농업직불금 제도의 정책구조와 집행 분석: 충남지역을 사례로 (The Policy Structure and Implementation Analysis of Agricultural Direct Payment : in the Case Study of Chungnam)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국농촌사회학회
· 수록지 정보 : 농촌사회 / 25권 / 2호 / 143 ~ 180페이지
· 저자명 : 강마야, 이관률

초록

농업직불금 제도의 정책구조 분석 및 충남지역을 사례로 하는 집행분석 결과, 첫째, 정책개요 측면에서는 동일한 직불제 내에서도 협의 개념의 목적과 광의 개념의 목적이 혼재 혹은 상충되고 있고 수혜자들의 정책의 인지도 및 이해도가 부족하다. 둘째, 정책투입 측면에서는 지원기준 자체가 전부 ha당이라고 명시되어 있어 직불금 수혜규모가 면적에 의해 결정되는 구조이다. 상한면적은 있으나 농가당 평균 경작면적이 1.6 ha(2014년 기준)로서 작기 때문에 실효성이 없다. 셋째, 정책집행 측면에서는 경영이양직불과 친환경농업직불을 제외하면 지원상한 기간은 1년 단위, 이원화된 관리감독 체계가 문제로 지적되고 있다.넷째, 정책성과 측면에서는 특정품목 중심의 편중된 구조, 밭농업직불․조건불리직불․친환경농업직불은 상대적으로 집행율이 낮고 소득보전은 미미하다. 다섯째, 정책환류 측면에서는 대부분의 제도가 통제수단은 부재한 상황이었고 만족도 조사로 대체하는 사후평가는 보완이 요구된다. 1년 단위의 예산집행 구조이기 때문에 실질적인 통제수단, 성과 및 사후관리 불필요한 구조인 것이다. 마지막으로, 정책수혜 측면에서는 동일필지에 대한 중복수혜불가 수급조건, 한정된 예산 내에서 다수의 제도를 시행하고 있기 때문에 직불금 규모가 작을 수 밖에 없는 구조로서 농가소득 향상에 기여함이 낮다는 비판을 받고 있다.

영어초록

This study analyzed the policy structure of agricultural direct payment in South Korea and reviewed at its implementation status based on case examples in the Chungnam. The research results are as follows; First, in outline of the policy structure of agricultural direct payment, externally it appears to seek a direct payment system for public good in the broader concept. However, in reality, the payment seeks it for income support in the narrower concept, showing the contradiction between formality and substance. In the current direct payment, narrower-ranged purposes and broader-ranged purposes are mixed together. Most policy beneficiaries were rack of awareness and concern about that. Second, the policy input was studied herein for the agricultural direct payment system. It was found that all of its support was provided for every agricultural area(ha). This means that the direct payment coverage is determined by agricultural areas. In the fixed direct payment for rice, its support standard has an upper limit in agricultural areas. However given the South Korea’s average cultivation area of each farm household is 1.6 ha (as of 2014), the payment standard is ineffective. Third, the policy implementation was reviewed at herein of the agricultural direct payment. The support period is up to 1 year and renewed every one year. It is also criticized for dual supervision and control system. Forth, the policy performance of agricultural direct payment was investigated. As a result, the payment was concentrated on several specific crops and the implementation performance was found lower in direct payment for field farming, disadvantaged areas, and organic farming. Fifth, the policy feedback of agricultural direct payment was examined. Most of the policies were found to have no mean of control and required to complement the follow-up evaluation system which was implemented as the satisfaction survey. This needs to be improved. Since the support payment is operated on the yearly basis, it comes to have unnecessary structures such as practical means of control, performance and follow-up evaluation. Lastly, as to the policy beneficiaries of agricultural direct payment, double benefit receipts are not allowed for the same land. Since multiple payments are operated under a limited budget, individual farmers receive only small amount of the direct payment. For these reasons, the direct payment is criticized for its insufficient contribution to farming household income.

참고자료

· 없음