인디미디어 Korea Indymedia

 Two large-scale development projects proposed by the Lee Myung-bak administration have become the most fiercely disputed environmental issues in South Korea today. The Grand Canal Project, first proposed during the last presidential campaign, and the more recently promoted Four Rivers Restoration Project, were promoted throughout mainstream media by the government as a “Green New Deal”. Both their proponents asserted their utility as a remedy for the economic recession and a tool for preserving Korean’s water security. With public support low and criticism strong, president Lee Myung-bak, known to his critics as 2MB, chose to abort the Grand Canal Project, and subsequently launched the current Four Rivers Restoration Project. Professionals and civil groups who revealed the inextricable similarities between the two problematic projects have been punished with budget cuts and the suspension the researcher for three months.
 
Several writers have contributed analyses, views and comments to provide more details on the issue. These include environmental groups opposed to the Lee administration, the potential damage to the environment and threats to water security, and the economic incentive for local tourism development and job creation.

The ambitious plans of 2MB : Part I. From Grand Canal to the River Restoration Plan
 
MB’s pledged “Han Peninsula Grand Canal Plan”
President Lee Myung Bak announced his intention to implement a ‘Han Peninsula Grand Canal Plan’ from the very beginning of his campaign in February 2006. It included large-scale projects such as building a 73 or 111.5 km-long tunnel connecting Namhan and Nakdong River through the Sobaek Mountain Range, dredging operations, constructing six lock gates, four terminals, a reservoir in Namhan and Nakdong Rivers, and smaller-scale projects such as maintenance work on the riverbanks and water quality enhancement. The purported objectives of the plan were to facilitate inland transportation, promote “green” economic growth, to encourage the equal distribution of development in rural areas, and to improve the quality of potable water. The rhetoric of the MB government inflated citizens’ expectations with the promise of creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and national wealth.

The cancellation of the pledge and reasons
As soon as Lee was elected president at the start of 2008, controversies erupted. A multitude of academics, environmentalists, religious leaders, and citizens strongly objected to the plan with concerns over its cost, the period of its construction, and the potential negative impacts on the ecosystem and human lives, as well as on the economy. As skepticism towards the government’s claims grew, the economic losses and benefits were investigated by several research institutes and were publicized through media and books. The probability of decent job creation was brought under question, the majority of the jobs created would be within construction and engineering sectors, and therefore be both temporary in addition to ecologically detrimental. The biggest sources of water in the 100,032km2 (38,622 sq mi) nation would be under construction for at least three years, damaging the ecosystem during and after its completion, a process inimical to the preservation of water and quality improvement of potable water. Furthermore, the greatest beneficiaries of the plan would overwhelmingly be the construction companies, while any long-term indirect benefits were precarious at best for agriculture, fishing, and the tourism industry. Another vocal concern was that the critical feasibility studies were rushed and not thorough enough. Taken off guard by the strong opposition, the government aborted the Grand Canal Plan on 19th, June 2008.

The initiation of and controversies surrounding the “4 Big Rivers Restoration Project”
The deceptive rhetoric of the MB government next manifested itself with the so-called “four rivers restoration project.” Promoted through government media during the winter of 2008, a ‘Restoration Project’ Planning Group was launched in affiliation with the Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs the following spring. Jaewan Park, the President’s secretary of the state of affairs and planning, publicized the “four rivers restoration” project’s goals as:
1)     to prevent floods
2)     to diminish the impact of global warming
3)     to resolve the shortage of water
4)     to improve water quality
5)     to create 340,000 jobs
6)     to “revive the economy”
7)     to provide public space where people can organize cultural events and promote tourism   

Nicknamed ‘the Bulldozer’ for his trademark aggressive and closed-minded approach to policy and projects, Myung-bak’s political legacy consists of grandiose projects that make impressive spectacles of accomplishment, but are in fact great squanderings of resources with little practical value. “The current president wants to carry out the Four Rivers restoration project, in order to maintain his identity and justify his administration. The driving force (of Lee Myung-bak) that brought about the past Cheonggye stream restoration project factored greatly in the election 2007. His obsession with the river project is thus uncommonly strong, with the belief that it will revive the economy, and ultimately, make citizens satisfied with the economic growth. Whether there is a lack of advice from those around him or he is simply not listening, he cannot overcome the old paradigm to prioritize reckless economic development, nor look for alternative ways concerning green growth”, said Seung-kook, Choi, the executive chairperson of No Canal Citizens’ Action.

From its inception, the government announced its intention to favor the free market and big enterprises. Suk-hoon Woo, an ecological economist critiqued the Korean economic structure as one based on civil engineering and construction. He anticipated this restoration project would tighten the already strong loop of money-power relations between construction companies, pro-development intellectuals, and certain government officers; and more broadly, the network of wealthy landowners and mafia nationwide. He likewise asserted that these policies are about to endanger the ecosystem of half the Han Peninsula. The four opposition parties are united against the project, the coalition group No Canal Citizens’ Action has conducted a sit-in protest since June, and two thousand five hundred professors formed an alliance against launching the project.      

As with the failed Grand Canal proposal, the government put forward some bold claims as to the benefits to be reaped from this development, but the plan is heavy on hype and light on substance. In fact, the administration appears to be attempting to carry out much of the development without the standard oversight that is normally required for such massive undertakings. A new amendment by the Ministry of Finance and Planning on March 25th included an enforcement ordinance in which the ministry applied five more exceptions which will exempt more projects with a budget of at least 39 million dollars (USD) from preliminary evaluative research, with priority given to projects that the Minister determines promote regional development, or are urgent responses to economic and social crises. This timely amendment generated extreme doubts on its accountability and the confidence in its outcome. Although it has barely been regarded as a reasonable countermeasure to any of those priorities, 388 out of 410 sub-projects in the four rivers restoration project will not be subject to adequate oversight of their economic as well as ecological impact. Furthermore, the government has closed its ear to expert and public opinion, while publicizing its policies as it advertises the ‘four rivers restoration project’. Some ministries such as the Ministry of Reunification have been cooperatively advertising the project with emails, flyers, and website ads. Spending 200 million won, the administration released a short news video clip called ‘Daehan News’ promoting ‘four rivers restoration project’ to one hundred and ninety cinemas.

In terms of job creation, the actual number of jobs created will likely fall far short of the 340,000 predicted by the government. In addition, the majority of jobs will be mere navvy’s work or work with short term contracts. Perhaps recognizing its vulnerability to criticism, the government has been reluctant to compare the benefits brought by the restoration project with those by other possible investment. 

Public opinion has turned against the project as well. A recent survey revealed that seven out of ten Koreans preferred addressing the plight of irregular workers over implementing the ‘four rivers restoration project’. The project is a far cry from a strategy for regional development or a policy that would benefit people. The Four River Restoration Project is ecological in name only. The government's exaggerated promotion has failed to convince the public to support a project that will, ultimately, benefit the president's construction cronies and not the environment or the people of South Korea.

Pictures :

1) Bonghwa in Gyeongbuk province, renowned as the most isolated village over the country, has the impeccably well preserved nature. It is located on the upstream of Nakdong River.

2) Seung-kook, Choi, the executive chairperson of No Canal Citizens’ Action, at the sit-in protest site in front of Jogye Temple, Jongno-gu, Seoul

3) Korean Womens Environmental Network(KWEN) had a performance in front of theaters against the release of Daehan News, which was made by the Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Education, distributed to and released for about a month in 190 theatres, finally,  was suspended to show in July.

4) 'Let's save our rivers on our own, the rivers should flow', this is what the paintings say. It's a special exhibition in Yongsan Chotbul Media Center.

References :

More Four Rivers Controversy- Ohmynews

Friends of the river and wetland in crisis

World's NGO Conference on Wetlands

Seok Hoon Woo's blog and article

IMC Korea

Hung Ying CHEN
Miwon SEO
Jeffrey LAZAR
Malia DOUGLAS