Dr Nial Moores, National Director, Birds Korea
The headline news…
Following our site visit on February 21st, three major concerns about the Blue Carbon Project in the Hwaseong Maehyang-Ri Wetlands Protected Area within the Hwaseong Wetlands FNS were set out in an original post on February 26th:
- The direct impacts on tidal flat health from use of heavy machinery;
- Reduction of sight lines for shorebirds caused by all the extra structures on the tidal flat within the main roost area;
- The bad example that this type of construction might set for other important wetlands.
These concerns, with additional details and opinions, have been conveyed by Mr Jung Hanchul, a Birds Korea member and current “Hwaseong Wetlands Conservation Researcher & Campaigner”, working together with Hwaseong KFEM and others, to relevant officials.
Apparently as a result, further construction of the low sea wall, and the further pile-driving of long poles into the upper tidal flat area in the Hwaseong Maehyang-Ri Tidal Flat, has been stopped – at least for now.
Unfortunately, however, there does not appear to be any agreement to remove the tallest poles or to reduce the height of parts of the wall. There does not even seem to be any program in place to monitor the impacts of the work that has been done so far on shorebirds.
More positively, however, we have been told that central government last year prohibited any similar work being done in tidal flats which have been designated as Wetland Protected Area. This particular project in Hwaseong slipped through the cracks, as the planning process and approval took place before that decision was made. If it is true that no similar projects will be allowed elsewhere, we applaud this decision. The third of our concerns is assuaged for now.
But why was this particular project ever given the green light? The ROK’s fifth National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan frames biodiversity conservation in terms of Nature Based Solutions. Does anyone believe that the construction of a low seawall and rows of fencing in an upper tidal flat area depended upon by tens of thousands of shorebirds and other waterbirds is a “Nature Based Solution”?
Project Rationale
According to Mr Jung Hanchul, several meetings have been held directly in the past two weeks with relevant officials, and NGOs’ concerns have also been delivered through the office of Representative Song Ok-Joo, including in a letter sent to the Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation on about March 12th.
Project materials shared so far indicate that much of the construction work has been funded by Kia as a sincere commitment to e.g., their ESG targets, with the methods justified by tried-and-tested approaches used in the Wadden Sea.
We will therefore try to seek clarification and opinions from waterbird and restoration experts in the Wadden Sea.
Based on our current understanding, the methods used in Hwaseong look to be a very poor imitation of such approaches – and were decided upon without any detailed understanding of the actual international importance of this particular tidal flat to populations of migratory waterbirds.
Two examples to support such an assertion should suffice:
- Shared materials provided to Representative Song Ok-Ju’s office by the Marine Environment Corporation (해양환경공단) include images, presumably from the Wadden Sea, of globally Least Concern Common Redshanks 붉은발도요 and globally Least Concern Common Terns 제비갈매기 (with two extralimital Sandwich Terns) roosting on poles out in the tidal flat (Figure 6). Both Common Redshank and Common Tern have been recorded in the Hwaseong Wetlands. However, neither of them have been recorded there in internationally important concentrations. Species that do depend on the Hwaseong Maehyang-Ri Wetland Protected Area in Ramsar-defined internationally important concentrations instead include Globally Endangered Far Eastern Curlew, and Globally Endangered Great Knot. Based on our one-year survey there, better research would very likely confirm this tidal flat also annually supports internationally important concentrations of globally Endangered Nordmann’s Greenshank too. All three of these species tend to roost in very open areas of tidal flat, either standing in or next to the water (Far Eastern Curlews – see Fig. 5 below, and Nordmann’s Greenshanks) or on near flat ground more or less half way between the water’s edge and the shoreline (Great Knots). Is there anywhere on our Flyway where thousands of Far Eastern Curlew and Great Knot can regularly be seen roosting on fence tops? Although a handful of curlew and knot have been documented roosting on artificial floating roosts, and small numbers of godwits roost on poles in the Nakdong Estuary, we are unaware of any such roost in Korea. Use of Figure 6 to explain the value of the poles to roosting shorebirds is at best deeply misinformed.
- Figures in the same document also indicate that the majority of the waterbirds from the tidal flat (20,100) concentrate in the Hwaseong Reclamation Lake and only 3,000 birds use the tidal flat itself, with another 1,000 waterbirds in the adjacent “Area 13” (Figure 7). We are not aware of the number of dates or the tidal state made during this or these counts. However, our own peer-reviewed research (Moores et al. 2022) reveals that this is a gross over-simplification – as use of the affected areas depend on the high tide cycle. This roost is sometimes used by tens of thousands of birds. Moreover, if central government bodies believe that most birds concentrate in the Hwaseong Reclamation Lake during highest high tides then why are these same government bodies not expressing their concerns about the bird strike risk associated with the proposed airport – which if built will have a runway ending less than 500m from this lake?
Some Expert Comments…More comments sought!
Following our original post on February 26th, we received comments from several experts in shorebird and tidal flat conservation, which have been incorporated in follow-up communications with relevant officials.
Expressions of expert concern include from:
- SBS-in-China, in Shanghai, who expressed their concern on March 5th that:
“The construction is ruining the nature habitat..(and) birds who are using the sites as stopover, or wintering sites from other part of the Yellow Sea, may suffer as well. Oystercatcher, Black faced Spoonbill, Far Eastern/Eurasian Curlew and Great Knot from China may passing by in a significant number. It is worth to contact more researchers for tracking data.”
- Katherine Leung, from Hong Kong, who participated in the 2019 International Shorebirds in Hwaseong, and is a member of the EAAFP Shorebird Working Group, wrote on March 4th:
“My field experience along the EAAF shows clearly that shorebirds prefer to roost and feed in open area without infrastructure and vegetation. Building walls and planting salt marsh will not bring any benefit to shorebirds, not to mention ruining an existing good roosting area…Reading your blog there doesn’t seem to be any impact assessment done prior to start of the project nor local ecologist like you and (Jung) Hanchul consulted for opinion, this seems totally wrong to me especially now that the wetlands have already been listed as a FNS for migratory shorebirds. This should be taken care of according to international/flyway standard. I support that the project should cease until the impact can be fully assessed, if the project deems to be inappropriate, the mudflat roost should be restored to its original state…From leg-flag sighting records I know some of my Hong Kong shorebirds use Hwaseong Wetlands as stop-over in spring, and I still have vivid memory of observing the big flock of shorebirds on the mudflats from my visit in spring 2019.”
- Dr Tong Mu, the lead author of a recent paper entitled, “Upper tidal flats are disproportionately important for the conservation of migratory shorebirds” who in addition to expressing concerns about the impacts on shorebirds also highlighted, on March 4th, the rather minimal “blue carbon” differences in the role of unvegetated tidal flats elsewhere in the Yellow Sea:
“For now, I can add some notes on how saltmarsh restoration in Korea may not achieve its desired blue carbon benefits, so the restoration may in effect just harming shorebirds..
The main form of carbon stock in intertidal habitats is soil organic carbon (SOC), buried through the sedimentation process. Although there have been some global estimates on the SOC of salt marshes showing some higher (but doubtful) values, more recent field and review studies along China’s coast (two papers attached) have shown that: (1) the SOC of saltmarsh and SOC of tidal flats are generally similar, and (2), even more relevant to the projects in Korea, Sueda is not the most productive saltmarsh plants in term of its potential carbon production/input. Given China and Korea are in the same general area, I will trust these regional studies more than the global average. This means that, although saltmarsh is regarded as a form of blue carbon, restoring saltmarsh on tidal flats won’t increase the carbon value of the habitat because it won’t add any more carbon than the tidal flats can already hold/bury. In the carbon crediting language, there is no additionality associated with the restoration project, so if the crediting process is done rigorously, the restoration won’t get any value in the carbon market. However, the problem is that the carbon benefit of tidal flats is often not properly recognized, so people may often think adding some vegetation to the tidal flats will increase the SOC. But in fact it won’t.”
- Dr Danny Rogers, one of the Flyway’s leading shorebird experts who is based in Australia, and who has conducted research along much of the Flyway, including here in the ROK who, on March 5th, focused on the reduction in both roosting and foraging opportunities caused by such construction:
“Simply put shorebirds don’t like tall things (presumably because they may conceal the approach of predators) and they won’t go near them. Conversion of open tidal flats to saltmarsh will force shorebirds to move elsewhere.
In Australia I’ve also encountered situations where there is pressure to establish saltmarsh or mangroves for blue carbon storage in shorebird sites. The proponents have had good intentions, but haven’t understood the habitat requirements of shorebirds. At Avalon Saltworks we’ve found common ground after lengthy discussions – patient explanation of shorebird ecology, backed up by scientific publications, has been effective.
Just to clarify the situation at Hwaseong, are these sites solely of importance to shorebirds as roosts? I am not familiar with the site, but from the limited information you sent, I wonder if the sites in question are actually upper tidal flats where birds can forage on ebbing and rising tides, and during neap tides, when no other foraging areas are exposed. I think those areas are disproportionately important to shorebirds (even more important than roosts), because extent and exposure of tidal flats during neap series is probably what limits shorebird numbers in an estuary. You are probably familiar with Mu (Tong’s) and Wilcove’s paper on upper tidal flats…”
- PhD Candidate Philipp Maleko, a leading researcher on the globally Endangered Nordmann’s Greenshank currently at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who on March 5th addressed the expected impacts on biodiversity of this blue carbon project, even if well intentioned, especially when combined with the threat of the boardwalk and the construction of a major airport in the FNS:
“While saltmarshes are natural habitats for many birds, they are not suitable as either foraging or roosting areas for shorebirds given the vegetation is too dense for birds to access the ground substrate where they feed and rest, thus excluding them from their needed habitat. Building a boardwalk along the tidal flat can also have significant negative consequences on the health of the tidal system and further reduce the foraging area available for migrating shorebirds. Even more damaging would be the construction of an airport, which would completely destroy suitable foraging and roosting habitat for a suite of birds throughout the area. This is not to mention the great disturbance the construction would create for a suite of bird species throughout the area. All development activities are certain to reduce the abundance and diversity of avian life throughout the area for decades to come.”
We thank all who have shared their concerns with us so far; and all those who have helped to deliver these concerns to relevant authorities. Thank you.
We would also like to thank Kia for trying to invest in conservation. We hope that they will continue to support conservation, including the conservation of shorebirds.
We will continue to provide updates through our blog as best we can; and continue to repeat that destructive projects of this kind should not be considered as “restoration”.
We will also continue to try to gather expert opinions from within the ROK, along the Flyway and in other key areas for shorebird conservation (including the Wadden Sea), in support of better decision-making at this site.
We will also send a follow-up letter to the EAAFP Secretariat and related parties, in the expectation that this information will be of value both to the Secretariat and also to the focal point in the Ministry of Environment for Flyway Network Sites in the ROK.
We will also try to find ways to support any scientific initiative undertaken to monitor the impacts of this construction on shorebirds during the upcoming migration period; and we will also do what we can to best provide advice, supported by expert opinions, on ways to reduce those impacts once a decision has been taken to e.g., remove the poles and reduce the height of the seawall manually (one rock at a time, rather than with mechanical diggers).
This is all because, as Birds Koreans can agree, more than ever we need to help businesses and decision-makers to conduct restoration of tidal flats and coastal wetlands in ways that will that benefit biodiversity and ecosystem health, using Nature Based Solutions. This is of course fully in the national interest and in the interest of everybody, from the business community to dependent communities and city-based visitors. We would argue that, based on all available evidence from around the world, the best, most economical and successful way to restore tidal flats and coastal wetlands is not through building in natural or near-natural sites. Instead, it requires the restoration of tidal flow to already impounded bird-important areas (as e.g., at Sura in Saemangeum, and in parts of the Hwaseong Wetlands FNS). Tidal barrages also need to be held open as much as possible, only closing briefly in response to severe flooding events. And because healthy estuaries depend on healthy seas and healthy rivers, much more work also needs to be done for marine habitats and for the restoration of floodplain and riverine wetlands too.
This work of course needs many hands and many good minds. Please consider getting involved and joining or supporting Birds Korea with a donation. Thank you.