현행 환경정책기본법상 “수익자부담원칙”의 의미와 법적 과제

Abstract

With the revision of the 「Environmental Policy Framework Act」 in 2021, The Beneficiary Pays Principle(BPP) was accepted as the environmental finance principle. This thesis examines the background and necessity of The Beneficiary Pays Principle introduced in the 「Framework Act on Environmental Policy」, the distinction from The Polluter Pays Principle(PPP), the application cases of the existing individual laws, the requirements for the specific application of the principle of beneficiary burden, and future legal tasks. Through the Beneficiary Pays Principle, the members of the community are encouraged to share the cost of public goods and services called environmental conservation if they are important beneficiaries of the environmental conservation project and are beneficiaries who have obtained significant profits in this regard. It is meaningful in that you should be able to contribute. The problem is that, when The Beneficiary Pays Principl is applied to individual environmental fields, it is not easy to design legislation regarding the requirements. Regarding the application requirements of The Beneficiary Pays Principl: ① Contents of environmental conservation projects that are public goods and public services provided by the state, ② Contents of significant profits and the scope of ‘beneficiaries who obtain significant profits’, ③ ‘Projects for environmental conservation’ A step-by-step review is necessary for determining the cost to be borne by the beneficiary, and accounting for all or part of the expenses borne by the beneficiary. The case theory of the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court on this should also be reflected in the future legislative process, but overall review and improvement of individual laws to which the existing beneficiary contribution is applied is also necessary. Importantly, in relation to the expansion of the area to which the Beneficiary Pays Principle is applied, the view that if there is a person who has significantly benefited from the environmental policy or institutional design caused by the climate crisis at home and abroad in recent years, it is persuasive that the cost should be borne. In addition, it remains an important task in the future to review the application of the Beneficiary Pays Principle in relation to the cost burden of waste-related policies and facility installation and operation. It is time to think a lot about the gradual expansion of the Beneficiary Pays Principle in order to expand the ideology of sustainability and social equity in individual environmental fields such as water management costs, park admission fees, ecosystem service costs, climate crisis response policy costs, and waste treatment costs.