Designation processes for marine protected areas in the coastal wetlands of South Korea

Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 703e710

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Designation processes for marine protected areas in the coastal wetlands of South Korea Jungho Nam a, Jongseong Ryu b, c, David Fluharty b, Chul-hwan Koh d, Karen Dyson b, Won Keun Chang a, Hee-Jung Choi a, Daeseok Kang e, Jong Seong Khim c, Chang-Hee Lee f, * a

Korea Maritime Institute, 1652 Sangam-dong, Seoul 121-270, Republic of Korea School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105-6715, USA Division of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 136-713, Republic of Korea d School of Earth and Environmental Sciences (Oceanography), Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Republic of Korea e Department of Ecological Engineering, Pukyung National University, Busan 608-737, Republic of Korea f Department of Environmental Engineering and Biotechnology, Myongji University, Yongin, Gyeonggi-do 449-728, Republic of Korea b c

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online 12 October 2010

The history of Korean tidal flat management and the process for designating Coastal Wetland Protected Areas (CWPAs) are described. Korean coastal wetlands have a long history of intensive use through reclamation for agricultural and industrial uses in the 20th century. Recently, the management policy is shifting away from intensive use towards the conservation of wetlands. This shift is caused by increasing public awareness of the value of wetlands and strong institutional support from the government. Since the Wetlands Conservation Act was passed in 1999, a total of twelve CWPAs have been designated through both top-down and bottom-up processes. Three designation paths are classified based on the relevant drivers, namely government-driven designations (seven CWPAs), local community driven designations (three CWPAs), and conflict resolution (trade-offs) driven designation (two CWPAs). The lessons learned from the designation of Korean CWPAs is that diversification of designation process could facilitate voluntary participation of local stakeholders and thereby enhance the chance of successful implementation of wise use strategy of tidal flats. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Human influences, such as overfishing, reclamation and coastal development, have been devastating to coastal ecosystems. The use of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for mitigation against adverse human effects has received much interest from scientists and managers worldwide as an attractive option to conserve biodiversity and improve fisheries [1,2]. The designation of MPAs globally has expanded dramatically during the last three decades [3]. Many different types of MPAs have been designated to achieve various purposes, including conservation of natural resources, natural heritage, and cultural and historical heritage as well as sustainable production [4,5]. In Korea, more than 400 MPAs of eight different types have been designated under various laws since 1968 and many governmental agencies are responsible for managing these MPAs [6]. However,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 31 330 6698; fax: þ82 31 601 3156. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-H. Lee). 0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.002

most of these Korean MPAs remained “paper parks” because of the lack of follow-up actions after the designation. Compliance on the part of resource users, and monitoring and enforcement on the part of managing agencies were seriously needed. In the mid 1990s, coastal wetlands (or tidal flats) started to receive public attention in Korea due to two environmental disasters, such as creation of freshwater Lake Sihwa from a tidal flat and filling in a tidal flat by Saemangeum reclamation project. They became a main target for protection in governmental conservation practices. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) of 1999 provides the legal basis for designating and managing Coastal Wetland Protected Areas (CWPAs) to protect tidal flats and their biodiversity. Given the strong legal and financial support, as well as active community participation, CWPAs are recognized as being significantly more advanced than other Korean MPAs. A total of twelve CWPAs have been established in Korea since 1999 with the total area of 305 km2, covering 12% of the tidal flats in Korean coastal waters. Apart from the previous top-down designation process, the Korean government considered the vigorous use of incentives and tools sufficient to encourage the active

704

J. Nam et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 703e710

participation of a diverse group of local stakeholders throughout the CWPA designation and management process.Currently, six CWPAs are registered in the Ramsar list of internationally important wetlands. Further, two of the CWPAs have successfully achieved the dual goals of ecosystem conservation and boosting local economy through ecotourism. The present paper elucidates the historical and current perspectives of twelve CWPAs designated in Korea during the last decade, describes the shift in wetland use policy of the Korean government from reclamation towards conservation and sustainable use, and introduces the Wetland Conservation Act of 1999. All twelve Korean CWPAs are classified by the types of drivers or trade-offs used during the designation process. This article also aims to provide valuable lessons learned from the Korean experience during the last decade regarding MPA designations for other nations who seek to manage and protect their coastal environments. 2. Korean tidal flats and its history of human use: development and conservation 2.1. Geographical settings The coastal wetlands of Korea are widely distributed along the west and southwest coasts. The present tidal flats were created during the post-glacial Holocene sea level transgression [7]. The regions are characterized by very large tidal ranges of up to 10 m and very gently bottom slopes. These attributes have created wide tidal flats that extend four to 10 km perpendicularly from the crenulated ria shorelines of the coastal Korea. Approximately 2500 km2 of the seabed is exposed to the air during the lowest ebb tide in the Korean west and southwest coasts [8], with a wide soft-bottom intertidal ecosystem which is rare worldwide and of global importance. Ecologically, the Korean tidal flat is recognized as an important feeding area, maintaining large populations of migratory birds of East Asian/Australasian pathways [9]. Economically, it is highlighted as an important ground for artisanal and commercial fisheries of indigenous communities. However, it has a long history of intensive human use through reclamation for agriculture and some industrial uses during the 20th century. 2.2. History of tidal flat reclamation The current pattern of systematically converting wetlands into farmland can be traced back to the period of the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945 (Table 1). During that period, the Japanese created rice fields in coastal wetlands as part of their attempt to increase rice production to support its military. The Joseon (Korea) Public Waters Reclamation Act, along with the attached Joseon Rice Yield Plan, was enacted in 1923 in order to systematically support reclamation efforts. The total acreage reclaimed for rice cultivation during the Japanese occupancy

reached 564 km2 [10]. During the most active period of reclamation, between 1926 and 1934, very effective incentive and tax reduction schemes contributed to the reclamation of 215 km2 of coastal wetlands. The next major period of wetlands conversion started in the 1960s during the beginning phase of modernization and industrialization in Korea. Another 550 km2 of wetlands was converted to agricultural and industrial uses between 1961 and 1991 (Table 1). Reclamations in the following 1990s were characterized by the large-scale of each project, ambitious engineering, and political propaganda in order to extend territorial land and secure food production. Reclamation has been strongly promoted through presidential elections, none of which supported environmental protection. Two of the most famous projects are the Sihwa and Saemangeum reclamation projects. The Sihwa project, which began in the 1980s and resulted in construction of a 13 km long dike completed in 1994, reclaimed another 170 km2 of coastal wetlands. The Saemangeum reclamation encompassed 400 km2 of estuarine tidal flats with a 33 km long dike done in 2006 connecting Gunsan and Buan in Jeolla-buk Province. A total of 800 km2 of wetlands were reclaimed by these and other large-scale projects during the 1990s (Table 1). The average reclaimed area per project was around 1 km2 through the 1980s. However, this rate sharply increased to 12 km2 between 1990 and 1994, and further jumped to 32 km2 after 1995 [10]. This increase is largely due to the major advances in embankment design and construction technology that occurred during this time. Technological limits did not allow the traditional reclamation projects to build large-scale dikes, thereby confining reclamations in small nearshore areas. However, since the 1990s advances in technology have enabled reclamation projects to build dikes enclosing large sections of tidal and sub-tidal areas.These huge modern embankments inevitably caused severe ecological degradation in coastal wetlands, especially when they encompass estuarine wetlands [11]. 2.3. From reclamation to conservation Debates over the ecological damages caused by large-scale reclamation projects in the news media raised public awareness of the importance of wetlands. The repeated debates in the 1990s regarding the Lake Sihwa and Saemangeum projects were particularly instrumental. The Lake Sihwa reclamation and dike construction project caused unexpected negative impacts on the marine environment and the local coastal community. The result of the project was an anoxic benthic environment and severe degradation of the previously productive marine ecosystem. Adjacent coastal communities dependent on coastal and marine resources of Sihwa were devastated. Efforts by the government to compensate these resource users were fraught with conflicts within the community regarding the distribution of compensation payments, and over loss of their rights to utilize the coastal

Table 1 Four periods of coastal wetlands use in the recent history of Korea. Periods

Total size reclaimed (km2)

Purpose of reclamation

Reclamation approach

Remark

1910s - 1950s

564

Agriculture

Traditional technology in small-scale & nearshore

The Japanese occupation

1960s - 1980s 1990s

550 800

Agriculture & Industry Industry & Agriculture

1999-present

270

a b c

MOMAF: Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. WCA: Wetland Conservation Act of 1999. CWPA: Coastal Wetland Protected Area.

Advanced technology in large-scale

Start of modernization and industrialization Rising public awareness, establishment of MOMAFa WCAb enactment, CWPAc designations

J. Nam et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 703e710

resources. Most of the local residents left the coast to seek employment in urban areas. The Saemangeum project was also very controversial. A presidential commitment initiated the project in the late 1980s. Due to the failure of the Lake Sihwa project, the Saemangeum project began to receive more scrutiny by the public in the mid 1990s. The heated debates over whether the project should continue or be stopped incurred a huge social cost over the following years. Over a period of two months in the spring of 2003, a long procession of people composed of clergymen, civic group members, and environmentalists completed a ‘three steps and one deep bow’ pilgrimage of 300 km from Saemangeum to Seoul protesting the Saemangeum project. This protest sparked fierce debates about wetlands reclamation (Korea Herald, May 30, 2003). Society’s view about the Korean coastal wetlands shifted considerably as a result and public sentiment now favors conservation. Before mid of 1990s, most Koreans regarded the development project as a good contribution to national welfare without thinking much about their environmental costs. After the two major environmental disasters mentioned earlier, the public perception of tidal flats in Korea has changed from seeing them as bleak wasted lands that should be reclaimed, to seeing them as precious wetlands systems worth preserving. This shift in opinion resulted in the Wetland Conservation Act of 1999 (hereinafter WCA) and the designation of coastal wetlands by the government as protected areas began in 1999. This can be considered the fourth period (1999-present) in the management history of Korean wetlands. While the first three focused on reclamation, this period has seen twelve sites designated as CWPAs (Fig. 1, Table 2). Even though a new reclamation project to build several tidal energy barrages has been proposed, the contemporary period is still a turning point as Koreans have begun to realize the problems associated with large-scale wetland development. Most Koreans now seek a wise use strategy, and look to support the natural treasury of coastal wetlands for the next generation.

Fig. 1. Coastal territory of South Korea and the location of Coastal Wetland Protected Areas (CWPAs): 1) Han River Estuary WPA, 2) Jangbong WPA, 3) Songdo WPA, 4) Seocheon WPA, 5) Julpo WPA, 6) Gochang WPA, 7) Muan WPA, 8) Jeungdo WPA, 9) Jindo WPA, 10) Beolgyo WPA, 11) Suncheon WPA, 12) Nakdong River Estuary WPA.

705

Table 2 List of Coastal Wetland Protected Areas in Korea in chronological order of their designation. Sites

Designation

Area Agency (km2)

Nakdong River Estuary Muan Jindo Suncheon Beolgyo Jangbong Han River Estuary Julpo Gochang Seocheon

Aug. 9, 1999

34.2

MEa

Government

MPe

Dec. 28, 2001 Dec. 28, 2002 Dec. 31, 2003 Dec. 31, 2003 Dec. 31, 2003 Apr. 17, 2006

35.6 1.2 28.0 7.5 68.4 60.7

MOMAFb MOMAF MOMAF MOMAF MOMAF ME

Government Local community Local community Local community Government Government

MP, RSf MP MP, RS MP, RS MP

Dec. 19, 2006 3.5 Dec, 31, 2007 11.8 Jan. 30, 2008 16.5

MOMAF MOMAF MOMAF

Songdo Jeungdo

Dec. 31, 2009 6.1 Jan. 29, 2010 31.3

Incheonc MLTMd

Government RS Government RS Conflict resolution MP, RS (Trade-offs) Government Conflict resolution (Trade-offs)

a b c d e f

Designation Driver Remarks

Ministry of Environment. Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (merged into MLTM in 2008). Incheon Metropolitan City government. Ministry of Land, Transport and Marine Affairs (established in 2008). Management Plan established. Ramsar Site registered.

3. The legal and management arrangements for CWPAs in Korea 3.1. Existing legal Institutions: the Wetland Conservation Act of 1999 3.1.1. General overview In 1999, the Korean government enacted a number of pieces of legislation focusing on the sustainable use of coastal resources. The Wetland Conservation Act (hereinafter WCA), along with the Coastal Management Act, the Public Waters Reclamation Act, the Marine Pollution Act, and an amendment to the Public Waters Management Act, were all passed at this time. The reformulation of the coastal legal arrangements was driven not only by the unprecedented marine environmental events e including the Sihwa and Saemangeum project as well as the red-tides and oil spills occurred in 1995e but also by a heightened public awareness about marine and coastal environmental protection. Preparation of the legal arrangements for wetland protection started in the mid 1990s when wetland reclamation became a newly emerging marine issue. Lessons learned from the marine environmental disasters due to development projects, such as the Lake Sihwa project, went into the legal review process of the Korean National Assembly in the mid 1990s on coastal and environmental-related legislations. In the review process, civil society actively participated. Increased public awareness forced the representatives of the National Assembly to take action to deal with pressing coastal issues, including wetland protection. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands was also an important driving force behind the enactment of new wetland protection policies in Korea. Korea both ratified and joined Ramsar in 1997. However, perhaps the most important reason behind the enactment of these wetland protection policies lies in the change in the government organizational structure in 1996. Before 1996, the Ministry of Environment (hereinafter ME) was the only agency responsible for advocating the conservation and management of wetlands. When the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (hereinafter MOMAF) was established in 1996 as an agency designed to coordinate marine related policies in the national

706

J. Nam et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 703e710

cabinet, decisions pertaining to environmental protection at the cabinet level could be initiated and driven by two ministries. Even though these ministries then competed to take a lead in initiatives regarding coastal environmental issues, the result was greater attention to the protection of wetlands. The purpose of the WCA reflects this new recognition of and perspectives on wetlands, defined in Article 1. It reads: “This Act aims to conserve wetlands and their biodiversity by articulating arrangements necessary for effective conservation and management of wetlands, and contribute to improving international cooperation by reflecting the purport of international conventions on wetlands.” The Act is composed of 27 articles in total, including a Presidential Decree that gives certain powers and responsibilities of the Act to the President of Korea, and an Ordinance of Ministry that delegates some of the authorities laid out in the Presidential Decree to the appropriate ministries. The major implementation tools designed to achieve the purpose of the Act include: 1) the designation of wetland protected areas, 2) the establishment and implementation of management plans at both national and sitespecific levels, 3) compensation for damage to socio-economic activities caused by regulations, 4) delineation of prohibited and permitted activities on wetlands and protected areas, and 5) penalties for violations. The geographic scope of the Act encompasses terrestrial and coastal wetlands that are temporarily or permanently covered by salt or fresh waters. 3.1.2. Integrated legislation The manner in which wetland legislation and implementation processes are functioning is very different from other legal processes in Korea. Usually, each law is enforced by an individual ministry, and other relevant ministries participate in the implementation of the law through review, consultation, and cooperation. Giving two ministries authority in the realm of environmental protection has contributed to making more environmentallyfriendly decisions on projects at the cabinet level. However, all ministries are usually involved in the legislative process because the enactment of a new law within their purview results in an expansion in authority, budget and personnel. Even though a ministry may not suggest the law, it may proactively intervene in the legislative process to help the law to be enacted. For example, a ministry may provide information or knowledge pertinent to the proposed law, collect data on public opinion, or in some way show the necessity of enacting the law. The responsible ministry is usually given mandates in each relevant law, a practice often referred to as ‘one law, one ministry.’ The designated key ministry then implements policies based on such laws in an exclusive manner. With this background, one can see how the integrated and cooperative legislation process used to create the WCA by MOMAF and ME is unique in Korea even though the jurisdictions of the two ministries are clearly split between the coastal and terrestrial areas. Additionally, these two ministries took a cooperative stance while drawing up the bill and undergoing review by the National Assembly. This process of drafting laws is rarely found in Korean lawmaking, where the purview of environmental protection is dichotomized and there is little experience of cooperation between two ministries. The Seocheon Wetland Protected Area (hereinafter WPA) is a good example showing the potential of this cooperative administrative system in the field of environmental protection (see 3.2.3 below). 3.1.3. The designation process and the legal provisions of CWPAs The WCA has been a cornerstone for the legal designation and management of CWPAs in Korea. The entire process of the

designation of CWPAs is composed of seven steps, beginning with a national comprehensive survey of coastal wetlands, and ending with the designation and official notification of the protected areas as stipulated in the WCA (Fig. 2). Once the CWPA candidates are nominated through the comprehensive nationwide survey on ecosystems of coastal wetlands which is carried out every five year since 2000 and includes both human and nature aspects (step 1), the evaluation of individual wetlands (step 2) and multidimensional consultation processes (step 4e6) with the relevant local governments, ministries, and stakeholders are held. Formulated in 2002, the evaluation checklist developed by a scientific advisory group and used in the step 2 of designation process (Fig. 2) has six primary criteria and three supplementary criteria.Members of the scientific advisory group were nominated by the Korean government among tidal flat experts in natural and social sciences. The primary criteria include vegetation, water fowl, benthic fauna, fishery resources, geologic/geographic features, and culture. The supplementary criteria, which are consulted in case of a tie in ranking sites according to the primary criteria, include the potential for ecological recovery, threats and community support of conservation. Candidate coastal wetlands that score highly in evaluations conducted by scientific advisory groups or that satisfy international standards such as the criteria for Ramsar sites have priority for CWPA designation. Additional weight is given to candidate wetlands that serve as habitats for the IUCN red-list of threatened species. The administrative consultations concerning the priority candidate sites, which start with the work of the scientific advisory process, continue with consultations with the relevant ministries, and then move to consultations with provincial and municipal governments. Consultation at the municipal level consists of multiple public hearings and meetings with local stakeholders. Local fishermen with fishery or mariculture rights are key stakeholders in the consultation process. If no major objections are raised at the local level, priority candidate sites are often quickly

Nationwide survey on coastal wetlands - Natural & social features -

Evaluation of individual wetlands (evaluation checklist)

Nomination of CWPA candidates

Deliberation by provincial governors and mayors of metropolitan cities

Consultation with local residents

Deliberation by relevant ministries

Official notification of WPA designation Fig. 2. Flow chart of seven steps composed of the designation process of Korean CWPAs.

J. Nam et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 703e710

designated as CWPAs. Weak objections regarding CWPA designation at the local level are addressed during the consultation process which includes stakeholder participation and compensation for potential economic loss. 3.2. Classification of CWPAs based on the drivers behind their nomination The Korean government has designated and managed twelve CWPAs with a total area of 304.84 km2, covering 12% of the entire tidal flat area in Korea (see Table 2 on the status of CWPA designation). The first CWPA (Nakdong River Estuary WPA) located in the southern sea of the Korean Peninsula was designated in 1999 and managed by the ME, while a majority of CWPAs were designated and managed by MOMAF. Although the jurisdiction over the coastal wetlands was the purview of MOMAF, the ME was able to designate a CWPA without opposition from local stakeholders and/or MOMAF as the area encompassing the first CWPA had previously been designated as an Ecosystem Reserve by the ME in 1989. A typical top-down approach, a ‘government-driven designation mechanism,’ had been accepted as the most popular policy implementation strategy adapted for other types of Korean MPAs, including Coastal National Parks, Ecological Reserves and Waterfowl Protected Areas, by the late 1990s, and this approach was also applied to the first CWPA designation (Table 2). However, the top-down approach for CWPA designation did not remain popular. In the 21st century, the Korean society became increasingly aware of public ownership and rights over common resources in coastal zones, as well as the importance of coastal protection. This drove the diversification of the nomination drivers of CWPA designations. The number of newly designated MPAs nearly doubled from a total of 163 MPAs designated by 1995 to 300 MPAs in 2000, reflecting the evolving coastal policy in Korea. The designation number grows most quickly during the formative phase of integrated coastal management in Korea in the mid to late 1990s, however since then the creation of new MPAs has slowed [6,12]. Although the establishment of new MPAs has fallen off, the designation of CWPAs requested by coastal communities and stakeholders during this period should be recognized as a genuine improvement in coastal management. The voluntary involvement of these non-governmental sectors found in nominating several CWPAs could secure a strong constituency that supports the goals of wetlands protection. Korea has continued to step away from the conventional topdown approach to CWPA designation and has moved towards newly emerging mechanisms including ‘local community driven designations’ and ‘conflict resolution driven designations.’ A more detailed discussion of these new mechanisms, along with the traditional top-down mechanism, utilized in the developmental phase of coastal wetlands protection, follows. 3.2.1. Top down government-driven designation Although the foundations of top-down government-driven methods of CWPA designation have been questioned, they are still the most common mechanism of CWPA designation. Seven CWPAs were nominated and designated through government-driven, topdown approach (Table 2). Top-down approach can be defined that the designation is performed through the official designation process (Fig. 2) initiated by the central or local government. 3.2.1.1. Nakdong River Estuary WPA. The Nakdong River Estuary is the largest stopover area for migratory waterfowl in Korea, and provides an ecological hub linking Australia, Japan, and Russia. This area is a typical estuarine ecosystem in terms of its ecological, geological, chemical and physical processes. The Cultural Heritage

707

Administration of Korea (hereinafter CHA) designated this area as a Natural Heritage in 1966 but did not follow-up any substantial process in management due to lack of funding and personnel. After the WCA was passed, the ME designated this area as a WPA in September 1999. The Nakdong Natural Heritage Site and the Nakdong River Estuary WPA share the same legal boundaries with a total area of 34.2 km2. The ME leads the management of this area as the CHA has fewer funds and personnel. The ME established a management plan in 2003, which covers monitoring, public outreach, and involvement of local stakeholders. 3.2.1.2. Muan WPA. In December of 2001, Muan WPA became the first CWPA designated by MOMAF. The Muan WPA is located in the southwest coast of Korea, where one of the intensive national surveys on coastal wetlands was carried out in 2000 in accordance with the WCA. Based on the results of this survey, MOMAF designated this area as a CWPA with the hope that it would serve as an example for coastal wetland protection policy in Korea. To avoid conflicts over the CWPA designation or objections from the local government and residents, MOMAF proposed creating a 50 billion won (approximately 40 million US dollar) project to establish a visitor center which was accepted by the local government and community. This visitor center features extensive museum-quality exhibits and serves as a tourist destination. 3.2.1.3. Jangbong-do WPA. Jangbong-do is the largest CWPA in Korea with an area of 68.4 km2. In 2003, endangered species including black-faced spoon bills were observed on the adjacent wetlands of Jangbong-do, and MOMAF rapidly took action to complete the designation of the Jangbong-do WPA that year. Conflicts among stakeholder groups over the designation of the CWPA failed to materialize, in part because some fishermen expected that damage to the fishery habitats caused by present sand-mining activities could be avoided by designating their coastal areas as CWPAs. However, two years after designation, an individual with sand-mining rights sued MOMAF for encroachment into his private rights. This case was brought to the Korean administrative court in 2005 that upheld the plaintiff’s case. MOMAF objected to this ruling and the case is now pending in the Korean appellate court. Unlike during the designation of the Muan WPA, no special incentives to compensate for social costs were suggested by the government during the consultation period. 3.2.1.4. Han River Estuary WPA. River estuaries are classified as terrestrial wetlands under the WCA, and accordingly ME became the lead agency when the Han River estuary was designated as a CWPA in April 2006. As a result of the continuing military conflict between North and South Korea, the Han River estuary has not been developed since the Korean War (1950-1953). Diverse ecosystems within the estuary support many endangered species that are rarely observed in other areas of Korea including black spoonbills, vultures, cranes and amphibians. It is the only remaining natural estuarine environment without a dam at the river mouth out of the four major rivers of South Korea (Han, Nakdong, Yeongsan, Geum). The original designation plan for the Han River Estuary WPA was opposed by local stakeholders including farmers and fishermen who feared that the CWPA designation would deprive them of their private property rights. To alleviate this concern, the ME altered the boundary of the proposed CWPA to exclude certain areas of the floodplains for agriculture and to include certain military areas. The total area of the CWPA is 60.7 km2. The area connects to the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) which the Korean government is trying to register as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserves.

708

J. Nam et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 703e710

3.2.1.5. Julpo and Gochang WPA. The neighboring Julpo and Gochang WPAs share a semi-enclosed bay (Gomso Bay) famous for the traditional salt production from natural seawater. The relatively pristine natural environment of the area, which is habitat for protected shorebirds, was a key factor in the WPA designation. The bay area was affected by social conflicts between government agencies and local stakeholders long before the CWPA designation process started. Two projects that threatened the environment e the world’s longest dike construction project (Saemangeum reclamation project) and the ongoing discharge of effluent cooling water from the Yeonggwang nuclear power plant, created social conflicts and made local residents recognize the importance of the coastal environment. A government-driven approach to CWPA designation was accepted in these areas because local fishermen regarded the CWPA designation as a shield that could protect both the ecological functions of the bay and their economic livelihood. The Julpo WPA was designated in December 2006, and the Gochang WPA a year later in December 2007. 3.2.1.6. Songdo WPA. The Songdo WPA was the first CWPA to be designated by a local government. Designated by the Incheon Metropolitan City government, the CWPA was approved in December 2009 and is located in the southwest coast of the city. During the last decade, the city government has reclaimed about 6 km2 of the intertidal zone in the Songdo area to create a dry land for an international business district. This reclamation seriously deteriorated the tidal flat ecosystem. Although the Incheon City government designated a total of 6.1 km2 area as a protected area, there is a concern that the government does not have a strong willingness to properly manage the area, and that it would remain a paper park. For example, only 100,000 US dollars was set aside in the 2010 budget of Incheon City to manage the Songdo WPA, a sum much smaller than necessary for the task. The Songdo WPA should be carefully monitored by a governmental program to determine whether the ecosystem is being conserved and if the stated objectives of designation have been achieved. 3.2.2. Local community driven designation As mentioned before, Korean lay people have become more aware of the issue of coastal protection since 2000, however bottomup CWPA designations are still unfamiliar and remain innovative approaches in Korea. Community driven CWPA designation mechanisms are uncommon in Korea, which has made Korean people regard the use of these mechanisms as unusual even during the developmental phase of coastal management in Korea.In our paper, local community driven designation can be defined that the designation is initiated by local residents and then processed by the government. The following three cases suggest that public participation may be able to advance Korea’s coastal protection policies. 3.2.2.1. Jindo WPA. The Jindo WPA was not included in the list of the candidate sites for CWPA designation when the national wetland survey was carried out in 2002. In fact, an adjacent area within the same municipality (Jindo-gun) was originally recommended as the CWPA candidate site by the scientific advisory group. Residents near the Jindo WPA, familiar with the Muan WPA case and the incentives that accompanied the CWPA designation, hoped that the CWPA designation would encourage government investment in their own fishing village. With this in mind, they requested that their wetlands also be designated as a CWPA by MOMAF, and the Jindo WPA became the second CWPA under the MOMAF umbrella. 3.2.2.2. Suncheon and Beolgyo WPA. The Suncheon and Beolgyo WPAs that are strongly linked ecologically are located in Suncheon Bay in the southern coast of Korea. The designation of these two

CWPAs was completed in December of 2003, and they were included in the Ramsar list in 2006 because of their ecological uniqueness and integrity. Prior to the national wetlands survey and the CWPA designation, local NGOs and university professors spearheaded volunteer campaigns, outreach programs, and surveys to protect these wetlands. Farmers, on the other hand, objected to the damage that they suffered due to feeding behavior of migratory waterfowl, as well as a river works project linked directly to the bay planned by the municipal government (Suncheon City). Long lasting efforts were made by citizen groups and experts to involve the farmers and local government as constituencies in wetlands protection. During consultations at the local level, creative alternatives to minimize damages and financial incentives were prepared and discussed by almost all of the stakeholders involved. A governmental commitment to invest these measures in order to create a model CWPA was rewarded with volunteer efforts at the community level. It is expected that the governmental investment would leverage local economic development through ecotourism. Recent data from Suncheon City show the potential for economic development. The number of visitors has increased to 1.8 million in 2007 from 4000 in 1998. This area was also one of the official field trip sites for the 10th conference of the Parties of the Ramsar Convention held in October 2008 in South Korea. It is expected that the number of visitors will continue to increase because of this attention. 3.2.3. Conflict-resolution (trade-offs) driven designation To date, there have been two examples of a conflict resolution driven designation in Korea, and it is very different from the examples described above. Importantly, neither can be classified as either a top-down or bottom-up method of CWPA designation. When there is huge conflict among stakeholders during the designation process, the trade-offs driven designation can be very useful as the following. 3.2.3.1. Seocheon WPA. The designation proceeded while resolving coastal conflicts between development and conservation oriented stakeholders e including central and local governments, local and nationwide NGOs, fishermen, civil engineering corporations, and experts. The conflict broke out during the environmental impact assessment of a reclamation project. Planned in 1989, the project aimed to fill in 27 km2 of the coastal wetlands within the Seocheon Municipality. Both MOMAF and ME, which are responsible for environmental impact assessments of coastal development projects, objected to the reclamation project on the grounds that it would irreparably damage the coastal ecosystem and further that business sectors would not be interested in leasing the reclaimed land in the Seocheon area. As a result, the core debate focused on whether or not to issue a reclamation license. NGOs at the national and local levels, local fishermen, MOMAF, and ME were all against the project. The Ministry of Construction and Transportation, Chungnam provincial and Seocheon municipal governments, and local engineering companies strongly advocated for the project. Numerous meetings between these two parties were held, and various alternatives were prepared by MOMAF and ME. Following a two-year struggle, the reclamation project was cancelled. MOMAF and ME made proactive commitments to construct the Natural History Museum Complex with an investment of 1.1 trillion won (approximately 900 million US dollars). The more dramatic result of this conflict resolution process was the designation of the Seocheon WPA (16.5 km2) in the area where the reclamation project was originally planned. The Seocheon WPA was designated in January of 2008 and offers Korean society and others a valuable lesson in terms of conflict resolution and coastal protection.

J. Nam et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 703e710

3.2.3.2. Jeungdo WPA. A total of 31.3 km2 around Jeungdo area in Jeollanam province was designated as a WPA in January 2010. The area was also designated as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in May 2009. Originally, the conflict arose between the local government (Sinan-gun) who requested the reclamation license of tidal flat to boost local economy and the central government which refused to approve it. After several years of debate, the central government decided to approve the reclamation of a very small area, requiring that rest of the area should be protected. The local government finally agreed to the offer and to cooperate in the designation of a CWPA. 4. Discussion The chance for successful implementation of an MPA can be greatest when communities collectively support the MPA and governments provide the necessary finance, monitoring, enforcement, scientific data, and encouragement of community participation [13,14]. Based on these strong stakeholder and policy support, three additional points would be suggested for a successful MPA management: first, a designation process that is without major conflicts; second, a management plan developed with the input of local shareholders and clear goals; and third, an effective implementation of the management plan that achieves the stated goals of the MPA [15,16]. In order to reduce conflicts between interest groups during the nomination process, it is critical to balance the MPA’s biological concerns with the socio-economic needs of the surrounding area [17]. Many studies pointed out that stakeholder participation in every stage of the nomination, management planning, and implementation process would be essential in the successful implementation of an MPA [14,15,17e20]. However, it is hard to have local stakeholders voluntarily join this process without the use of tools that encourage them to participate [21]. For this reason, agencies should consider the vigorous use of incentives and tools sufficient to encourage the active participation of a diverse group of local stakeholders throughout the MPA designation and management process. In Korea, several financial incentives were employed by the central government to satisfy the local demands discussed during the process of designating CWPAs. These included building a natural history museum (Seocheon WPA), a visitor center for ecotourism (Muan WPA), funding support for local governments (Suncheon WPA), and a conditional approval of reclamation (Jeungdo WPA), all of which became very expensive tools. Given the limited budget for conservation practices in many countries, it would be more effective to find cheaper and more efficient ways of satisfying local demands. For example, educating the local community about ecosystem conservation is important in order to heighten the local awareness and understanding of environmental protection. The creation of a nitrogen market in which nitrogen credits can be traded would be an innovative economic incentive to encourage local landowners to leave their wetlands undeveloped [22], which has yet to be considered in Korea. It is important to remember that suggestions like this should be adapted to the specific social context of the relevant region. Although this study primarily addresses cases involving the designation process, it is also important to consider who will develop the management plan of the proposed protected areas. For instance, although the central government tends to focus on ecosystem conservation, local governments may focus more on development, e.g., Seocheon and Jeungdo cases. Thus, conflicts between central and local governments may arise when it is time to decide who will write the management plan for the MPAs. Cooperative intergovernmental regimes that allow the participation and recognize the rights of local stakeholders have been better able to

709

encourage sustainable development than those that are more coercive [23]. An approach where the central government assists the local government to form the management plan would be desirable. Such an approach, which encourages local participation, should be continued even after the local government has established a management plan. Presently, six out of twelve Korean CWPAs have management plans developed by the central government (Table 2). These cases should be monitored to determine how effectively these CWPAs are managed using the central government’s plan. The other six cases are currently engaged in management planning processes. It might be valuable to incorporate more concrete partnerships into the planning process for these CWPAs than those for the six top-down plans. A management plan can be prepared during the MPA establishment process. For example, in the United States, this management plan should be developed with the Environmental Impact Statement before the nomination decision is made [24]. By developing the management plan before the MPA nomination is finalized, the local stakeholders will be able to understand the direction that the MPA management is taking and be able to provide feedback and make objective decisions. Another method that enables local stakeholders to gauge the consequences of an MPA management plan is to use zoning as a management tool. Zoning is one of the most important issues facing most MPAs, and it is often the best way to reconcile competing uses of the protected area [4]. However, the results of zoning must be monitored carefully as well in order to determine if the zones are accomplishing the objectives. Both methods have a common reliance on stakeholders figuring out what the MPA management objectives attempt to achieve. The most important thing, which often overlooked when an MPA is established, is information on the intended goals of the protected area [18]. For example, the overarching goals of Korean CWPAs are ecosystem protection and habitat conservation, however no detailed objectives were set out. Insufficient scientific data on ecosystem structures and functions of Korean tidal flats resulted in the underdevelopment of detailed objectives. Both the boundaries and the degree of protection offered to MPAs should be decided using scientific knowledge during the establishment process [1]. Additionally, there is often a gap between the government’s intent when it designates an MPA and what regulations are enforced ‘on the ground.’ For example, IUCN recognizes six categories of protected areas according to their designated objectives [25]. Category IV protected areas are defined as areas managed mainly for conservation through management intervention. All twelve Korean CWPAs belong to this category because the stated goals of the central government include ecosystem protection and habitat conservation, as set forth in the WCA. However, because the local governments often create on the ground regulations for the CWPAs that target developing and maintaining sustainable coastal wetland ecosystems and allow locals to maintain their rights to use the natural resources, the Korean CWPAs could also be classified as category VI which is defined as MPAs managed for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems by IUCN [25]. This gap between the government’s intent and the regulations on the ground and in practice highlights the need for more specific objectives in designation and management plans of Korean CWPAs. However, despite high levels of scientific and environmental uncertainty, a proactive approach to designating MPAs using the best available scientific knowledge and data should be used. Recognizing the gaps in existing scientific information, the Korean government has supported scientific study of the ecosystems and the social aspects of the entire CWPA system since 2000. This research is legally mandated and funded by the WCA, and is carried out by a national research institute every five years.

710

J. Nam et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2010) 703e710

In addition, one of the keys to achieve the objectives of an MPA is determining the stakeholder’s perspectives of the MPA [26,27]. This knowledge should facilitate communication between the local community and government authorities, and lead to the successful planning and management of the marine resources. Before 2002 in Korea, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) were infrequently invited to participate in the MPA designation process, and when invited, it was only to share their opinions. Although public hearings were mandated, only two or three were held per project, and public participation opportunities were severely limited. However, since 2002 governmental authorities have partnered with NGOs to collaborate in the designation and management planning processes. Residents, fishermen, and stakeholders are also frequently and seriously consulted. A number of factors may have contributed to this shift, including a new thenPresident of Korea and the increased understanding of the value of wetland ecosystems. Overall, the perception of what participation is needed has changed drastically. Regular surveys of public opinion are now performed to track changes in the community’s view of the Korean CWPAs. Local ecological knowledge and data collected by key members of the fishing community are incorporated into the scientific data. For example, daily sediment temperature measurements collected by shellfish farmers are very valuable, as these data cannot be collected easily by researchers. In the Suncheon, Beolgyo and Muan WPAs, local residents participate cooperatively in management activities with governments, and NGOs carry out voluntary researches on the migratory waterfowl in those tidal flats. 5. Conclusion Countries with a high demand for land compared to their territorial size often search for ways to enlarge their territory in the most economical way possible. In Korea, coastal wetlands have been sacrificed to satisfy the demand for land from farming, industrial, and other uses. For much of the recent past, transforming coastal wetlands into productive farmlands had been regarded by the Korean society as more valuable and productive than conserving the wetlands as natural areas. However, a series of environmental disasters since the 1990s has shifted society’s value perception from supporting wetlands development towards the conservation of wetlands. Further, the creation of MOMAF in 1996 signified a critical turn in the Korean government towards a policy more focused on conserving marine natural resources. The willingness of the Korean government to conserve coastal wetlands, along with society’s demands for healthy ecosystems, made it possible to designate twelve CWPAs within eleven years without any major conflict. In addition to the top-down mechanism employed in most CWPA designations by the Korean government, bottom-up processes have also been found in several cases where local communities were empowered to induce community driven CWPA designations. The government also used CWPA designations as a tool to resolve conflicts among stakeholders. Based on the Korean experience, it is recommended that governments employ several approaches to designating MPAs, including top-down and community-based approaches, to minimize the conflict of various uses. However, the willingness of the central government and the general public to designate CWPAs does not necessarily guarantee that management goals, including maintaining the integrity of and sustainably developing the coastal wetlands, will be attained. To successfully implement a CWPA and encourage the sustainable use of coastal areas, any promised financial support should be secured, and the active participation of local communities needs to be encouraged during every stage of the designation and management of CWPAs.

Now, Korean CWPAs are turning into the process of management planning and implementation. Monitoring of the whole process of Korean CWPAs from the designation to the implementation should be further investigated to better advance the opportunities to learn from experience. 6. Ethical statement This paper is written in accordance with the ethical guidelines for journal publication found at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/ find/intro.cws_home/ethical_guidelines, with regards to reporting standards, data access and retention, originality and plagiarism, multiple publication, acknowledgement of sources, authorship, and conflicts of interest. References [1] Allison GW, Lubchenco J, Carr MH. Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecol Appl 1998;8:S79e92. [2] Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F, Hawkins JP, Goodridge R. Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Scientometrics 2001;294:1920e3. [3] Agardy T, Bridgewater P, Crosby MP, Day J, Dayton PK, Kenchington R, et al. Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosysts 2003;13:353e67. [4] Kelleher G. Guidelines for marine protected areas. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN; 1999. [5] Sobel J, Dahlgren C. Marine reserves: a guide to science, design, and use. Washington DC: Island Press; 2004. [6] Nam J, Choi JY, Yook KH, Choi HJ. An integrated approach to management of coastal and marine protected areas. Korea Maritime Inst; 2004. [7] Park YA. In: Lee DS, editor. Geology of Korea. Seoul: Kyohak-Sa; 1987. p. 389e405. [8] Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MOMAF), Study on ecosystem of Korean coastal wetlands and feasibility in sustainable use, Seoul, 2003. [9] Rogers DI, Moores N, Battley PF. Northwards migration of shorebirds through Saemangeum, the Geum estuary and Gomso bay, South Korea in 2006. The Stilt 2006;50:62e78. [10] Koh C-H. In: Koh C-H, editor. The Korean tidal flat: environment, biology and human. Seoul: Seoul National University Press; 2001. p. 691e700. [11] Sato M, Koh C-H. In: Hong S-K, Lee JA, Ihm B-S, Farina A, Son Y, Kim ES, Choe JC, editors. Ecological issues in a changing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004. p. 135e55. [12] Nam J, Kang D. Strengthening ICM implementation through national strategy for the marine environmental protection in Republic of Korea. China: EAS; 2006. congress hosted by PEMSEA, Dec. 12-16, 2006. [13] Jameson SC, Tupper MH, Ridley JM. The three screen doors: can marine “protected” areas be effective. Mar Pollut Bull 2002;44:1177e83. [14] Pomeroy R, Douvere F. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Mar Policy 2008;32:816e22. [15] Pomeroy RS, Watson LM, Parks JE, Cid GA. How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean Coast Manage 2005;48:482e502. [16] Himes AH. Performance indicators in MPA management: using questionnaires to analyze stakeholder preferences. Ocean Coast Manage 2007;50:329e51. [17] Sumalia UR, Guenette S, Alder J, Chuenpagdee R. Addressing ecosystem effects of fishing using marine protected areas, ICES. J Mar Sci 2000;57:752e60. [18] Agardy T. Information needs for marine protected areas: scientific and societal. Bull Mar Sci 2000;66:875e88. [19] Christie P, White A, Deguit E. Starting point or solution? Community-based marine protected areas in the Philippines. J Environ Manage 2002;66:441e54. [20] Wang Y, Yao Y, Ju M. Wise use of wetlands: current state of protection and utilization of Chinese wetlands and recommendations for improvement. Environ Manage 2008;41:793e808. [21] Koontz TM, Steelman TA, Carmin J, Korfmacher KS, Moseley C, Thomas CW. Collaborative environmental management: what roles for government? Washington DC: Resources for the Future; 2004. [22] Hey DL, Urban LS, Kostel JA. Nutrient farming: the business of environmental management. Ecol Eng 2005;24:279e87. [23] May PJ, Burby RJ, Ericksen NJ, Handmer JW, Dixon JE, Michaels S, et al. Environmental management and governance: intergovernmental approaches to hazards and sustainability. London and New York: Routledge; 1996. [24] National Marine Protected Areas Center (National MPA Center). Framework for the national system of marine protected areas of the United States of America, http:// mpa.gov/pdf/national-system/finalframework_full.pdf; 2008 [accessed 07.15.10]. [25] Iucn. Guidelines for protected area management categories. Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 1994. [26] Aguilla-Perara A, Schärer M, Valdés-Pizzini M. Marine protected areas in Puerto Rico: historical and current perspectives. Ocean Coast Manag 2006;49:961e75. [27] Chuenpagdee R, Fraga J, Euán-Avila JI. Community perspectives toward a marine reserve: a case study of San Felipe, Yucatán, México. Coast Manage 2002;30:183e91.