• Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology
• /
• v.14 no.6
• /
• pp.97-109
• /
• 2011

Korea introduced the cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem for minimizing damage of ecosystem due to development projects and their effects and for preparing resources for natural environment conservation projects. Advanced countries have made efforts by expanding investment in natural environment conservation and restoring projects to promote prevention of global warming and improvement of biological diversity, are establishing nationwide strategies and plans. To examine the reality of projects by returns of the cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem, microsite projects in schools and public facilities take the largest share while their project budgets are only about 100~300 KRW, relatively small, which might be attributable to budget restrictions in accordance with the calculating method of levying cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem and problems of project proceeding in the system of returning fund for projects in general. The conclusion which this study suggests on invigoration of cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem and its operation are as followings. First, although the cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem has been introduced in 2001, the amount of imposition per unit area remains unchanged. It is desirable to increase the amount into $1,400KRW/m^2$ as of August, 2011 as the price index has been continuously rising for the past 10 years and the upward adjustment of imposition per unit area should be notified by the decree of the Ministry of Environment every January. Second, the ceiling amount of the cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem should be abolished. Now the ceiling amount is defined as 1 billion KRW but it was found that there was not any ceiling amount specified according to the comparative analysis of similar systems with the Korean environmental improvement fund. The ceiling should be abolished so that medium level businesses are carried out and ecosystem recovering projects in the true sense of the word can be made smoothly. Third, weight should be introduced in calculating amounts in accordance with ecologic and economic values. Harmony between development and environment can be achieved by applying differentiated weights of constant regional coefficient by use zone and ecologic and economic values. Continuous efforts of improving cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem should be made more than anything else so that projects by returns of cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem get effectiveness.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.203-213
• /
• 2014

In Korea, a cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem is imposed to prevent indiscriminate development. The total amount of this charge is determined by multiplying the size of the destroyed area by a value per unit area and the area index within 5 billion won. Since 2001, the charge per unit area has been determined to be $250won/m^2$. In this study, we estimated the unit value of ecosystem services per year using benefit transfer method, with a focus on forest resources. According to our results, forest resources have a value of about $3,500won/m^2$ per year. When the non-use value is subtracted, that figure becomes approximately $1,300won/m^2$. If this value incorporates the unit value of the cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem, it will increase. To comply with the original intent of the cooperation charge on conservation of ecosystem, the fund must be used to improve ecosystem services, including the restoration of a destroyed area or the purchase of new land.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.25-61
• /
• 2009

These days, environmental policies have changed from being command and control systems toward economic incentive systems, with various incentives having been established by OECD countries. In Korea, many environmental charges have been established in order to diminish activities which damage natural resources. Among them, the Ecosystem Conservation Cooperation Charge and the Replacement Charge for Forest Resources Creation are considered to be representative environmental charges. These charges, along with a few others, were designed to encourage efforts to protect natural resources. The charges include a number of different features, utilize varying methods, and altered ranges of jurisdiction. However, the charges may pose serious inequity problems in terms of their estimated values and their conditions of reduction and exemption. For instance, although the Ecosystem Conservation Cooperation Charge is a primary charge applied to natural resource damage, the charge does not fully secure its original objectives due to its low levy and limited range of provisions. Moreover, the Replacement Charge for Forest Resources Creation has been criticized because of similar reduction and exemption provisions. Therefore, this study analyzes the inequity problems associated with the charges and proposes solutions. First of all, the Ecosystem Conservation Cooperation Charge should be redesigned in such a way that it reflects the substantial value of natural resource damage through either abrogate or increased maximum limits of the charge. With regard to the Replacement Charge for Forest Resources Creation, the cases and ranges of reduction and exemption provisions should be narrowed. Finally, the charges collected should be expended in conformity with their original objectives, and their expenditure should be restricted to either restoration activities or activities directly related to compensation and mitigation of damaged natural resources.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology
• /
• v.26 no.5
• /
• pp.1-18
• /
• 2023

The Ecosystem Conservation Levy (formerly known as the Ecosystem Conservation Cooperation Fund) system has been in place for 20 years, and it can be said that it has now entered the settlement stage. Based on an analysis of publicly available project implementation data from 2014 to 2020, we found that: 1) As the number of return projects increases, the targets of restoration technologies are also strengthening, and it is necessary to frame a series of processes from application, creation, and monitoring for some detailed projects to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of utilizing the levy. 2) Most of the implemented projects are applied as micro-ecosystem creation, but there are many cases where the contents of the project can be seen as other project categories. This shows that the purpose of the return project needs to be approached more clearly and suggests that institutional complementation is needed from the project application stage. 3) The detailed technologies applied tend to be gradually expanding, but most of them are technologies that are not differentiated from general development projects. It is urgent to secure a more technical identity, such as a range and list of utilized technologies suitable for the characteristics and purposes of return projects. 4) It is necessary to establish a relevant evaluation system or framework to utilize the monitoring results of restoration projects. 5) There have been few cases of application of single restoration technologies since the beginning, but the content and scope of the complexity tend to expand in recent years. Even if the objectives are not comprehensive and diverse, it can be seen that many parts of the projects are oriented toward convergence, so it is necessary to conduct separate research on this. 6) As for the direction of improvement of the return project, it is possible to consider expanding the restoration and conservation focus to partially accommodate the complexity of the natural environment and human ecology. It seems that the expansion of restoration technologies that consider the role and function of humans in the natural environment should be explored.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Marine Environment & Energy
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.337-348
• /
• 2012

The Yellow Sea Ecoregion Conservation Project is a joint international project which is carried out under the purposes of conserving the habitats in the Yellow Sea Ecoregion and biodiversity from various threats that damage ecosystems, informing the importance and value of the Yellow Sea Ecoregion, and promoting the understanding and interests of Korea, China and Japan. Subsequent to the Yellow Sea Ecoregion Planning Programme which had been performed during the period from 2002 to 2006, the Yellow Sea Ecoregion Support Project has been performed over 7 years in total from 2007 to 2014. Panasonic is sponsoring the financing of the project, and the organizations in charge of the project by country are Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology for Korea and World Wide Fund for Nature branches for China and Japan. While the Yellow Sea Ecoregion Planning Programme was focused on the biological assessment and the selection of potential priority area by scientific review, the Yellow Sea Ecoregion Support Project is oriented toward practical activities targeting more diversified stakeholder. Especially, this project plans to support direct conservation activities in the region and participation and cooperation from local residents. The project plan is comprised of 3 phases. During the first period from 2008 to 2009, small grant projects were operated targeting 16 institutions of Korea and China, and for the second period from 2010 to 2012, one place each was selected as demonstration site for habitat conservation in Korea and China respectively and supported for three years to introduce the conservation method based on international standards such as the management of marine protected areas, ecosystem-based management and community-based management and simultaneously to develop habitat conservation activities suitable for national and regional characteristics. During the period from 2013 to 2014 which is the last phase, the project plans to distribute the performance of small grant projects and demonstration site activities through a series of forums among stakeholder. Through the activities described above, the recognition of general public on the conservation of the Yellow Sea Ecoregion was changed positively, and community-based management began to be reflected in the policies for the marine protected areas of central and local government.