KOREA's
CASE: DIALOGUE and CONSULTATION with CIVIL SOCIETY in terms of TRADE and ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
By KIM DoHoon, Senior Research Fellow,
Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade
I.
Introduction
-
The Korean government is characterised by a highly centralised administration
and top-down administrative decision-making. Therefore, administrative information
has also been highly centralised and is often closed to public access. Consultation
with interested parties has not been strongly required. However, this administrative
climate is rapidly changing. The adoption of the Information Disclosure
Act in 1996 transformed the attitude of administrative agencies. This Act
requires the release of information to the public upon request, with limited
exceptions for reasons such as national security, reunification, privacy
protection and commercially sensitive material. In addition, the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) requires administrative agencies to announce in advance
their plan to enact, amend, and abolish Acts and subordinate statutes.
-
Communication notes and
discussion groups have been used more frequently as consultation methods
by the Korean government than public hearings. The former methods have facilitated
the rapid progress of government policies, because the government has been
able to select interested parties to be heard, particularly business people.
However, public hearings have been employed whenever policy issues are expected
to have a great impact on the economy. Recently, relatively new mechanisms
are actively used by the government such as Internet sites, newsletters
or periodicals, and information disseminating networks (see paragraph 11)
etc.
-
In Korea, issues related to the interaction between trade and environmental
policies do not yet seem to be sensitively perceived. Even though Korea
has been strongly pursuing a so called outward oriented development strategy
relying on international trade, and has consequently been actively engaged
in international trade agreements, trade liberalisation and/or international
trade agreements have never provoked serious environmental issues at the
domestic level. Until now, the only concerns Korea has regarding trade issues
related to their economic impact, such as growth and price effects on Korean
industries or the Korean economy in general.
-
Since the late 1980s, environmental issues have started to attract
people's attention at the domestic level. On the one hand as Korea's industrial
development has been so rapid and explosive, it has sometimes provoked direct
environmental concerns. On the other hand, people, with increased income
level, have become more sensitive to environmental issues. Against this
background, some NGOs specialised in environmental issues have been gaining
a greater following. However, their concerns have been limited to domestic
issues such as water and air pollution and protection of the nature. As
a result, environmental NGOs have not been very interested in trade issues.
-
The relative lack of sensitivity of environmental NGOs to �rade and
environment�� issues in Korea may in part be due to the lack of policy dialogues
between the government and these NGOs on the issues. In fact, the government's
efforts for policy dialogue with the private sector have been directed towards
discussions with firms at the expense of those with environmental NGOs.
-
MOE has recently established a policy dialogue tool focussed on trade
and environment. Through the Discussion Group on Trade and Environment,
established in July 1999, specialists in this area from government-financed
think-tanks (see below) and private research centres meet with MOE officials
on a monthly basis. Most big industrial groups (so-called Chaebol) run their
own research centres specialised in environmental issues and five of them
are participating in this discussion group. However, no environmental NGOs
currently participate in the group. This group discussed six major WTO agenda
items at its July meeting. Some of the members are expected to conduct in-depth
research in their specialised fields and share the results with other members
of the group and eventually hold seminars for the public.
-
MOFAT manages a list of trade policy specialists. The specialists,
coming from public and private research centres and universities are named
as advisory committee members. MOFAT officials frequently consult these
specialists on various trade issues and sometimes ask them to attend, together
with government officials, international talks and negotiations. Among them,
certain experts are named as specialists on trade and environmental issues.
-
MOFAT has recently established a list of people to whom they intend
to disseminate trade-related information more quickly (by means of e-mail
or facsimile) in an effort to improve their information dissemination system.
The list includes the members of MOFAT's Advisory Council and those of its
sub-councils, the members of the Economic Co-operation Committee at the
Private Level (including KCCI and KFI), deans of graduate schools specialised
in trade, MOFAT Advisory Group on Regional Issues, researchers of public
and private research centres specialised in trade, mass media representatives,
members of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and
political parties.
-
MOE publishes a monthly report entitled �nternational Environmental
Development�� in order to disseminate the information on major international
environmental issues, including multilateral environment agreements. The
report transmits environment-related news articles from major domestic and
international sources. It also includes the mission reports made by MOE
officials when participating in international environmental talks. The report
has a special section reserved to the issues on trade and environment. The
report, in published form, is distributed to the private sector including
firms, business associations, related government-financed think-tanks, and
environmental NGOs for free. In addition, the whole content of the report
can be found at the MOE Internet site �ww.moenv.go.kr��.
-
MOFAT also publishes a monthly newsletter entitled the �lobal Environment
Report�� in order to disseminate the information on major international environmental
meetings including international talks on trade and environment. MOFAT officials,
who participate in these meetings and talks, write articles for the newsletter.
As MOFAT is more specifically in charge of issues between trade and environment,
this newsletter seems more specialised in trade and environmental issues.
For example, the OECD Joint Working Party Meetings on Trade and Environment
are reported in summary in the newsletter. The newsletter, in the published
form, is distributed to the private sector including firms, business associations,
related government-financed think-tanks, and environmental NGOs for free.
In addition, the whole content of the newsletter can be found at the MOFAT
Internet site �ww.mofat.go.kr��.
-
This section summarises the reactions of non-governmental organisations
interviewed on their views and experiences with the above-mentioned transparency
and consultation mechanisms.
-
Despite various efforts by the government to disseminate information
and to consult with the private sector, the assessment of the latter does
not seem very positive in general. This is especially true when it comes
to the environmental NGOs' assessment.
-
The exception is the case of government-financed think-tanks and industrial
or traders' organisations, if they are considered part of the private sector
as the Korean government usually does. As they are frequently informed and
consulted by the government, they seem to be quite satisfied with the current
system in terms of transparency and consultation. Researchers from think-tanks
are sometimes asked to accompany government officials when they attend important
international talks or negotiations. They are supposed to give government
officials direct policy advice on the spot. This has undoubtedly contributed
to improving policy dialogue between the government and these think-tanks.
-
Private firms do not seem to be totally satisfied with the current
system, despite the fact that they are better informed and more frequently
consulted by the government than environmental NGOs are. To date, the intermediary
role for disseminating information and consulting in this context played
by semi-public organisations does not seem to be particularly well appreciated
by private firms. This may be partly because private firms have not been
concerned about the issues on trade and environment and so they had not
developed sufficient expertise on the issues to evaluate the information
until very recently. The government also put forward the same rationale
as the reason why they were not very active to inform and consult private
firms until recently. However, since private firms (at least major conglomerates)
have recently established their own research centres on environmental issues
and their members have been directly called upon as consultation partners
by the government, they seem to have become more satisfied with the government's
efforts.
-
The environmental NGOs' assessment, particularly of those who are specialised
in environmental issues, regarding the current government system for enhancing
transparency and consultation is rather negative. They feel excluded from
the information flow and consultation network of the government, particularly
in the context of trade and environmental issues. Even though there are
some meetings where they can get information about the government's policies,
they think that meetings are held too infrequently. Again in this case,
the lack of interest and expertise on the issues by environmental NGOs is
the reason put forward by the government for making fewer efforts to share
information and consult with them. Considering that these NGOs are relatively
satisfied with the efforts of the MOE for disseminating information at least
on pure environmental issues, this may well be a relevant factor.
-
However, as the government holds a near monopoly on information about
trade and environmental issues, a lack of effort on the part of the government
for disseminating information may have resulted in a lack of interest by
these NGOs. The fact that one of those NGOs recently published a report
on globalisation and environmental issues (mainly translating several reports
on the issues made by foreign academia and international NGOs) shows that
they are increasingly interested in these issues.
-
Environmental NGOs do not seem to have confidence in the current system
for lodging their opinions and comments on governmental policies, either.
Instead of bringing their opinions directly to the government, they seem
to have preferred using mass media as the means of advocating their causes. It has often provoked emotional reactions
from the general public, which has forced the government to change policies
or to take measures to cope with the issues raised. This attitude of environmental
NGOs has not helped to improve the government's confidence in these NGOs.
Until very recently, the government did not make a great effort to inform
NGOs about their policies nor to consult them. The lack of dialogue and
consultation between the government and NGOs has made NGOs resort more and
more to emotional reactions.
-
The relationship between the government and environmental NGOs has
recently improved thanks to each other's efforts to engage in dialogue.
On the government's part, the fact that MOE has been organising the Discussion
Group on Environmental Policies between NGO representatives and government
officials since 1994 is a good example. The fact that the Internet site
of MOE shows the link sites of major environmental NGOs is another example.
MOFAT also seems to be making efforts to improve relations with environmental
NGOs by inviting some NGO representatives to accompany MOFAT officials while
attending international environmental talks. On the NGOs side, they try
and invite government officials to their open seminars with the general
public.
-
There still seems to be a gap in perception about the seriousness of
problems between the government and civil society, particularly environmental
NGOs, in terms of policy issues on trade and environment. Whereas the government
treats these issues very seriously, assuming that they will have a great
impact on the whole economy, environmental NGOs' interest in these issues
seems to be limited to being informed on the issues and learning about foreign
NGOs' reactions to the issues. The perception gap still seems to hamper
the development of sincere dialogue on the issues. This in turn seems to
further degrade NGOs' assessment on the current system of transparency and
consultation on this matter.
-
On the other hand, Korean firms have begun to feel the seriousness
of the issues and are keen to know the impact on their business. It is for
this reason that they have recently established their own research centres
on environmental issues and their researchers have started to actively participate
in the current consultation mechanism. Although firms have been more privileged
consultation partners of the government than other segments of civil society
in Korea, they do not seem to be completely satisfied with the current system.
In view of their keen interest in collecting information, firms also seem
to demand that the government establish a better system of information dissemination.
-
As described above, the intermediary role played by government-financed
think-tanks and industry organisations is not perceived as totally satisfactory.
Currently, the activities of think-tanks, as organisers of seminars and
conferences on trade and environment, are not very active, partly because
they do not yet regard issues on trade and environment as urgent and partly
because they have not accumulated sufficient information.
-
Although the government is trying various new information dissemination
methods, such as the Internet sites, periodicals and information network
etc, personal contacts are still perceived by firms and NGOs as the best
way to get information and to consult. In this sense, environmental NGOs
seem to desire that their representatives be included in various discussion
groups. In addition, it is requested by other segments of civil society
and, particularly by environmental NGOs that government-financed think-tanks
and industry organisations should improve their intermediary role by organising
more meetings and undertaking more personal contacts with them.