of an organic action plan (OAP) for Korea is therefore considered essential for the sustainable future of organic farming in Korea. The purposes of OAP are 1) to define and set the clear goals/targets for the organic sector development, 2) to integrate various organic stakeholders and public institutions in partnership, 3)to focus on specific issues with tailored measures and 4) to integrate and develop different policy measures (Stolze, 2005). Most EU member state countries have developed their own OAPs and each reflects its own priorities with regard to organic sector development. This study compares and contrasts the Welsh, England and EU OAP with the Korean Jeonnam Life-Food Development Plan (LFDP) in order to facilitate the development of the organic food and farming sector in Korea. Early action plan, for example, the first Welsh OAP(1999) focused support on developing the supply of organic products whereas later action plans (e.g. England OAPs in 2002 and 2004 and the second Welsh OAP in 2005) focussed more on developing consumer demands for organic products. The EU OAP (2004) also aims at market support related to consumer demand and then organic farming production for its environmental and other social benefits. OAPs not only provide specific issue-solving tools but also perform a role as providing a focus for organic sector development as a whole. The Korean LFDP provides issue-solving tools but plays no regulatory role such as policy development, harmonizing various policy measures and conflicting factors and providing evaluation tools for further development. A national-level OAP could also facilitate international trade of organic products. To achieve better harmonized and sustainable approaches for the Korean organic industry, National- as well as regional- regulatory policy systems are urgently required in the form of an Organic Action Plan.

• Environmental and Resource Economics Review
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.419-449
• /
• 2022

This paper aims to quantify the potential economic burdens of EU's carbon border adjustment mechanisms faced by Korean domestic industries. In addition, this study tries to compare and analyzes changes in the burden of each industry resulted from the implementation of the domestic low-carbon policy. Based on the quantitative findings, we intend to suggest policy implications for establishing mid- to long-term strategies in response to climate change risks. Based on the environmentally extended input-output analysis, the total economic burdens of the domestic industries due to the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanisms are estimated to be approximately KRW 8,245.6 billion in 2030. Looking at the impacts by industry, it is found that major industries such as petrochemicals, petroleum refining, transportation equipment, steel, automobiles, and electric/electronic equipment industries are expected to account for 84.3% of the total potential burdens. In addition, in multiple policy scenarios assuming technological developments and energy transition following the implementation of domestic low-carbon policies, the total economic burden of carbon border adjustment is expected to decrease by about 11.7% to 15.0%. The main result of this study suggests that we should not view EU EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism as a trade regulation, but to use it as a momentum for more effective implementation of the low-carbon and energy transition strategies in the global carbon neural era.

• Science & Technology Policy
• /
• v.14 no.3 s.147
• /
• pp.53-65
• /
• 2004

• Science & Technology Policy
• /
• v.15 no.4 s.154
• /
• pp.104-112
• /
• 2005

• Transportation Technology and Policy
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.49-61
• /
• 2015

• Science & Technology Policy
• /
• v.11 no.3 s.129
• /
• pp.127-138
• /
• 2001

• Science & Technology Policy
• /
• v.5 no.3 s.72
• /
• pp.73-87
• /
• 1995

• Science & Technology Policy
• /
• v.5 no.9 s.78
• /
• pp.52-64
• /
• 1995

• Science & Technology Policy
• /
• v.13 no.1 s.139
• /
• pp.62-73
• /
• 2003