Another outcome of this visit to Europe was having discussions with Koreans residing in Europe, especially in Germany. Many portions of them were dubious and skeptical about the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project with little appropriate information. Mr. SHIM Myung-Pil, the head of National Rivers Restoration Office, quelled their curiosities through briefing and candid Q&A time. The followings are the main content.
(Koreans expatriates in Germany): If there is misunderstanding between us (Koreans expatriates in Europe) and Korean Gov’t concerning to the Project, what it can be?
(Mr. SHIM Myung Pil): It can be considered in two points roughly. One is the controversial subject whether the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project can damage environment and nature of Korea or not. The other is the controversy about thing that main rivers restoration might surely lower the flood level; on the contrary, it can plausibly put tributaries in danger. Dr. Heinrich Freise, a German scholar who recently visited Korea on the invitation of an environment NGO, brought out a question of that. However, there are many experts and advisory committee for thorough inspection. Technical analysis had been assured already. But we are visiting here (Europe) to seek more meticulous measures and advanced technological, and to be verified from German and Dutch fore-runners in this area. I think there are similarities in coping with climate change. Reinforcing embankment and dredging sediments are the parts of the series of the countermeasure for upcoming environmental threats.
When it comes to the Isar River, a well-known fact is ‘a natural restoration’ Europeans does not use the expression like ‘to revive’ concerning the rivers. The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project, it is said that you pave the riverside with cement, and construct weirs in sector by sector. I think it is much far from the case of the Isar. Could you tell us your impression after visiting the Isar River?
The length of the Isar passing Munich is 8km with 50 to 90Cm of width. By the way, the rivers of Korea, concerning the restoration project, have pretty broader width than here. Some places indicate 1,000 meter in the width. In hydraulic viewpoint, facts straddling different rivers cannot be the same. As long as the questions about where the water flows out, what kind of terrain gains sediment accumulated, and so forth, a simple comparison doesn’t make sense in this case. (We expected to meet Dr. Lim Ji-Hye, majored in architecture, who opposes to our project. Then we hydraulic experts wanted to see her for meaningful discussion. However, we couldn’t, so it is a pity). The Isar project had been done within the guidelines named as provision of nature and so does ours in Korea. Our project is nationwide, while Isar Plan was regional like our Cheonggyecheon Project. Some says that our project is indiscreet pouring with cement plaster on the river, but it’s not true. We have coherently strived to adhere to the eco-friendly principles. As the Isar Plan had restored the river’s original shape, we go forward in the same context.
I have already read the writings of Ms. LIM Hje-Ji. In addition to that, to hear your comprehensive briefing is very instructive with factual details. However, the Korean project had merely 3 to 4 months for environmental evaluation, and set construction period barely 2 years. We cannot understand that point.
It is right that natural environment project should be implemented with ample time. However, as to the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project, the plan was decided upon already in 2008. Because of devastating flood in 1999, government established masterplan of KRW 2 trillion budget allocations, and same way in 2003 and 2007. However, they just had been pushed back from the priority order. To sum it up, it was already studied plan long time ago. In environmental aspects, also we have enough data of environmental effects evaluation. It can be seen that we drive this project in seemingly short construction time. However, I’d like to underline that we scrupulously decided the period as 2 year on diligent search for climate change and economic repercussion. It did not come from nowhere, but was based on thorough pilot survey.
The differential of river flow in the Rhine is about 14 times. What amazes me is that of the Nakdong River numbers even to 250 times. How can I get that?
In technical term, it is called as coefficient of river regime (ratio between the maximum and minimum amount of flow). In case of Europe, it makes no odds in annual precipitation gap. But, rainy season of Korea is so typical that 60 to 70% of annual rainfall comes intensively in the 3 months in summer. Therefore coefficient of river regime reaches to 200~300. Like this, the variation and gap of rainfall in Korea shows extreme ends, it is hard to simply apply European solution to us, and vice versa.
Germany removes concrete from the river to make more ecological, on the contrary, Korean project are heatedly constructing weirs. Does it stand to reason?
As mentioned earlier, unlike the case of Germany, we have ridiculously big gap in annual rainfall so that, on the contrary, we suffer from severe water shortage in dry season. Especially, the plan is inherently meaningful in the context that we actively cope with climate change.
