임산물 부문 FTA 협상 대응 방안 연구: 한-EU, 한-중

전체 글

(1)C2007-37 | 2007. 12.. 임산물 부문 FTA 협상 대응 방안 연구: 한-EU, 한-중. 이 어 장 김 한. 상 명 철 경 민. 민 근 수 덕 희. 부연구위원 선임연구위원 연 구 위 원 연 구 위 원 인턴연구원.

(2) 머 리 말. 올해는 한국 무역에 큰 변화를 가져온 의미 있는 한 해라 할 수 있다. 미국과 FTA 협 상을 타결하고 또 다른 거대 경제권인 EU와 협상을 개시하였기 때문이다. 많은 국가가 동시에 참여하여 타결을 이끌어 내야하는 다자간 협상이 난항을 거듭하고 있는 가운데 FTA라는 양자간 협상은 국제무역의 중심에서 우리의 시장개방을 요구하고 있다. FTA 협상은 체결에 따른 파급효과가 크고 당사자 간 이해가 얽혀 있어 신중한 접근이 요구된다. 특히 시장변화에 대한 신속한 대처가 용이하지 않은 임산업의 경우 체결에 따 른 영향이 다른 산업에 비해 가중될 수 있다는 어려움이 있다. 우리와 FTA체결을 위해 협상을 진행하고 있는 유럽연합은 다양한 회원국으로 이루어져 있으며 풍부한 임업자원 과 선진기술을 보유하고 있다. 특히 목제품 생산이 세계 최고 수준인 것으로 알려져 있 다. 한편 중국은 임업뿐만 아니라 거의 모든 산업에서 막대한 영향을 미치는 매우 부담 스러운 협상 상대국임에 틀림없는 사실이다. 결국 이들 국가와의 FTA 체결은 임업 부문 의 수입을 확대시키는 결과를 초래할 것으로 보이는 반면 수출에 대한 긍정적인 효과는 매우 적을 것으로 예상된다. 이들과의 FTA협상을 성공적으로 이끄는 방법은 철저한 준비밖에 없을 것이다. FTA 체결에 따른 효과를 계측하여 부정적인 영향을 최소화할 수 있는 협상전략을 마련하는 연구가 절실히 필요한 시점이다. 여러 가지 어려움 속에서도 FTA체결에 따른 임업 분야 협상전략을 마련하였다는 점 에서 매우 보람되게 여겨진다. 현재 진행되고 있는 EU, 그리고 가까운 장래에 개시될 것으로 예상되는 중국과의 FTA 협상에서 이 연구가 유용한 자료로 활용될 수 있기를 기대한다.. 2007. 12. 한국농촌경제연구원장 최 정 섭.

(3) 요. 약. 1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적. 2007년 4월 세계 최대 시장인 미국과의 FTA도 타결한 한국은 아세안(ASEAN), 캐나 다, 멕시코, 인도 등 15개국과 협상을 진행 중이며, 유럽연합(EU)과의 협상, 중국과의 산 관학 공동연구를 개시하여 진행 중이다. 이 연구의 대상이 되는 중국은 한국의 임산물 최대 교역국으로 2006년 교역액은 석재류 를 제외한 전체 임산물 교역액의 23%에 달하는 5억 9,300만 달러를 기록하였다. 교역액 중에는 수입이 대부분을 차지하고 있으며, 지속적으로 늘어나고 있는 추세여서 FTA 협상 결과에 따라 국내임산업에 미칠 영향은 매우 클 것으로 예상된다. 중국으로부터의 수입액 은 5억 5,478만 달러로 전체 임산물 수입액의 22.5%에 해당한다. 대중국 수출액은 3,771만 달러로 전체 수출액의 30.4%를 차지하나, 이는 수입액의 7%에 지나지 않는 것이다. EU와의 교역은 많지 않으나 합판과 분재, 목제케이스 등 특정 품목의 수출입 비중이 높으므로 이들 품목이 주로 영향을 받을 것으로 예상된다. 따라서 현재 협상이 진행 중인 EU는 물론 가능성이 높은 중국과의 FTA 협상에 효과 적으로 대처하고, 협상에 따른 이익을 극대화하는 동시에 피해를 최소화하는 방안을 마 련할 필요가 있다. 이 연구의 목적은 한-EU 및 한-중 FTA 체결에 따른 영향을 철저히 분석하고 동시에 FTA 협상에 대비하여 임업부문의 협상 방안을 마련하는데 있다. 구체적으로는 EU 및 중국과의 임업부문 협상에서 예상되는 쟁점을 도출하고 각각의 현안에 대하여 국익을 극대화하고 피해를 최소화할 수 있는 방안을 제시하는데 있다.. 2. 연구내용. 이 연구는 우선 한국, 그리고 협상 대상국인 EU와 중국의 임산업 현황과 수급구조에 - iii -.

(4) 대해 주요 품목을 중심으로 살펴보았다. 또한 임산물 수출입 동향을 조사하고, 교역액을 기준으로 하여 주요 품목을 선정하였다. 대상 국가의 전체적인 관세감축 정도를 파악하 기 위하여 품목별 관세구조를 비교하였는데, 관세적용형태, 품목의 세분화 정도 등을 내 용으로 구성하였다. 무역특화지수, 수입시장 점유율, 상대단가지수, 시장별 비교우위지수 등 각종 지표를 이용하여 주요 품목의 경쟁력을 비교하였다. FTA 체결에 따른 파급영향을 분석하기 위해 한-EU, 한-중의 양국 간 잠재교역액을 산출하였다. 품목별 수급함수 추정을 통해 수입증가에 따른 영향평가를 실시하고 정성 적 분석을 이용하여 주요품목에 대한 영향을 예측하였으며, 주요품목별 피해액(생산감 소액)을 추정하였다. 마지막으로 FTA 협상에 있어 영향을 최소화할 기본적인 방향을 제안하고, 연구결과 를 이용한 협상전략을 제시하였다.. 3. 연구결과. <한-EU FTA> 단기소득임산물에 대해서는 교역규모, 교역비중 등을 고려하였을 때 크게 우려할 만 한 품목이 없을 것으로 예상된다. 그러나 목재류의 경우 활엽수 합판, 기타 파티클보드 (441039, 2006년 분류), 성형판(침엽수류), 파티클보드(전체기타)(441090), 고밀도화목재 등의 수입의존도가 높게 나타났다. 수출품의 경우 목재상자(441510)를 제외하면 수출액 이 매우 적은 것으로 나타났는데, 목재상자와 깔판류는 2009년부터 실행될 예정인 “EU 의 수입품 목재 포장재에 대한 훈증처리 및 수피제거 요구” 대상품목에 해당된다. 관세구조의 경우 한국의 임산물 평균 실행세율은 8.6%로 3%인 EU보다 약 2.9배 높은 것으로 나타났다. 한국과 EU의 임산물 종류별 평균 실행세율을 비교해 보면 단기소득임 산물의 경우 17.4%와 5.7%, 석재류 4.9%와 0.6%, 목재류 5.4%와 2.6% 등인 것으로 나 타났다. 경쟁력비교 결과 수입이 증가할 것으로 예상되는 품목들은 활엽수합판, 성형판(침엽 수류), 고밀도화목재, 목모와 목분, 합판(기타), 파티클보드(기타), 기타섬유판, 배향성스 트랜드보드(기타), 파티클보드(전체기타), 파티클보드(기타 미가공목재), 조립식 건축물 - iv -.

(5) (목재의 것), 목질재기타섬유판(밀도 0.5～0.8), 목제의 그림틀․사진틀, 기목세공과 상감 세공 등인 것으로 분석되었다. FTA 체결에 따른 양국 간 잠재교역액을 비교해 보면, 대EU 수출증가 가능액은 5,144만 달러에 불과하나 수입증가 가능액은 8억 2,731만 달러인 것으로 추정되어 전체 무역수지 적자의 증가 규모는 7억 7,586만 달러 정도 될 것으로 예상된다. 한편 관세를 즉시 철폐할 경우 발생할 것으로 예상되는 주요 품목의 생산감소액은 합판 33억 1,500만 원(1.4%), 파 티클보드 19억 5,700만 원(1.1%), 섬유판 19억 3,600만 원(0.4%), 제재목(침엽수) 19억 3,000만 원(0.3%), 제재목(활엽수) 72억 9,500만 원(4.4%) 등인 것으로 나타났다. 각 품목 의 생산액에 대해 추정 생산감소액이 차지하는 비율은 합판 1.4%, 파티클보드 1.1%, 섬유 판 0.4%, 제재목(침엽수) 0.3%, 제재목(활엽수) 4.4% 등인 것으로 계산되었다. EU의 임산업 구조와 경쟁력을 검토한 결과 단기소득임산물은 일단 한국에 위협적인 영향을 미치지는 않을 것으로 판단된다. 아울러 임산물 수출에 있어서는 한국의 주요 수 출품의 경쟁력이 현저히 낮으며 동시에 이들 품목에 대한 EU의 관세가 매우 낮은 수준이 어서 무역자유화에 따른 긍정적인 효과는 거의 없을 것으로 예상된다. 그러나 목재류 산 업에 대해서는 신중하게 협상해야 될 것이다. EU가 과도한 생산으로 인해 발생한 잉여 공급 물량에 대한 덤핑수출의 전력이 있는 만큼 급변하는 수출환경에 대한 최소한의 보호 장치를 마련하는 것이 우리 산업의 지속적인 생존을 보장하는 길이다. 또한 EU의 자작나 무와 포플라 합판은 품질경쟁력에서 우위를 점하고 있어 기존 열대활엽수 합판이나 침엽 수 합판시장과는 다른 틈새시장으로 진출할 가능성이 있는 것으로 나타났다. 보드류 부문 에서도 환경보호 및 재활용 효과가 있는 파티클보드와 섬유판 산업을 유지․발전시키려 노력하고 있어 한국 시장개방을 강력하게 요청할 것으로 예상된다. 이러한 공세에 적절히 대응하기 위해서는 국내 환경보존을 위해 보드류 시장보호가 불가피하다는 점을 설득할 필요가 있다. 합판, 제재목 등은 국산재 이용률을 증가시킬 수 있는 품목으로 이들 품목에 대한 수입자유화 결과 산업이 붕괴된다면 결국 국산재 사용을 제한하는 원인이 된다. 장 기적으로 국산재 사용률을 높여 원활하고 지속적인 산림자원 관리를 계획하는 정부의 입 장에서도 큰 장애가 될 가능성이 많은 품목들이다. 따라서 이들 품목에 대해서는 모든 나 라와의 FTA 협상에서 보수적인 양허 입장을 일관성 있게 주장하여야할 것이다.. <한-중 FTA> 중국과의 임산물 교역에 있어 단기소득임산물은 고사리(건조)(100%), 고비(99%), 건 - v -.

(6) 조 감(100%), 도토리(95%) 등의 수입의존도가 매우 높은 것으로 나타났다. 또한 목재류 의 경우 열대산 합판, 활엽수 단판, 활엽수 제재목, 활엽수 성형판 등의 수입금액이 1천 만 달러를 초과하였으며, 로진, 식탁․주방용품, 목재공구 등의 수입의존도가 매우 높은 반면에, 기타합판, 목질재 섬유판(밀도 0.5～0.8), 단판(열대산 목재), 활엽수합판 등의 수 입의존도는 10% 미만인 것으로 나타났다. 관세구조에 있어서는 한국의 임산물 평균 실행세율은 8.6%로 6.8%인 중국보다 1.8% 포인트 높았는데, 단기소득임산물의 경우 17.4%로 3%포인트, 목재류 5.4%로 1.4%포인 트 한국이 높으나 석재류는 중국이 13.4%로 한국보다 8.5%포인트 높게 분석되었다. 경쟁력비교 결과 중국 주요 단기소득임산물 27개 품목 가운데 아몬드(탈각)와 호도(미 탈각)을 제외하면 모두 관세철폐에 따라 수입이 증가할 것으로 예상된다. 목재류의 경우 주요 품목 27개 가운데 성형판(활엽수류), 기타합판 및 베니어패널의 수입증가 가능성이 낮고, 제재목(침엽수), 목질재섬유판(밀도 0.5～0.8), 단판(열대산 목재), 활엽수합판, 성 형판(침엽수류) 등의 품목이 경쟁력 없는 것으로 나타났다. 한편 중국시장에서 한국 임산물의 경우 산식물(기타), 밤(카스타네아종), 기타합판 및 베니어패널 등 3개 품목이 경쟁력 있는 것으로 나타났으며, 이 밖에 수출 가능성이 높은 품목으로는 단판류 3개 품목과 대(식물성재료), 페렛․박스페렛 등, 로진 등인 것으로 분 석되었다. 또한 밤(조제저장), 목질재섬유판(밀도 0.8초과), 기타섬유판, 옷걸이, 문․문 틀․문지방 등도 관세철폐에 따른 수출증가 가능성이 어느 정도 있는 것으로 나타났다. 양국 간 잠재교역액에 있어 단기소득임산물은 수입증가액 약 4,200만 달러, 수출증가 액 1천만 달러가 발생 할 수 있으며, 목재류는 수입증가액 약 4억 4천만 달러, 수출증가 액 약 7천만 달러를 예상할 수 있다. 관세 즉시철폐 시 주요 품목의 생산감소액과 생산액에 대한 비율은 합판 221억 원 (9.4%), 파티클보드 19억 원(1.1%), 섬유판 177억 원(3.7%), 제재목(침엽수) 81억 원 (1.1%), 제재목(활엽수) 17억 원(1%) 정도 될 것으로 추정되었다. 한편 단기소득임산물의 경우 대추가 78억 원(13.1%), 잣 7억 원(3.4%), 표고버섯 31억 원(1.6%), 밤 42억 원(2.8%)정도의 생산감소액이 발생할 것으로 예상된다. 협상에 있어 분석결과와 임산업 장기발전 방향과 부합하는 품목을 수입개방 최후 순 위로 정하여 양허하여야 할 것이다. 가능하면 품목의 10% 정도를 양허제외 품목으로 선 정하여 보호하는 것도 고려할 수 있을 것이다. 특히 수입시장 점유율이 매우 높은 품목 들의 수입이 증가한다는 것은 무역창출효과를 나타내는 것이므로 국내생산을 직접적으 로 감소시키는 원인이 된다. 그러므로 이들 품목들의 개방을 우선적으로 늦출 수 있는 양허안이 마련되어야 할 것이다. - vi -.

(7) 중국과의 자유무역에 있어서 관세보다는 비관세 수단을 활용하는 방안을 모색하는 것 이 바람직하다. 중국의 단기소득임산물 관세율이 비교적 높은 것이 사실이나 관세를 철 폐하더라도 우리 임산물의 경쟁력이 크게 향상되기는 어려울 것이기 때문이다. 농림수 산물을 비롯해서 중국산 먹거리에 대한 위생검역은 국민들의 안전을 보호한다는 측면에 서도 매우 중요한 문제이다.. - vii -.

(8) ABSTRACT. A Study of Devising Schemes for the Bilateral FTA Negotiations on Forestry Products: Korea-EU and Korea-China. This study is mainly designed to suggest the negotiation directions and strategies for the forest products negotiations of the Korea-EU and the Korea-China Free Trade negotiations. The purpose is minimizing negative impacts expected by the results of the agreements. The suggestions are based on the appraisals of the impacts when tariff barriers are removed or reduced, and the impacts are measured through the analysis of the supply and demand as well as the analysis of competitiveness. The contents include recent trade trends of forest products between countries, current industry and market conditions of main products, structural comparison of the tariff systems, appraisals of FTA impacts. For the accurate appraisal of competitiveness on the import market various indices are measured. The import market shares, relative unit price and market comparative advantage index are calculated to find main products to be taken care of seriously. Production values and coefficients of import price in supply functions are estimated to measure the decrease of production value of important items. It is expected that imports of wood products such as plywood(non-coniferous), shaped wood(coniferous), and high density fiberboard would increase if the tariffs are removed. For China the increments would mainly come from most forestry products since its share of Korean import market is about 23% of total import value. To minimize the impacts of FTA with the European Union and China it is required that wood products should be delayed their markets opening as long as possible. In addition to these products other important non-timber products should also be conservative opening. The main wood products such as plywoods, sawnwoods, particle boards and fibers utilize the domestic resource and wood wastes. Consequently they play important roles for the sustainable forest management plan, and protection of their market is very critical. Researchers: Lee, Sang-Min, Myong-Keun Eor, Chul-Soo Chang, and Kyeong-Duk Kim Research Period: 2007.4~2007.12 E-mail address: smlee@krei.re.kr. - viii -.

(9) 차. 례. 제1장 서 론 1. 연구의 필요성과 목적 ·································································································· 1 2. 선행연구 검토 ··············································································································· 2 3. 연구 방법 및 내용 ········································································································ 4 제1부 한-EU FTA 제2장 임산업 수급구조 및 수출입 동향 1. 한국의 임산업 수급구조 ······························································································ 9 2. EU의 임산업 수급구조 ······························································································ 18 3. 한-EU 임산물 수출입 동향 ······················································································· 35 제3장 임산물 관세구조 비교분석 1. 개요 ······························································································································ 40 2. 한-EU 임산물 관세구조 비교분석 ············································································ 41 3. 종합 검토 ····················································································································· 54 제4장 임산물 경쟁력비교 및 영향분석 1. 경쟁력비교 ··················································································································· 57 2. 영향분석 ······················································································································· 68 제5장 대응방안 1. EU-칠레 FTA ············································································································ 80 2. 협상 대응 방안 ··········································································································· 84. - ix -.

(10) 제2부 한-중 FTA 제6장 임산업 수급구조 및 수출입 동향 1. 한국의 임산업 수급구조 ···························································································· 91 2. 중국의 임산업 수급구조 ···························································································· 91 3. 한-중 임산물 수출입 동향 ······················································································· 104 제7장 임산물 관세구조 비교분석 1. 개요 ···························································································································· 108 2. 한-중 임산물 관세구조 비교분석 ············································································ 108 3. 종합 검토 ··················································································································· 121 제8장 임산물 경쟁력비교 및 영향분석 1. 경쟁력비교 ················································································································· 124 2. 영향분석 ····················································································································· 142 제9장 대응방안 1. 중국-칠레 FTA ········································································································ 154 2. 협상 대응 방안 ········································································································· 158 부. 록 ····························································································································· 162. 참고문헌 ····························································································································· 183. - x -.

(11) 표 차 례. 제2장 표 2- 1. 한국 산림의 영급구조 ··················································································· 10 표 2- 2. 용도별 원목 수급추이 ··················································································· 10 표 2- 3. 임목축적 및 벌채량 ······················································································· 11 표 2- 4. 합판의 수급추이 ····························································································· 12 표 2- 5. 파티클보드의 수급추이 ················································································· 13 표 2- 6. 섬유판의 수급추이 ························································································· 14 표 2- 7. 밤의 수급추이 ································································································ 15 표 2- 8. 잣의 수급추이 ································································································ 16 표 2- 9. 대추의 수급추이 ····························································································· 17 표 2-10. 표고버섯의 수급추이 ····················································································· 17 표 2-11. EU의 임업구조(2005년 기준) ······································································· 18 표 2-12. EU의 원목 생산 현황(2005년 기준) ·························································· 19 표 2-13. EU 주요국의 산림소유 형태별 원목 생산(2005년 기준) ·························· 20 표 2-14. EU의 연도별 합판 생산량 ············································································ 21 표 2-15. 수종별 힙판 생산량 ······················································································· 21 표 2-16. EU 17개국의 합판제조용 원목(2006년) ······················································ 22 표 2-17. EU의 블록보드 생산 동향 ············································································ 22 표 2-18. EU의 섬유판 생산 실적과 전망 ·································································· 23 표 2-19. EU 국가의 파티클보드 생산량 ···································································· 25 표 2-20. 국별 OSB 생산 추이 ····················································································· 26 표 2-21. 2006년 EU의 합판 수급 현황 ······································································ 27 표 2-22. EU의 국별 합판 수입량 ················································································ 28 표 2-23. 수입대상국별 합판 수입 추이(2006년) ······················································· 28 표 2-24. 용도별 합판 사용량(2006년) ········································································ 29 표 2-25. EU 국가의 섬유판 소비 ················································································ 30 표 2-26. EU 국가의 섬유판 수급 현황(2006년) ························································ 31 표 2-27. 섬유판 용도별 소비량과 비율(2006년) ······················································· 32 - xi -.

(12) 표 2-28. EU의 파티클보드 소비 ················································································· 32 표 2-29. EU의 파티클보드 수급 현황(2006) ····························································· 33 표 2-30. 국별 파티클보드 수입 추이 ·········································································· 34 표 2-31. 국별 파티클보드 수출 추이 ·········································································· 35 표 2-32. 파티클보드 종류 및 용도 ············································································· 35 표 2-33. 한국의 EU 단기소득임산물 수입현황 ························································· 36 표 2-34. 한국의 단기소득임산물 EU 수출현황 ························································· 36 표 2-35. 한국의 EU 석재류 수입현황 ········································································ 37 표 2-36. 한국의 석재류 EU 수출현황 ········································································ 37 표 2-37. 한국의 EU 목재류 수입현황 ········································································ 38 표 2-38. 한국의 목재류 EU 수출현황 ········································································ 39 제3장 표 3- 1. 한-EU 단기소득임산물 품목 분류체계 비교 ·············································· 42 표 3- 2. 한-EU 단기소득임산물 관세율 비교 ···························································· 45 표 3- 3. 한-EU 석재류 품목 분류체계 비교 ····························································· 47 표 3- 4. 한-EU 석재류 품목 관세율 비교 ································································· 48 표 3- 5. 한-EU 목재류 품목 분류체계 비교 ····························································· 50 표 3- 6. 한-EU 목재류 관세율 비교 ··········································································· 53 표 3- 7. 한-EU 임산물 평균 실행세율 비교 ····························································· 55 표 3- 8. 한-EU 품목분류 및 관세체계 비교 ····························································· 55 제4장 표 4- 1. 한국과 EU의 주요 단기소득임산물 무역특화 지수 ·································· 58 표 4- 2. 한국과 EU의 주요 목재류 무역특화 지수 ················································· 58 표 4- 3. EU 단기소득임산물의 한국 수입시장점유율 ·············································· 59 표 4- 4. EU 목재류의 한국 수입시장점유율 ····························································· 60 표 4- 5. EU 주요 수입품목의 시장점유율별 구분 ··················································· 61 표 4- 6. 한국 임산물의 EU 수입시장점유율 ····························································· 61 표 4- 7. EU 단기소득임산물의 한국 수입시장 상대단가지수 ································· 62 표 4- 8. EU 목재류의 한국 수입시장 상대단가지수 ················································ 63 표 4- 9. EU 단기소득임산물의 한국시장 MCA ······················································· 64 표 4-10. EU 목재류의 한국시장 MCA ······································································ 64 - xii -.