This chapter presents the results of the country case study carried out in Korea. It reviews Korea’s adaptation measurement framework, providing an overview of the policy and institutional framework and the methods used to measure progress in implementing national and local adaptation policies. It also highlights indicators that have been developed in the country to shed light on adaptation progress.
Measuring Progress in Adapting to a Changing Climate
Insights from OECD countries
Abstract
Korea has established a whole-of-government approach to adaptation policy and planning. Korea is currently developing its third National Adaptation Strategy (NAS). The national strategies are implemented through short-term national adaptation plans (NAPs), with the third plan released in 2023. The NAPs are accompanied by detailed sectoral implementation plans developed by 17 ministries. In addition, 17 metropolitan cities and provincial governments and 226 local governments have established five-year Local Adaptation Plans. Other public institutions are also mandated to develop adaptation actions and to report on them.
Adaptation measurement is a core part of Korea’s well-established adaptation policy framework. Korea was among the first OECD countries to make adaptation measurement a legal requirement, in its Framework Act on Low Carbon and Green Growth, which it enacted more than a decade ago and updated in 2021. The act requires the government to monitor progress on the implementation of the adaptation plan annually, and to provide a progress report to the Ministry of Environment and subsequently to the 2050 Carbon Neutrality Committee. The act emphasises accountability and learning by requiring areas that need improvement to be reflected in future adaptation policies.
Korea’s climate change risk assessments are an important basis for policy making. The 2020 Korea Climate Change Assessment Report identified 84 climate risks across 6 key policy areas (e.g. ecosystems, agriculture and fisheries, health, industry and energy, water management and national land and coastal areas). The risks were analysed according to their urgency and Korea’s adaptation capacity. At the local level, an indicator-based risk assessment tool was developed to facilitate local risk understanding of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.
Korea relies on well-structured and complementary methods for its adaptation progress reviews. Since its second NAP, the plan is reviewed frequently, through annual, interim (year 3) and final evaluations (year 5). This regularity helps ministries build capacity to identify implementation gaps, take corrective action and use resources efficiently. All adaptation projects (341 in the last round) are reviewed annually for budget execution and implementation progress, and a selection of 100 critical projects are put under greater scrutiny:
Every year, implementing ministries carry-out self-evaluations for all projects using a standardised template, which are then reported to the 2050 Carbon Neutrality Committee. Ministries score the project based on several qualitative criteria (e.g. level of collaboration, compliance with the budget, target achievement...) and measured on a four-point scale (very good, good, normal, insufficient).
The annual self-evaluations are further assessed as excellent, fair or poor by an expert review group, which also identifies best practices to be replicated.
Additional information on adaptation engagements is collected at the local level and collated at the national level.
In addition, for a selected shortlist of critical projects (49 projects in the third NAP), Korea has introduced a public evaluation group/citizen review that assess project implementation based on qualitative criteria. Allowing citizens to directly participate in the review of the implementation progress is a valuable practice that can help raise awareness of the need to adapt, increase acceptance for projects and provide insights on the prevailing level of awareness of the need for adaptation.
Korea’s set of adaptation indicators has evolved over the years. There is currently a shortlist of key indicators as well as a longer list, respectively reflecting the national NAP and the sectoral plans. The indicators, which are both quantitative and qualitative, vary according to the sectoral plans and the nature of projects. A combination of key performance indicators for each sector and indicators to assess sectoral progress is used. For the third NAP, Korea established two lists of indicators: (i) one referring to “policy indicators” (20 indicators) that relate to the level of implementation towards quantified targets for 2025, such as the expansion of flood forecasting points; and (ii) one referring to so-called “public perception indicators” (16 indicators), which measure the usefulness and relevance of policy progress, such as “number of national drought information portal users”.
Measurement gaps remain. The measurement of adaptation investments remains the focus of implementation progress, including budget execution rates, and lacks an appreciation of results and effectiveness of actions. Also the adaptation indicators reflect progress in the inputs and outputs of each action, rather than their outcomes. The expert judgements used for evaluating policy effectiveness criteria are a step in the right direction, though an expansion of methods and indicators beyond them would be useful to develop in the future.
The Republic of Korea is home to about 51.8 million people, 90% of whom live in densely populated cities. Its geography is characterised by mountains, covering 70% of its land area, surrounded by the sea. The average annual temperature for the past 30 years (1991-2020) has been about 13.7℃, the annual accumulated precipitation is about 1315.5 mm, and the four seasons are distinct. In summer, it is warm and humid, including the rainy season, and in winter, the climate is cold and dry due to the influence of the northwest monsoon. However, climate change is already causing continuous adverse effects through slow-onset processes (e.g. change in season length, sea temperature rise, etc.) and extreme climate events (e.g. heatwaves, floods, droughts, cold waves, etc.).
Korea has been developing and implementing climate change adaptation policies for more than a decade, building on the 2010 Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth and the revised 2021 Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis (FACNGG). The Framework Act also provides the legal basis for measuring progress in implementing adaptation policies. This process contributes to sharing the experiences of various implementing actors and informing decision making to improve adaptation planning and its effectiveness, as well as the efficiency of resources engaged.
The Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth institutionalised the roles and responsibilities of a large number of ministries and agencies for the design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of adaptation policies in Korea (Figure 4.1). The Ministry of Environment (MoE) is the competent ministry responsible for decision making and public affairs. It is supported by analysis from the Korea Adaptation Centre for Climate Change (KACCC) at the Korea Environmental Institute (KEI), and the National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER) for monitoring climate impacts. The MoE is in charge of developing the National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) for a 20-year planning period and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for a 5-year planning period, in consultation with the agencies responsible for adaptation implementation. In addition, to respond to the latest scientific findings on climate change, it has also developed an enhanced strategy for climate adaptation covering 2023 to 2025 (Ministry of Environment Korea, 2023[1]). Most central government agencies develop sectoral adaptation plans (SAPs) while 15 develop so-called detailed implementation plans (DIP) that lay out how the SAPs will be specifically implemented.
The 2050 Carbon Neutrality Committee1 (CNC), an inter-ministerial body set up by the Framework Act, also plays a deliberating and decision-making role, in consultation with the MoE, for establishing some adaptation policies (e.g. approving the NAP) and assessing their implementation status, as part of their wider mandate for climate policy planning. The Korea Adaptation Centre for Climate Change (KACCC), comprising approximately 30 experts, has supported adaptation policy development and implementation since 2009, notably at state and local government level, but also for public institutions and the private sector.2 In addition, it develops climate change risk assessment tools (e.g. MOTIVE, VESTAP, CRAS; see Section 4.3.3); supports domestic and international co-operation on adaptation, education and awareness raising for mainstreaming adaptation; and participates in international research activities.
All central ministries need to prepare annual self-evaluation reports to assess progress in implementing the NAP. Based on these reports, the MoE and KACCC conduct an evaluation, which is then reported to and annually reviewed by the CNC. As necessary, the CNC then requests implementing agencies to supplement and improve projects that have made insufficient progress according to the NAP. The requests need to be reflected in the respective agencies’ projects.
Note: Green: co-ordinating and decision-making bodies; dark blue: ministries; light blue: government agencies. KACCC=Korea Adaptation Centre for Climate Change; KCDC = Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency; KEI= Korea Environmental Institute.
Local adaptation policies (LAPs) are also developed and reviewed. Notably, 17 metropolitan city and province governments as well as 226 basic local governments (cities, counties and districts) have established five-year LAPs and respective action plans. Regional research institutes review and provide advice on the LAPs. Since 2022, public organisations that operate major social infrastructure must also establish and implement adaptation plans every five years and review implementation results annually. They do so with capacity-building support from central government (e.g. guidelines for adaptation measures, development of climate risk assessment tools, integration and provision of adaptation information).
Although there are no legal requirements for establishing adaptation plans in the private sector, interest is increasing (e.g. through Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures) and mandatory disclosure of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) data that include climate risk is envisaged from 2030. In industry, the Industry Adaptation Partnership has been launched with associations representing key industries (e.g. materials, transportation, consumer goods) to prepare adaptation manuals for each industry and assess climate change impacts.
The Framework Act on Low Carbon, Green Growth provides the legal basis for climate adaptation policies in Korea, mandating the establishment and implementation of the NAP, NAS and LAPs. It also provides the legal basis for implementing local climate change adaptation projects and establishing adaptation plans for public organisations. These include, as of 2022, 62 of the 250 institutions that manage major infrastructure such as water, highways and electricity. With regard to adaptation measurement, the act mandates the government to develop measures to monitor and forecast climate change and its impacts, to assess climate impacts in all relevant sectors, and to assess progress in the implementation of NAP measures and detailed implementation plans (Korea Legislation Research Institute, 2021[2]). The act was updated in 2021, keeping the mandate to monitor and evaluate adaptation implementation progress. The revised act covers both mitigation and adaptation, laying out mid-term goals and policy measures.
Korea’s adaptation policy cycle is structured by the long-term (20-year) national adaptation strategy (NAS) and the five-year NAPs. The NAS is informed by regular climate change assessment reports (Figure 4.2). Korea is currently developing its latest long-term National Adaptation Strategy (NAS),3 which builds on both the first (2016) and second (2019) NAS.4 The second NAS sets out the goal “to prepare for 2°C warming by mainstreaming climate change adaptation” and outlines a set of actions to enhance adaptation in five key sectors, strengthen climate change monitoring and forecasting, as well as adaptation evaluation, and mainstream climate change adaptation across all sectors and actors.
In addition to the NAS, Korea has developed a series of National Adaptation Plans, starting with the National Climate Change Adaptation Comprehensive Plan (2009-30), adopted in 2008, followed by the first (2011-15), second (2016-20) and third (2021-25) National Climate Change Action Plans, adopted in 2010, 2015 and 2020 respectively. Throughout the NAPs’ evolution, there has been an increasing focus on participatory processes and a strong grounding in climate risk assessments. The third NAP benefits from a multi-stakeholder process, including youth and civil society, and builds on the national climate change risk list (84 risk items in 6 sectors) and the 2020 Korea Climate Change Assessment Report (Lee et al., 2022[3]; Republic of Korea, 2021[4]).
To improve the implementation rate and expected impact of the NAP, a so-called detailed implementation plan (DIP) has been established as a complement to the NAP. It lists individual projects to be implemented to achieve the NAP’s goals, acting as an action plan. As with the NAP, the DIP is developed by relevant ministries every five years. The third DIP consists of a total of 286 projects and involves 12 major tasks in 36 key areas. Of these, 49 projects have been selected as critical to achieve the main directions of NAP3.
Note: NAS=National Adaptation Strategy; NAP=National Adaptation Plan; KCCAR= Korea Climate Change Assessment Report.
In accordance with the Framework Act, all local governments across Korea are establishing and implementing five-year LAPs. The regional governments and local governments have established their third LAPs based on the NAS and the third NAP, in line with the MoE’s LAP establishment guidelines. They also benefit from the support of the risk assessment tool developed and continuously improved by the MoE. Once the plans are developed, they are reviewed and approved by the MoE and KACCC. The detailed projects included in the LAPs are centrally managed through a web-based LAP implementation check system developed in 2020 (Korea Environment Institute, 2022[5]). The MoE also supports public institutions in developing adaptation plans through guidelines and training for those in charge of setting up the plans.
The Korea Climate Change Assessment Report (KCCAR), prepared by the MoE and the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA), and published in 2010, 2014, and 2020, provides the scientific basis for establishing adaptation plans. For the KCCAR, 120 experts analyse scientific evidence of observed trends and projections of climate change and impacts as well as adaptation measures. Based on expert judgement, the reliability of findings is categorised into three levels (firm, intermediate or limited agreement). The findings inform a national climate risk list, which, in turn, informs adaptation plans. In 2019, the list was updated to a total of 93 risks in 7 key sectors based on an analysis of causality relationship maps to understand how different risks might affect different sectors (Song and Lee, 2022[6]).
As a basis for the KCCAR, the KMA develops detailed climate change scenarios in Korea looking to 2100 with 1km horizontal resolution. The scenarios are provided for both Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) and Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs), and the data are publicly available through the KMA's climate information portal (Korea Meteorological Administration, 2017[7]). In addition, the MoE has developed the Model Of inTegrated Impact and Vulnerability Evaluation of Climate Change (MOTIVE) system, which quantitatively predicts future climate change impacts across seven sectors (Korea Environment Institute, n.a.[8]). It also includes models to assess inter-sectoral linkage scenarios, projected economic impacts, and spatial planning. The system provides a web GIS-based display system to allow relevant decision makers and stakeholders to easily view and use model results.
The MoE has also developed VESTAP, an indicator-based climate risk assessment tool to support adaptation planning at the local level. The tool showcases indices related to hazard, exposure and vulnerability.5 For example, in the health sector 15 evaluation items are assessed, such as vulnerability to heatwaves. This item is evaluated based on data on exposure areas such as perceived temperature, relative humidity and highest temperature; vulnerability data, which cover vulnerable populations and the number of heat-related fatalities; and adaptive capacity, based on the number of medical facilities and personnel. By allocating weights to risk items based on expert judgement, the tool allows for local governments to prioritise actions. MoE and KACCC are continuously conducting research to expand and update the risks and improve the indicators and weights.
The 2021 Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis provides the legal basis for evaluating the implementation of adaptation policies (Table 4.1) (Republic of Korea, 2021[9]). The act requires each implementing entity at national and local level, including public institutions, to provide an annual report on the status of implementation, best practices and areas for improvement. This must be submitted to the Minister of Environment, who is required to synthesise the information and report it to the 2050 Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Committee. Public institutions also need to submit their annual reports to the heads of their respective central administrative agencies and local governments. The process is laid out in Table 4.1, and is described in detail in the following sections.
As prescribed in the Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis
Note: DIP=Detailed Implementation Plan; LAP=Local Adaptation Plan; NAP=National Adaptation Plan
Source: authors, based on (Republic of Korea, 2021), Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis
The national framework for measuring adaptation progress has been gradually established since the second NAP, with the focus on DIPs. Figure 4.3 outlines the key steps in the NAP3 implementation evaluation procedure. The evaluation of performance of the third NAP, based on policy indicators and public perception indicators, will be brought together in the following processes (see also Table 4.2):
An annual review of the NAP’s DIP and a joint performance evaluation of the relevant ministries including the expert committee, informing an action plan for the following year.
A mid-term evaluation (in 2023) jointly carried out by the MoE, KACCC and the expert committees of each ministry.
A comprehensive (end-of term) evaluation, led by the MoE, to be carried out in 2025 to inform the fourth NAP (2026-30). It will be complemented by an updated KCCAR 2025.
The annual review is divided into an evaluation of all the projects in the NAP’s DIP and a more in-depth evaluation of the critical projects in the DIP. The DIP evaluation (first conducted in 2022 for NAP3) is a two-step process:
1. Each ministry that has a sectoral adaptation plan conducts a self-evaluation, based on a standardised template, of its respective DIP.
2. Each departments’ expert review committee, as well as the national evaluation group, review the DIPs simultaneously to foster credibility. This sectoral self-evaluation of the DIP assesses the preparation, implementation and results using a number of indicators (Table 4.3, see section 4.5.1). An overall progress rating is assigned based on the points achieved for each indicator, namely very good, good, average or insufficient.
Note: If there have been additional achievements in adaptation mainstreaming such as establishing a horizontal co-operative organisational system, up to 5 additional points can be given.
For a selected shortlist of projects (49 projects in NAP3) considered critical during the consultation with responsible ministries in the development of the NAP, Korea introduced a public evaluation group/citizen review in NAP3, which, together with the expert review group, selects and reviews these so-called “critical projects” and identifies best practices among them (Table 4.2). The establishment of a public evaluation group a novel feature of NAP3 (2021-25) involving all implementing actors (i.e. government, metropolitan and local governments, experts, civil society, youth, and industry representatives) to monitor and evaluate implementation status. The group selects outstanding projects with the aim of increasing public policy acceptance. The evaluation of critical projects is conducted according to the results of the self-evaluation and qualitative/quantitative evaluation using a group of experts in each field. The objective of the assessment is to select best practice projects among the critical projects. The evaluation assesses project-site efforts and collaboration and communication efforts, how well the project is mainstreamed across relevant ministries and stakeholders, to what extent the project achieved its overall goal and its effectiveness (Table 4.7).
The mid-term and comprehensive (end-of-term) evaluations are carried out in the third and fifth year respectively of the NAP’s five-year planning period. The last mid-term evaluation of NAP2 was conducted in 2018. It is carried out by an expert evaluation team for each field, who evaluate qualitative and quantitative indicators. The mid-term evaluation aims to improve the efficiency in achieving the overall performance goal with appropriate measures and by monitoring the execution and performance of individual projects by sector in adapting to changing circumstances. The last end-of-term evaluation of NAP2 was conducted in 2020, in which qualitative indicators were added to the indicators used in the mid-term evaluation, helping to understand performance and limitations for the NAP overall. The next end-of-term evaluation will be in 2025, with the aim to better assess the effectiveness of the implementation of NAP3 and inform NAP4 based on updated scientific evidence established in the KCCAR.
Local governments are now in the third iteration of their LAPs. Each LAP also has a DIP, which also includes a selection of critical projects. Due to the similar structure of the NAP and LAPs, adaptation measurement at the local level reflects the measurement approach at the national level. Each LAP’s DIP is reviewed annually through self-evaluation by the local department responsible for the development of the LAP. The evaluation compares the performance of LAP implementation with the plan’s goals and budget execution. The evaluation results are brought together and shared with decision makers so as to inform future DIPs. MoE and KACCC have developed a web-based LAP implementation evaluation system6 where each local government can upload information on the individual DIP projects and report on their evaluation results. The system allows dedicated LAP support staff in the MoE and KACCC to monitor and analyse progress in each local government. Similar to the NAP, the LAP evaluation comprises:
An overall evaluation, conducted every five years at the end of the LAP period, assessing achievements and limitations of the current LAP.
An annual review of all projects in each LAP’s DIP.
An annual review of selected critical projects in the LAPs’ DIPs.
The annual review of all projects is carried out in line with the MoE's guidelines for implementation evaluation for local governments, which attempt to account for the different characteristics of each local government. They suggest that the heads of local governments collect opinions on implementation progress, for instance through public hearings or surveys, from stakeholders such as local residents, councils, NGOs, experts in the field and related organisations. The opinions collected are compiled to derive implications for the final evaluation results and used to inform future plans.
Since the establishment of NAP2, Korea has used qualitative and quantitative indicators to assess progress in its implementation (NAP1 only included qualitative targets, and no indicators). Indicators have been developed to assess the DIPs, the selected critical projects and to evaluate the overall NAP at both the mid-point and the end of the implementation period. The indicator set is constantly evolving to improve the quality of evaluation as necessary. NAP3 saw the indicators evolve to include additional indicators on public (i.e. citizen) perception. These assess critical projects from the general public’s point of view and help make citizens aware of climate adaption.
NAP3 is assessed using 20 policy indicators for 12 different sectors/domains, and 16 public perception indicators for 8 climate impacts/domains that are monitored annually (Table 4.4). Each indicator is associated with a target to be achieved by the end of the NAP implementation period (2025). The majority of policy indicators are linked to those of other relevant plans (e.g. water management, biodiversity, etc.).
Korea has improved the indicator framework for the third DIP, going beyond the second DIP’s simple assessment of whether the budget was executed and the target performance achieved. The DIP is now assessed using two different sets of indicators – general project indicators and public perception indicators – which measure progress in each of the projects (Table 4.5). A total of 396 indicators have been created to assess the implementation of the 286 projects in the third DIP, and each project can be assessed by multiple indicators. The indicators are set by the implementing body, taking into account the overall goals of the NAP, the type/nature of the project and the characteristics of the respective ministries. Thus, the characteristics and levels of indicators differ between projects.
In addition, the ministries responsible for establishing the DIP prepare a self-evaluation report for each of their assigned projects using evaluation indicators. These indicators assess the level of performance of individual projects in a standardised format, reporting on six sub-indicators to assess project preparation, implementation and results as well as degree of mainstreaming efforts (Table 4.6). To improve the interpretation of the results, the final evaluation result is presented by assigning 4 grades according to the overall score (out of 100): very good, good, normal and insufficient (Table 4.6). Evaluation results for the first annual DIP of NAP3 showed that 91.9% of projects were evaluated as good or above (79.9% very good, 12% excellent).
Note: Each indicator is rated on a 4-point scale: very good (90 points and above), good (80 points and above), normal (65 points and above) and insufficient (less than 65 points)
Source: Authors
The implementation of the DIP’s selected critical projects is assessed separately by the expert review committee and the public evaluation group. The public evaluation group uses three overall evaluation indicators – implementation, mainstreaming efforts and achievement of goals – and four sub-indicators (Table 4.7). Best practice is identified based on the overall score (out of 100 points). In 2022, seven projects were selected for their best practice examples.
Source: Authors.
Finally, Korea also uses an indicator set for its mid-term and end-of-term evaluation of the NAP. The end-of-term evaluation of NAP2 in 2020 was conducted through four discussions amongst evaluation group of experts related to each sector7 (Song, Young-Il et al., 2023[11]). It used four evaluation areas and eight indicators to assess overall progress:
1. The adequacy of the selection of implementation projects: this first evaluation area is measured by the following three indicators rated on a five-point scale:
The correlation between a specific climate risk, based on the national climate change risk list for NAP2, and the project for each sector. For instance, the risk of increased mortality from heat waves is assessed using the indicator of health damage caused by heatwaves and cold periods and then rated based on the five-point scale.
Suitability of the project, considering the degree of risk association identified. This assesses whether the establishment of a DIP was appropriate. The appropriateness was assessed qualitatively by the expert evaluation committee members – including experts responsible for the different sectors in the NAP – based on whether individual projects could contribute to reducing climate change risks. The committee prepares an evaluation report synthesising the results of each department’s self-evaluation of the DIP and develops policy recommendations for each sector.
The performance and limitations of each sector's projects based on the results of the performance evaluation of all DIP projects (qualitative).
2. The degree of projects’ contribution to reducing climate risks (87 risks identified in NAP2), based on the results of the first evaluation area. The level of contribution was decided by consensus of the evaluation group on a five-point scale, and where necessary, the objectivity of the evaluation was secured by laying out project details.
3. Proposal for establishing a NAP3 measure. A qualitative evaluation looked at all the projects in NAP2 to decide which needed to be retained in NAP3 and to identify new projects to be added in consideration of current issues and the environment.
4. Overall performance and limitations for each sector of NAP2. The overall evaluation result was derived through an integrated discussion for all divisions with a representative of each division's evaluation group. The evaluation results for each division were derived using the results of the completed evaluation area and the results of the past performance evaluation.
Quantitative and qualitative indicators are also used to evaluate the implementation of local governments DIPs. The final result is divided into four levels: very good (more than 90%), good (more than 80%), average (more than 65%), and insufficient (less than 65%) measured for two axes, achievement of the goal and the budget execution rate.
References
[12] Korea Adaptation Centre for Climate Change (2017), Korea adaptation centre for climate change, https://kaccc.kei.re.kr/.
[5] Korea Environment Institute (2022), LAP Implementation check system, http://lap.kei.re.kr.
[8] Korea Environment Institute (n.a.), Model of integrated impact and vulnerability evaluation of climate change, http://motive.kei.re.kr/.
[13] Korea Environment Institute (n.a.), VESTAP 기후변화취약성 평가도구 시스템, http://vestap.kei.re.kr.
[2] Korea Legislation Research Institute (2021), Framework Act on Low Carbon and Green Growth, https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=53039&lang=ENG,%20date%20of%20search.
[7] Korea Meteorological Administration (2017), Korea Climate information portal dashboard, http://www.climate.go.kr/home/.
[3] Lee, D. et al. (2022), “The development process and significance of the 3rd national climate change adaptation plan (2021–2025) of the Republic of Korea.”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 818/151728, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151728.
[1] Ministry of Environment Korea (2023), 제3차 국가 기후위기 적응 강화대책 수립 [Establishment of the 3rd National Climate Crisis Adaptation Enhancement Measures], http://www.me.go.kr/home/web/board/read.do?boardMasterId=1&boardId=1608350&menuId=10525.
[14] Presidential Commission on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth (2023), First National Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Basic Plan (2023-2042), https://www.2050cnc.go.kr/base/board/read?boardManagementNo=2&boardNo=1469&searchCategory=&page=3&searchType=&searchWord=&menuLevel=2&menuNo=16.
[9] Republic of Korea (2021), Framework Act on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth for Coping with Climate Crisis, https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/main.do.
[4] Republic of Korea (2021), The Republic of Korea’s Enhanced Update of its First Nationally Determined Contribution, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/211223_The%20Republic%20of%20Korea%27s%20Enhanced%20Update%20of%20its%20First%20Nationally%20Determined%20Contribution_211227_editorial%20change.pdf.
[10] Republic of Korea (2020), An introduction to the Third Round of Korea’s National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (2021-2025).
[11] Song, Young-Il et al. (2023), Research on Monitoring and Evaluation System for Climate Change Adaption Policy in Korea, Korea Environment Institute.
[6] Song, Y. and S. Lee (2022), “Climate change risk assessment for the Republic of Korea: developing a systematic assessment methodology”, Landscape and Ecological Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 191-202, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-021-00491-6.
← 1. The committee comprises between 50 to 100 members and is chaired by the Prime Minister and private experts appointed by the President.
← 2. See their website, https://kaccc.kei.re.kr/ (in Korean).
← 3. An adaptation chapter is included in the First National Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Basic Plan (2023-2042) published in 2023 (Presidential Commission on Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth, 2023).
← 4. The First Basic Plan for Climate Change Response (2017-2036) and the Second Basic Plan for Climate Change Response (2020-2040).
← 5. VESTAP, see http://vestap.kei.re.kr.
← 6. http://lap.kei.re.kr
← 7. Further details are provided in the preliminary version of this case study available on the KEI’s website ( (Song, Young-Il, Hong, Je-woo, Jung, Huicheul, & Park, S, 2023): https://library.kei.re.kr/pyxis-api/1/digital-files/51fa3cb7-3cca-4e76-b9ba-af6acd0279d4