 |
|
Representatives of the four major religious groups in South Korea hold a press conference at Seoul��셲 Gwanghwamun Square to carry out a candlelight prayer vigil and fast to stop the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project, Oct. 3. They plan to hold the vigil and fast for the three days through Wednesday. (Photo by Shin So-young)
|
The report states the rapid schedule and changing master plan has put a dangerous strain on construction
By Jeon Jong-hwi
It has belatedly come to light that a state environmental think tank issued a report last year pointing out limitations to the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project’s flood prevention capabilities and commented on the need for a new alternative to prevent destruction of the ecosystem.
At a Ministry of Environment parliamentary audit that took place Monday at the Gwacheon Government Complex, minor opposition Democratic Labor Party Lawmaker Hong Hee-deok, a member of the National Assembly’s Environment and Labor Committee, released the contents of a report entitled “Study of Plans to Ensure Appropriate Riverine Space to Respond to Climate Change.” The report was published in December 2009 by the Korea Environment Institute, which is affiliated with the Prime Minister’s Office.
The report states, “With its structural approach focusing on dredging, weir reinforcement, and construction, the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project in Korea is limited in its ability to handle rapidly increasing floodwater quantities resulting from recent climate change and has problems in terms of its accessibility and hydrophilic qualities.”
“The same applies to its economic aspects,” the report continues, indicating that more permanent measures were needed rather than a water control effort such as the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project.
The report also criticizes the riverside retention basins that are being built in the area around the project sites. According to the report, there is a low level of organic connection between the basins that are currently being planned and the enhancement of irrigation and water control and promotion of the ecosystem, culture, and the local economy. In particular, the report notes that there was no specific mention of retention basin construction and restoration plans for the Nakdong and Yeongsan River areas, which contain the most regions targeted for riverside retention basins, and that this area therefore requires reconsideration.
Suspicions were raised about poor planning followed by rough and ready construction when it was revealed that no fewer than 32 changes had been made to the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project plan between November last year, when the Lee Myung-bak administration announced its implementation plan, and August this year, a period of barely 10 months.
A plan for treating dredged material from riverbeds in the project, handed to lawmaker Kang Gi-jung on Oct. 4 by the Korea Water Resources Corporation shows that among 62 zones where dredging was required, the amount of material dredged only matched that specified in the project master plan in seven places, while in another seven places the actual amount dredged exceeded that in the plan by 30 percent. By project area, the excess amount was 25.1 percent for the Han, 18.3 percent for the Geum and 9.4 percent for the Yeongsan Rivers. The amount dredged from the Nakdong was 7.2 percent less than that stated in the plan. In August 2009, the Prime Minister’s Office ordered the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to come up with countermeasures during its investigation of progress in the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project, because of the risk of inadequate construction due to time pressures and frequent plan changes in order to complete construction by 2011. On Oct. 4, Democratic Party Lawmakers Kim Jae-yun and Kim Jin-ai of the National Assembly’s Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs Committee held a press conference and stated that they had acquired a report published last December by the Presidential Committee on Architecture Policy, which is under the direct control of the president, and that it confirmed that the Daegu and Gumi areas had been designated as “port industry” cities. The lawmakers asserted that if the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project was not a canal preparation project, there could be no harbor at Daegu or Gumi, and that ultimately Lee Myung-bak’s announcement of the abandonment of the widely unpopular Grand Korean Waterway was a trick to deceive the people. The Presidential Committee on Architecture Policy’s report on riverside urban development strategies show Daegu and Gumi, situated deep inland, to be categorized as “port and industrial” cities. The report showed riverside space along the four rivers to be divided into five categories in order for the application of diverse urban design: natural environment, farming settlement, urban environment, port and industrial, and special use. Daegu and Gumi were placed in the port and industrial category. The report explained this category as “Port and industrial complex sections. Port sections where rivers and the sea meet, and river sections that pass through large industrial complexes.” The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs issued an explanation on the afternoon of the same day, saying that the contents of the report were not government policy, but merely categorization of riverside space in order to diversify design during the process of research. Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]
