OECD 농업환경지표개발 논의에 대응한 농업환경지표 개발과 과제

Abstract

농업환경지표는 농업이 환경에 미치는 영향을 파악하기 위해 일정한 기준에 따라 산정된 대표적인 값을 말한다. OECD는 1993년부터 농업환경정책위원회에 합동작업반을 설치하여 정책담당자들이 농업활동과 농업정책이 환경에 미치는 영향의 인과관계를 더 잘 이해할 수 있도록 돕기 위해 농업환경지표 개발을 추진하여 왔다. 그동안 전문가들의 연구와 회원국에 대한 설문조사 및 합동작업반 회의를 농업환경지표 개발에 관한 종합보고서 제4권의 초안이 2006년 6월에 발표되었다. OECD 농업환경지표 개발에 관한 종합보고서 발간을 앞두고 농업환경지표를 이용한 회원국의 농업환경 상태의 비교와 지표개발에 대한 평가 및 향후 과제에 대한 검토가 체계적으로 이루어질 필요가 있다. 이 연구는 OECD JWP의 지표개발에 관한 논의동향 분석 및 농업환경지표개발 종합보고서 발간에 따른 농업환경지표의 정책적 활용방안과 향후 지속적인 지표개발에 대응한 과제를 제시하는데 목적이 있다. 이 연구를 통해 OECD농업환경지표의 개발과 관련 우선 농업환경지표의 개념과 구성체계, OECD 농업환경정책위원회의 JWP의 논의동향 및 농업환경지표 종합보고서의 내용을 개관하였다. 또, 개발된 농업환경지표를 이용하여 OECD회원국간의 농업환경실태 비교하여 제시하고, 비교 검토대상이 된 지표는 농업정황지표, 양분수지지표, 농약사용 및 위해성 지표, 에너지지표, 토양지표, 물이용지표, 수질지표, 대기 및 기후변화지표, 생물다양성지표 등 8개의 핵심지표를 중심으로 살펴보았다.

Agriculture may positively or negatively affect environments depending on management of production activities. Agri-Environmental Indicators (AEIs) are the representative values calculated with the given criteria for those areas selected to determine the effects of agriculture on environment and vice versa. The OECD Secretariat has been promoting development of agri-environmental indicators by organizing a Joint Working Party in 1993 and will announce a comprehensive report in the middle of 2007. This study is intended to analyze trends of AEI development by OECD JWP and to present policy linkage and subjects to meet future development of AEIs following announcement of the comprehensive report of AEI development. The study is largely organized into 6 chapters. The introduction overviews the issues raised, objectives of study and review of previous studies. Chapter 2 covers the development process of OECD AEIs, concept and configuration of prior AEIs, trends of JWP discussion in the OECD Agri-Environmental Policy Committee, and contents of the AEI comprehensive report. Chapter 3 presents comparative analysis of agri-environmental status of OECD members. The target indicators include the 8 key indicators: contextual indicator, nutrient balance, agricultural pesticide use and risk, energy indicator, soil indicator, water use, water quality, atmosphere and weather change, and biological diversity. Chapter 4 presents comparison of environmental performance with changes in circumstances and examples of assessment on agri-environmental policy using nutrient balance indicator in regard to political utilization of AEIs. In addition, this chapter reviews Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) and Stylized Agri-environmental Policy Impact Model (SAPIM) under discussion in OECD as a policy assessment model using AEIs. Besides, the STONE model of Netherlands and IRENA (Indicator Reporting on the Integration of Environmental Concerns into Agricultural Policy) of EU are covered in this chapter. Chapter 5 presents the 5 subjects for AEI development: development of indicators suitable for the domestic agricultural conditions; development of persuasive indicators appropriate for multi functions; development of composite indicators regarding AEIs; development of indicators to meet user's needs and distribution of information; and establishment of indicator development network between experts and persons responsible for the policy. Finally, Chapter 6 briefs summary and conclusion. As environmental problems may largely differ by countries and by regions, there might be a limitation in integration of the indicators and comparative analysis between countries using AEIs based on average values. However, nutrient indicators for nitrogen and phosphoric acid, number and area of ecological farms, number and area of farms applying nutrient management, and investment to agri-environmental research are regarded as very useful indicators for comparison between countries. Through continual development and update of AEIs, environmental load on the agriculture should be reduced by identifying changes in local agricultural environment and by promoting a step-by-step strategy for areas that require response such as nutrient management. In particular, a warning message to excessive nutrient input was given to Netherlands, an OECD member that marked the highest value of nitrogen balance indicator in 1997. Since then, the Dutch government has achieved a considerable performance by promoting a step-by-step national strategy to reduce surplus nutrient using the AEIs. This may be a good example of clearing the surplus nutrient problem in domestic agricultural environment.

Researchers: Chang-Gil Kim, Tae-Young Kim, Eun-Mi Jeong E-mail address: changgil@krei.re.kr