On February 21st 2025, Science published the following letter.
“Sura, a tidal flat in the Mangyeong estuary in South Korea, has survived one of the world’s largest coastal reclamation projects. Now, a proposed airport threatens this critical refuge (1).
The airport’s construction, planned to take place between 2025 and 2029, would lead to an irreversible loss of the biodiversity and sociocultural activities that Sura supports (1, 2).
The reclamation site in which Sura is located, Saemangeum, was once a vast estuarine ecosystem (3, 4). Saemangeum served as a key stopover along the East Asian–Australasian Flyway, supporting at least 330,000 shorebirds annually (5). However, the construction related to the reclamation project disrupted its biodiversity and ecosystem services (3, 4, 6).
Amid this environmental upheaval, Sura still supports endangered flora and fauna, especially migratory birds, including 59 nationally protected species and 27 globally threatened species (1).
The airport proposal claims socioeconomic benefits, but the plan was exempted from the preliminary feasibility assessment, so no evidence is available to demonstrate that the anticipated benefits outweigh the environmental risks (7). Gunsan Airport is located about 1.3 km from the proposed site and is underused, putting the need for a new airport in question. Moreover, environmental impact assessments confirm the conservation value of Sura and indicate that bird strikes would pose substantial aviation safety risks, as they do at other airports near bird habitats (1, 8).
This development would undercut the South Korean government’s efforts to convince the international community of the outstanding universal value of their tidal flats, half of which were designated as United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage sites in 2021 (9). Sura is only 7 km away from the heritage site location. The country was also among the 188 nations at the 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) that committed to halt global biodiversity loss by 2030 and to take urgent actions to prevent the extinction of endangered species (10). Sacrificing Sura to create another unjustifiable airport would put the country’s commitment to environmental goals in question.
To resolve this controversy, the South Korean government must pause the airport project until a thorough and independent feasibility and environmental impact review has been conducted. UNESCO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature should assess the impact of the airport on the integrity of heritage properties. Scientific experts should provide alternatives that promote conservation and demonstrate the irreplaceable socio- economic and ecological value of Sura. Organizations such as the Convention on Biological Diversity should develop international legal mechanisms to stop ecologically destructive and risky projects of this kind.
The dire situation in Sura challenges mainstream conservation paradigms that rely on government goodwill, which is often compromised by competing development priorities, and highlights the fate of countless tidal flats lost in South Korea and globally in recent decades (2, 11, 12).”
Taejin Park1*, Young Rae Choi2, Yekang Ko3, Nahee Kim4, Dongpil Oh5, Nial Moores6
1 Bay Area Environmental Research Institute, Moffett Field, CA, USA.
2 Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.
3 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA.
4 Joint Action for Cancellation of Saemangeum New Airport, Jeonju, Jeollabuk-do, Republic of Korea.
5 Saemangeum Citizen Ecological Investigation Team, Gunsan, Jeollabuk-do, Republic of Korea.
6 Birds Korea, Busan, Republic of Korea.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, “Saemangeum International Airport construction project strategic environmental impact assessment report” [in Korean] (2021); https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.14799451.
2. Y. R. Choi, J. Hist. Geog. 82, 23 (2023).
3. N. Moores, D. I. Rogers, K. Rogers, P. M. Hansbro, Emu 116, 136 (2016).
4. J. Ryu et al., Ocean Coast. Manag. 102, 559 (2014).
5. M. Barter, “Shorebirds of the Yellow Sea: Importance, threats, and conservation status,” Wetlands 461 International Global Series 9, International Wader Studies 12 (Environment Australia, 2002).
6. J. K. Lee et al., Bird Conserv. Intl. 28, 238 (2018).
7. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, “Saemangeum new airport prefeasibility study” [in Korean] (2019); https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.14799463.
8. I. C. Metz, J. Ellerbroek, T. Mühlhausen, D. Kügler, J. M. Hoekstra, Aerospace 7, 26 (2020).
9. UNESCO, “Decision 44 COM 8B.6 Getbol, Korean Tidal Flats” (Republic of Korea) (2021); https://whc.unesco. org/en/decisions/7925.
10. Convention on Biological Diversity, The Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (2022); https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/e6d3/cd1d/ daf663719a03902a9b116c34/cop-15-l-25-en.pdf.
11. N. J. Murray et al., Nature 565, 222 (2019).
12. D. Sengupta et al., Earth Futur. 11, e2022EF002927 (2023).
COMPETING INTERESTS
N.K. and D.O. are members of the Joint Action for the Cancellation of Saemangeum New Airport, an organization leading a litigation case to halt the airport plan. Y.R.C., Y.K.,
and N.M. have participated in the case as expert witnesses.
10.1126/science.adv5597