주요국의 대아프리카 환경 ODA 공여정책과 결정요인 분석 및 시사점 (Environmental ODA to Africa: Policies, Determinants and Implications)

Korean Abstract: 빈곤문제 해결은 환경문제 해결과 긴밀히 관련되어 있다. 예를 들어 빈곤층은 경작지를 넓히기 위해 울창한 산림을 베어내거나 땔감을 확보하기 위해 벌목을 하고 곡물 생산을 위해 토양을 과도하게 사용하는 경향이 있다. 그 결과 농지가 황폐화된다. 이런 과정이 반복됨에 따라 기후변화가 가중되고 사막화, 가뭄, 토양유실을 초래해 결국 빈곤층은 ‘환경 함정(environmental trap)’에 빠진다. 그러나 환경보존을 위해 빈곤층의 경제활동을 규제한다면 그들의 삶은 더욱 어려워질 것이다. 특히 빈곤율이 가장 높은 아프리카 대륙의 특성을 고려할 때 환경보존 전략과 경제개발 전략을 동시에 구사하기가 어려울지라도 적절한 균형점을 찾아야 한다. English Abstract: We explore the trends and policies of environmental ODA and empirically analyze the determinants of Japanese and Swedish environmental ODA for Africa. We choose two countries, Japan and Sweden; Japan is the largest donor of environmental ODA, and Sweden is a role model of this type of ODA provision. From the CRS data, we find that many major donors have expressed interest in environmental ODA as time passes. However, each country has its own environmental ODA policies. The Japanese environmental ODA determinants and its policies can be summarized as follows. First, whereas Japan is the world’s largest donor of environmental ODA, the amount of giving to Africa has been relatively small. That is, Japan has not been interested in the environmental issues in Africa for years. Second, the amount of trade significantly affects the decision to grant environmental ODA for Africa. This implies that the economic relationship between Japan and its recipient countries is a major factor in determining whether Japan provides environmental ODA or not. Third, recently Japan seems to have changed its environmental ODA policy for Africa. For example, Japan announced that it would increase the amount of environmental ODA for Africa at the 3rd and 4th TICADs. Fourth, Japan provides environmental ODA for resource-poor rather than resource-rich African countries. For instance, Nigeria, a major oil exporter, got relatively little environmental ODA from Japan, while it is the number 1 recipient country in Africa of ODA from Japan. On the other hand, the Swedish environmental ODA determinants and its policies can be summarized as follows. First, Sweden, with extensive experience providing ODA, has focused on environmental mainstreaming, even though the size of ODA is relatively small. Second, the Swedish environmental ODA has been meeting the needs of recipient countries. To investigate their individual needs, Sweden often holds a policy dialogue with recipients. Fourth, the ratio of the total amount of ODA to environmental ODA continues to maintain a certain level and converges to a small number. However, Japan’s number does not; this number is stable due to the fact that Sweden many times has held policy dialogues to persuade the recipient countries to satisfy their needs. Our findings give the following implications. First, Korea has to reflect the issues of the environmental mainstreaming to the ODA policy. By doing so, Korea can grow to become one of the significant donors in this field. In particular, Korea must note that Japan has expressed the will to take part in environmental mainstreaming through the announcement at the 4th and 5th TICADs. Second, Korea has to hold more policy dialogues with recipient countries. Policy implementation is a totally different process from policy making. When the Korean government determines that it will give environmental ODA to African recipients, the distinct features of Africa should be understood. In particular, the causes of environmental deterioration differ across regions, as the poor in Africa have different reasons that they remain poor across residential regions. Hence, the causes should be explored in a dynamic view to provide suitable treatments, rather than in a static view. To do so, more policy dialogues with African recipient countries are required.