The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project of South Korea: Disguise of Green Growth Policy?

1. The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project of South Korea: Disguise of Green Growth Policy? 2014. 6. 19 T. J. Lah / Yeoul Park / Yoon JikCho YonseiUniversity

2. President M. B. Lee and Low Carbon Green Growth Policy • 4MRRP, an essential part of GGP • Address Climate Change: flood, water security, scarcity & quality The project is planned to transform the Han, Nakdong, Geum, and Yeongsan rivers into the healthy watersheds through • Dredging (digging deep out the main currents of 4 rivers) • Construction of Weirs & Dams to reserve water and control flood • Water quality improvement • Eco-friendly river construction

3. * Research Questions * Did the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project, an essential part of Korea’s green growth project, achieve the proposed goals? If not, why? What were the factors that caused the troubles?

4. CONTENTS Ⅰ. Introduction Ⅱ. Factors of Policy Failure Ⅲ. Framework Ⅳ. Status Ⅴ. Evaluation Ⅵ. Causesof Trouble Ⅶ. Conclusion

5. Ⅰ. Introduction

6. Four Major Rivers Restoration Project Seoul 4 Major Rivers of Korea • Goals • Prevent flood • Resolve water scarcity • Improve water quality • Make eco-friendly river • through • Dredging • Construction of Weirs & Dams Busan

7. Recent Issues • The Korean government has pursued diverse green growth projects under • the banner of 'Low Carbon, Green Growth Strategy', which is the national • strategy model since the president Lee Myung-Bak administration. • Especially, FMRRP has been known as the representative green growth project • of South Korea. • The project was completed in 2012. But controversy over the project is not • ended yet. • Investigation of the Board of Audit and Inspection(BAI) • - Severe problems with the major facilities : Concrete river beds to protect • the weirs have subsided or been swept away • - Water quality control problems • - Need additional management costs because of inefficient planning • ▶ Need to evaluate the FMRRP, and clarify some causes of failure if any

8. Recent Issues of Project • Arguments of the Report of the Board of Audit and Inspection(BAI) Issues in the Report of the BAI Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection(BAI) Minister of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs(MLTM)

9. Safety and Durability Flooring of 15 out of 16 weirs was damaged and need repair (2014. 6) Crack of the flooring of the weirs(the Nakdong river) the BAI Comments the MLTM Refutations “ The necessary standard of durable safety facilities was not adhered to. “ “There are cracks and water leaks in most of the weirs. The weirs have severe problems with the safety. “ “ There have been no definite criteria for designing weirs. The project followed the current criteria. “ “ It does not bear upon the safety of the weirs. Durability problems doesn't matter if reinforcement work is done well. ” VS

10. Flood Control Reverse Erosion in Tributaries Caused by Dredging of the 4 Major rivers - Actually, in the summer of 2011, many tributaries were eaten away by flood waters. - Increasing water level differences between the main rivers and their tributaries resulted from large-scale dredging caused a 'reverse erosion' process that has seen the collapse of banks on the smaller rivers. Soyang River (tributary of the Han River) Byung-Sun River (tributary of the Nakdong River) Wang-po River (tributary of the Geum River)

11. Increased risk of collapse from flood • Dredging of the river bottom near the bridge without appropriate treatment is • suspected to have caused the collapse. Collapsed Waegwan Railroad Bridge (Nakdong river) had been deemed 'satisfactory' by a safety examination conducted immediately prior to the start of the Project. Nam-ji railroad bridge was reported to be in danger of collapse as a result of pier sinking.

12. Water Quality Degradation Water quality experts argued that the large weirs built in the middle of the rivers made the flow of river water stagnant, and it had led to negative effects. The degradation of water quality has brought serious algal bloom and damage to the ecosystem. Algal Bloom in Nakdong and Han River(2012). The serious algal boom occurring last year. Fishkill in Nakdong River(2012.10). Hundreds of thousands of fish suffered death en masse in Nakdong river.

13. Maintenance For increasing social and cultural effects of the project, it is more important to maintain and manage constructed bike roads and parks than building them. Although a lot of citizens are using bike path, It is causing problems due to the construction of the roads which didn't consider safety and surrounding environments. It is being estimated that enormous budgets would be spent on maintenance. Bike path is Damaged even before completion of construction Bike path near the intake station (Daegu city)

14. Criticism from the Media Kyunghyang(2010.9) Joongangilbo(2012.2) “ It will bring irreparable harm damage ” Canyon in river bed, “Danger of Collapse” 22 trillion KRW on 4 major rivers restoration project,…. “Troubled” “ …Dredging and decurving of 4 rivers can cause a great flood on downstream section. ” Chosunilbo(2013.1)

15. Ⅱ. Factors of Policy Failure

16. 1. Concept of Policy Failure • Passive Concept of Policy Failure • “The state when the policy determined during the policy process does not • effectively achieve the expected policy goal” (Bardach, 1977: 7-9; Yeomet al., 1994: 159; Rho et al., • 2006: 348; Moon et al., 2007: 55) • “The difference between the intended policy goal and the actual policy result” • (Ingram & Mann, 1980: 11) • ▶ Result-based dichotomous judgment. Didn’t consider the diversity of • dimensions of policy • “policy success or failure is a continuous concept rather than a dichotomous • one. It needs to be evaluated in a qualitative and multi-dimensional way” • (Rho et al., 2006) • “policy have three realms: processes, programs and politics. Policies may • succeed and/or fail in each of these and along a spectrum of success to • failure” (McConnell, 2010) • ▶ Consider multi-dimensions of policy • Recent Concept of Policy Failure

17. 2. Factors of Policy Failure • Previous Researches ▶ Previous researches suggested factors of policy failure in - policy process(decision-making process, participants, etc.) - program(policy management, properties of policy, availability of solution, etc.) - politics(hostility towards the policy, environment, etc.)

18. Ⅲ. Framework For Evaluating the FMRRP

19. 1. Assessing Policy Success and/or Failure • Proposed Framework In Previous Research • Policy evaluating need to include different dimensions of policy. • Marsh & McConnell(2010) suggested a framework for assessing policy which • outlines three dimensions of policy, and indicators of each dimensions. • Three dimensions of policy ; • - ‘Process’ dimension : the stages of policy-making in which issues emerge and • are framed, options are explored, interests are consulted and decisions made • - ‘Programmatic’ dimension : what governments do which give concrete form to • generalized intensions of statements of policy • - ‘Political’ dimension ; assists in elections, reputation or overall governance • project • ▶ Applied and refined Marsh & McConnell’s framework for evaluating • the FMRRP

20. A Framework for Evaluating the FMRRP

21. A Spectrum From Policy Success To Failure • How to assess success and failure? • McConnell(2010) suggested a spectrum of policy success to failure, which • includes fivefold typology; • - Success, Resilient success, Conflicted success, Precarious success, and Failure • The spectrum makes it possible to differentiate intermediate categories between • complete success or failure, and show how policy may succeed or fail in • each of three dimensions. • ▶ Use McConnell’s spectrum of policy success to failure, revised for FMRRP

23. 2. Analyzing Factors of Policy Success and/or Failure • Proposed Factors In Previous Research • Sabatier & Mazmanian suggested factors that can affect policy outcomes • systematically • - Factors related to ‘tractability of the problem’, ’ability of statute to structure • implementation’, and ‘nonstatutory variables affecting implementation’ • ▶ Applied the factors that suggested in Sabatier & Mazmanian’s work into • the presented multi-dimensional framework • - Factors related to ‘tractability of the problem’ : preconditions for solving of • policy problem, difficulties of dealing with a policy problem, etc. • → Connected with the ‘programmatic dimension’ • - Factors related to ‘ability of statute to structure implementation’ : clarity and • continuity of policy object, rational institution designing and planning, and • decision-making method→ Connected with the ‘process dimension’ • - Factors related to ‘nonstatutory variables affecting implementation’ : society- • economic situation, engagement and leadership of policy-maker, support of • the public→ Connected with the ‘political dimension’

24. Factors of policy success and/or failure

25. Ⅳ. The Status of the FMRRP

26. 1. Background and Purpose of the FMRRP • Background Korea’s annual rainfall is 1,277mm, which is higher than the world average of 807mm. But, Korea’s overall water resources evaporate or flow directly into the ocean, and only about 33.3 billion m3 (26% of Korea’s total water resources) remain available. To cope with the water resource problems, the Korean government planned and initiated the 4MRRP. • Purpose • The main purpose of the 4MRRP is to ensure water security from climate change and the realization that Korea is a 'Water Strong Country' through the multipurpose adaptive management project in preparation for the climate change. • 5 Main Tasks • Task 1 : Securing abundant water resources to mitigate water scarcity • Task 2 : Implementing comprehensive flood control measures • Task 3 : Improving water quality and restoring the ecosystem • Task 4 : Creation of multipurpose spaces for local residents • Task 5 : Restoring ecology and regional development centered on rivers

27. Details of project Major Facilities Dam Weir Food Detention Res. Youngju Andong-Imha connection Bohyeonsan Damyang Hwasun

28. 2. Progress of the FMRRP • The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (MLTM), and the Ministry of • Environment arethe main departments of the execution of project. • The Ministry for Food Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, Ministry of Culture and • Tourism are involved. • The project is almost done. the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs • completed 99.4%, the Ministry of Environment did 93.4%, the Ministry for Food • Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries completed 86% of the project.

29. Ⅴ. Evaluation of the FMRRP

30. 1. Process Dimension • Decision-making Process • The origin of the FMRRP : “The Grand Canal project” • - The project aims to construct 540-kilometer-long canal connecting Seoul and • Busan, which would run across the country connecting the Han River to the • Nakdong River • - Lee Myung-Bak insisted the project as a presidential election pledge • Severe Conflicts toward the Grand Canal project • - After Lee became president, he carried forward the project in earnest, and it • has met with huge controversy and disapproval from the public, environmental • NGOs, the press • Change of Plan • - Government announced to execute the plan of FMRRP which aroused • controversies issues that FMRRP is actually not different from the Grand Canal • project

31. Comparison of Main Contents of FMRRP and Grand Canal project ▶ There aren’t big differences between two projects. It only reducedsize of the grand canal project, excluding floodgate and bridge construction

32. Legitimate procedure • FMRRP should be proceeded by preliminary feasibility study, administrative plan • procedures, approval processes, environmental effects evaluation • - “Preliminary feasibility study” : a system that prevents lax management of national • budget • - “Administrative plan procedures”, “approval processes”, and “environmental effects • evaluation” functions as a important administrative procedure which is related • to installing the social conflict facilities • Failed to carry out its statutory duties • - FMRRP ought to follow the hierarchy of ‘water resource long-term • master plan’, ‘river valley measurement plan’, ‘river master plan’. But FMRRP’s • plan was devised for each of four rivers, without considering bigger scaleplan • - Avoided Preliminary feasibility study in budgeting process by revising the enforcement ordinance. • Poor Assessment • - Prior environmental effects evaluation wrapped within just 3 months ▶ Passed over some administrative procedures and legal procedures. Some important evaluations for the project was omitted and conducted poorly

33. 2. Programmatic dimension • Expected Effects of the FMRRP • Since the 4MRRP is a multi-purpose project to solve the climate change problems, • the Korean government expect various effects of the project. • The direct effect of the project is improvement of the water resource management of • the country. Water resource management improvement produce the technical, • economic, social effects of the project. Purpose Expected Effects

34. Current Outcomes 1) Technical Effects ― ① Flood Control The government argued that the project reduced damages caused by heavy rain and flooding in major rivers. But the argument that reduced damage was an effect of the project is not persuasive since over the last several years, most flooding has taken place on tributaries and small rivers, and hardly at all on national rivers and streams. 1999~2003 Flood damage - Major rivers : 3.6% , Tributaries : 56.7%, Small streams : 39.7% Increased risk of flooding - Increasing water level differences between the main rivers and their tributaries resulted from large-scale dredging caused a 'reverse erosion' process that has seen the collapse of banks on the smaller rivers. Flood damaged area in 2008 (before the project)

35. 2) Technical Effects ― ② Water Security • Insignificant contribution of solving the drought problem • - There was still a serious drought all over the country in Korea in June 2012. • the whole country was found to experience drought. • - The project didn't help to settle drought; water wasn't properly supplied even • to the Four-River basins where hardly suffered from the drought. • The government argued that the damage has been reduced thanks to the project, but its effect was too small. • Number of Pumping stations that pumped the water from 4 major river : 182 • Its effect only occupied 4% of the entire rice paddy • occupied 2% of the entire farmland

36. 2) Technical Effects ― ③ Water Quality Water quality of 4 rivers worse than the rest, and before the project. Water quality of rivers - Han river, Nakdong river, Geum river and Youngsan river - that implemented the project got worse than those where didn't implement it, and before the project. The large weirs built in the middle of the rivers made the flow of river water stagnant, and it had led to adverse effects. The degradation of water quality has brought serious algal bloom and damage to the ecosystem. * Comparison of average water quality Before the project(2007~2009) and average water quality After the project(2012. 1~11) (water information system, Ministry of environment)

37. 2) Economic Effects ― ① Revitalization of the local economy Most of the benefits have gone to big construction companies rather than to local ones. • Bid-rigging and illegal gains • There was collusion between big construction companies in bidding process to • cutting the project design costs. • The Korea Fair Trade Commission imposed penalty surcharge on 6 big construction • companies for bid-rigging in 2012. 2) Economic Effects ― ② Creating jobs The government argued that the project will create 340,000 jobs, but in the construction site, heavy construction equipment were mobilized than workers. Chinese workers account for nearly 1/3 of entire workers, And Most of the Korean workers were day workers. FMRRP created only 1,492 full-time jobs. Even if includes daily-job, it created only 4,162 jobs in total.

38. 2) Social Effects • In long-term perspective, • it is important to maintain • the facilities to achieve the • social effects. • However, According to the • safety inspection of Korea • Transportation Safety • Authority, there are safety • problems in bike roads • each of four river basins. • Safety problems • - poor drainage, lack of • safety facilities, etc. • Financial problems • - Nearly 600 billion KRW • is required per year for • maintenance. • FMRRP have made some contribution on • activation of four river basins tourism. • Accumulate visitors are increasing at each • four river basins.

39. 3. Political Dimension • FMRRP caused controversies from decision-making stage to project implementation • stage. • Blame for the FMRRP • - The Democratic Party, the opposition party, civic groups and academia criticized • that the project is lack of legitimacy. • - The environmental NGOs and civic groups criticized the danger of destruction • of the environment and water pollution that would caused by the project. • - The opposite launched a pan-national task force ‘Peoples' Committee to Stop the • Killing of Rivers’ for stop the FMRRP in june 2009. • Blame for the Government • - Government was stubborn to proceeding the project. • - This caused more conflict between government and the opposite, and conflict • lasted during the long period. • Blame for the Policy-maker • - The blame and criticisms on FMRRP extended to blame on president Lee who • supported the project most strongly. • - During the project period, president approval rating declined from 26.6% to 17.8%.

40. 4. Failure of the FMRRP • The Results of the FMRRP ▶ The Korean government aggressively pursued the FMRRP as a representative of Green Growth Policy, But its results are disappointing

41. 4. Failure of the FMRRP ▶ To conclude, FMRRP can be evaluated close to failure

42. Ⅵ. Causes of Trouble

43. “Why“ did the large long-term governmental project witness only marginal outcomes in process, programmatic, and political dimension? • In order to analyze influence factors of the projects, this paper sets out a • framework of three dimension factors that affect on the 4 MRRP outcomes. Process Dimension Factors Programmatic Dimension Factors Political Dimension Factors

44. 1. Process Dimension • Government revised goals and contents of the plan in changing the Grand • Canal project into FMRRP. • - Government didn’t set up the clear goal of the FMRRP, and it brought about • loss of policy consistency. • - It needed cautious and careful decision-making process in FMRRP, but • government and president Lee have much more focused on keeping the Grand • canal project. • Unilateral and top-down decision-making process made government • ignore the legitimate procedure. • - Government ignored these procedures, and there was no acceptance of the • public opinion in procedures. These problems have led to fatal damage to policy • legitimacy.

45. 2. Programmatic dimension • Lack of understanding of the water problem • - Government hastily started the project, insisting a mere assertion that some • civil engineering construction can solve national water problems • Lack of preparation process for the project • - The water problem takes long period of time. But FMRRP planned to be • completed in two years which is very short-period of time • - The project provided only marginal benefits for the public.

46. 3. Political dimension • Political environment was not positive • - frequent anti-government demonstration (FTA issue and Candlelight Vigil) • - many people participated • - This situation acted as a pressure to government and president Lee • President Lee pushed forward the project  negativeeffect in policy implementation process • - Experiences of CEO of Construction Company Focus on Civil Engineering Projects • - Memories of Success of Cheonggyecheon Restoration Project • - This successful project played a key role in the presidential election • - This experience made him obsessed with the FMRRP, overlooking oppositions

47. 4. Influence factors and failure of the FMRRP Dimensions Influence Factors Limited Success of FMRRP ▶ Each factors of three dimensions had negative effect on the project, resulting in the limited success of the project.

48. Ⅶ. Conclusion

49. Summary • FMRRP has problems in process, programmatic, and political • dimensions, and showed poor outcomes in each of dimensions • Overall, FMRRP is close to failure. Each factors of three dimensions • had negative effect on the project, resulting in the limit success of the project • An important part of the current government’s four rivers project is closer to • 20th century’s old fashioned strategy rather than genuine Green Growth • It has limitations to go forward to Green Transformation  trapped by • traditional concept of (green) New Deal.

50. Limitations • Framework doesn’t offer comprehensive perspective of policy success/failure • Difficulties in identifying clear causal relation between the influence factors and policy outcomes • Short term Evaluation of the effect of project : only 2 years