Spoonbill Action Voluntary Echo International (SAVE)

c/o Earth Island Institute 2150 Allston Way Suite 460, Berkeley, CA 94704

phone: (510)238-9652 email:save.spoonbill@gmail.com www.saveinternational.org

December 11, 2011 SGS United Kingdom Limited Designated Operational Entity (DOE) on behalf of the CDM Executive Board United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Re: Incheon Tidal Power Station CDM Project, comment period Dear Review Staff: Our organization, SAVE International (SAVE), has been working for fifteen years to promote biodiversity and sustainable development along the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. Our efforts center on the plight of the endangered Black-faced Spoonbill (Platalea minor) but encompass broader ecological and social issues linked to preserving this bird and other wildlife. Our Executive Committee consists of environmental planners, landscape architects, scientists, and researchers, including the authors of two recent articles on tidal power in Korea [1, 2]. We have read the Project Design Document (PDD) for the proposed Incheon Tidal Power Station CDM Project and we have comments to make. We believe that the proposed Incheon Tidal Power Station (TPS) should not be registered as a CDM, for several reasons. The proposed Incheon TPS and other large-scale tidal power projects in South Korea lie at the heart of fierce controversy, because of their expected irreversible impacts on ecosystems and local communities. The Incheon TPS has not fairly assessed the renewable alternatives, is woefully incomplete in presenting viable mitigation proposals to address the anticipated environmental impacts, and is not consistent with the principles of sustainable development or best practices. The PDD does not adequately address the strong opposition from various stakeholders, and does not adequately address the potential environmental and social impacts on ecosystems and local communities. Since the Environmental Assessment Report was released in April 2011, the countermeasures proposed in the report and the PDD have been criticized widely and severely by experts, environmental NGOs, government agencies, and local residents, but the PDD does not include an account of this criticism. Worse, the Incheon TPS is proposed on valuable tidal flats that are protected under Korean environmental law. CDM requires “environmental additionality”, which the Incheon TPS clearly does not meet. A thorough evaluation of the Incheon TPS must also consider an existing tidal power project nearby and another proposed project, both of them of massive scale. Sihwa TPS, which is located very close to the proposed Incheon TPS and which is the largest tidal power project in the world today, was registered as a CDM in 2006, but it is fundamentally different from the Incheon TPS. The tidal power operation at Sihwa reverses some of the damage to water quality and circulation that resulted when Sihwa

SAVE International

Advisory Committee

Y.T. Lee Taiwan Chair Nobel Laureate Academia Sinica

Dr. John Byrne

Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware

Dr. Sheng-lin Chang

University of Maryland

Dr. Li-Yang Chang Chemical/Environmental Planner Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory

Dr. Annie Chiu National Taiwan University

Dr. Malcolm C. Coulter

Specialist Group on Storks, Ibises and Spoonbills

Tom Dahmer

Ecosystems, Ltd.

Randolph T. Hester University of California,

Berkeley (Emeritus)

Dr. Chu-Joe Hsia National Taiwan University

Dr. Keelung Hong

California Pacific Medical Center

Dr. Jeffrey Hou

University of Washington

Dr. G. Mathias Kondolf University of California,

Berkeley

Dr. John K. C. Liu National Taiwan University

Marcia McNally

Community Development by Design

Dr. Deborah Savage

Tellus Institute

Dr. Wen-ling Tu Shih Hsin University

the late David Brower Founding U.S. Chair Earth Island Institute

Page 2, SAVE International comments Lake was diked off from the sea in 1994 for flood mitigation and agriculture. The other proposed project to consider, Ganghwa Tidal Power Plant, would be located immediately north of Incheon TPS. Adding these two tidal power plants (Ganghwa and Incheon TPS) of unprecedented size within 60 km of Sihwa may exceed the environmental carrying capacity of the tidal flats and have a significant impact on marine ecosystems, endangered birds, and local fisheries. At this nascent moment of tidal power technology, we have serious reservations about Incheon TPS and other proposed projects of similarly massive scale. Some nations might include ocean energy in energy policies that minimize the use of fossil fuel, but large-scale proposals using today's technologies are failing the test of economic feasibility and have unacceptable environmental impacts. We point to the recent example of the Severn Barrage, in the United Kingdom. Although it could have provided 5% of the nation’s energy, it drew withering criticism from the environmental community and the government eventually rejected it on economic grounds. New technologies for ocean energy—tidal power, wave power, and current power—are being researched around the world; as technologies develop, perhaps a different technology and/or scale for tidal power could meet South Korea's demands in the future. With this overview in mind, we submit the following detailed comments under three categories: environmental aspects, socio-economic aspects, and alternatives. Environmental Aspects Page 6, Table A.3: “Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period”, states that 1,626,657 tonnes of CO2 would be reduced each year over the 10-year period.

Comment: The expected reduction in emissions is missing two factors: A rise in emissions because of construction. According to page 38, the project would require 7.79

million m3 of “outsourced sand, stone, and soil”; as well as 6.88 million m3 of excavated soil and 0.57 million m3 of excavated rock. The emissions produced by importing and moving these materials must be deducted from the expected reduction in emissions. (The table on page 38 acknowledges that “GHG emissions due the construction itself and fuel consumption during the construction stage” are expected impacts in the Air category, and the proposed countermeasure suggests “low-emission fuel”, but it does not provide a number.)

The lost natural carbon reduction that occurs in the existing healthy tidal flats. According to the feasibility study, the overall size of the basin would be 196 km2 (large-scale option) or 157.45 km2 (mid-scale option); under the mid-scale option, roughly 104.7 km2 (10,470 ha) of tidal flats would be disrupted by the surrounding sea walls, and 17.1% (17.9 km2, or 1,790 ha) of that area is expected to be destroyed. A 2007 study by the Korea Environment Institute estimated the carbon reduction of healthy tidal flats at 1,000 tons C/km2/yr. These reductions, already occurring, would have to be deducted from the projected reduction for the project.

Additional comment: The application does not address the effects at the source of the millions of m3 of

sand, stone, and soil. According to the project report by Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd., earth materials will be sourced from the northwest of Ohngjin-Jangbongdo Wetland Preservation Area, a fact missing in the PDD. The expected impacts of these activities on the local ecosystem, residents, and local tourism are inevitable. The example of Incheon International Airport could be instructive, as it also involved moving vast volumes of earth to fill the tidal flats between Yeongjong Island and Yongyu Island.

Page 3, SAVE International comments Page 36: “According to the domestic requirement, the project participant completed the comprehensive environmental assessment report in April of 2011 including the impact of this project on the relevant water body/land/air, ecological system, noise, industry, economy, local resident comment collection etc.”

Comment: Most of the countermeasures proposed in the environmental assessment report (released in April 2011) have been proven to have significant flaws, through several workshops, meetings and published research. Many of the main stakeholders, including the national government, municipalities, scholarly groups, NGOs, and local residents addressed their opposition before and after the report was released but the report did not fully describe this controversy. Below is a summary of the salient points raised and the failings in due-process:

2010, March 18: The Ornithological Society of Korea (President Sam-Rae Cho) addressed the significant impact of the project on birds, including 10 endangered species and 100,000 migratory birds. (Copies of this address are attached, both the original Korean and an English translation by the authors.)

2010, December 23: The Council of Incheon Metropolitan City pointed out significant impacts on local fishermen and the local ecosystem, and the fact that Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd. had not obtained agreements from the city government. (Copies of this document are attached, both the original Korean and an English translation by the authors.)

2011, April 15: The Incheon Regional Maritime Affairs and Port announced that no further public meetings for the project would be held, because the project backers had already consistently failed to hold public meetings for fear of strong opposition from local residents.

2011, May 12: The Ministry of National Defense announced its disagreement due to the potential influence on military operations, since the project is planned close to the border with North Korea.

2011, May 19: Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries suggested more careful decision-making, due to the potential impact on fishery habitats and due to strong opposition from municipalities, local fishermen, and residents.

2011, June 28: The Incheon Development Institute (Principal Investigator Kyung-Doo Cho) issued a draft report “A Review of Plans for Tidal Power Station Construction”, addressing a number of flaws in the environmental assessment , economic feasibility, and the process of the project. (A copy of this report is attached.)

2011, June 29: The Ministry of Environment rejected the Environmental Assessment Report again, due to considerable flaws in the report. The Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs could not propose its plans for tidal power projects, including Incheon TPS, because the projects had not met the legal criteria, including an approved Environmental Assessment Report and public hearings.

2011, November 15: The National Council for Cancelation of Tidal Barrages, along with Congressman Yeongpyo Hong, submitted a petition for the exclusion of large-scale tidal power generation from renewable energy categories.

Page 38: Expected impacts in the Ecology category include “Management of wildlife sanctuaries, endangered species and reservation for the cultural asset”, “Decrease of mud flat”, and “Impact of project activities (turbine operation or construction noise) on fish habitat”. The proposed countermeasures to these impacts are “Establishment of alternative habitat within the project area” and “Water quality and fish habitat monitoring: prevention of red tide; chemical and biological measures”.

Comment: The impacts are more serious than their simple wording and vague countermeasure would indicate.

Establishing alternative habitat would be exceptionally challenging and expensive, perhaps even impossible. The applicants must prove that it is feasible before destroying any existing habitat. The project area is already valuable habitat for tens of thousands of migratory birds that use the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. It hosts internationally important concentrations (at least 1% of global population) of several species designated as Endangered or Vulnerable: Black-faced Spoonbill (Platalea minor, Endangered, natural heritage no. 205), Chinese Egret (Egretta eulophotes, Vulnerable, natural heritage

Page 4, SAVE International comments

no. 361), Eastern Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus osculans, natural heritage no. 326), Saunders’s Gull (Chroicocephalus saundersi, Vulnerable), and Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis, Vulnerable). The project area includes small islands where some of the species build nests and breed, while other species pass through the area as a refueling stop during their migration. Building the Incheon TPS would disrupt the habitat of these tidal flats and therefore jeopardize various species in different ways. In order to establish alternative habitat, the habitat value of new areas nearby would have be enhanced. This would involve costs to acquire, design, build, and maintain the new habitat. Our research, however, along with the research of our colleagues in the NGO Birds Korea, indicates that there simply is not enough area available to convert to equally valuable new habitat. Please see, also, the attached address by the Ornithological Society of Korea. If standard best practices are a consideration, the Incheon TPS cannot be approved until a detailed plan for this mitigation is developed. No such mitigation has been successful in other tidal power projects.

Mudflats, also known as tidal flats or tidal-flat wetlands, are especially productive and valuable ecosystems, but Korea has already destroyed more than half of its original tidal flats through human activities (such as “reclamation”)—perhaps even as much as three-quarters of the original area (according to the Birds Korea Blueprint 2010). Any further “decrease of mud flat” would be inconsistent with Korea’s national environmental laws and pledges to the international community, and inconsistent with Incheon’s pledges on wetland preservation. When Korea hosted the Ramsar COP10 (October 2008) at Changwon, President Lee Myung-Bak declared that Korea would be exemplary among Ramsar nations in its protection of wetlands and would actively support local governments in protecting their own wetlands. Incheon passed its own “Charter for Tidal Flat Preservation” in 2000, pledging to preserve its valuable tidal flats, but Incheon was actually the area in Korea with the worst loss (destruction) of tidal flats from 2003-2008. Building the Incheon TPS would mean that Korea and Incheon would be going back on their respective words again.

The project site interferes with a nationally protected wetland, Jangbongdo Tidal Flat Wetland Preservation Area (no. 5), which received formal protection in 2003. Korea has been delaying registering Jangbongdo as a Ramsar-listed site because of this conflict. For more information, please read our article on this subject in Environment. [1] Figure 4 in that article shows a map of the project site and its conflict with Jangbongdo.

Reduced water quality is a likely effect and would be severe. Eutrophication, algal blooms, and red tides would damage the ecosystem and would make the impounded sea much less desirable for recreation. Marine “dead zones” are increasing worldwide due to nutrient pollution and human interventions, as the example of Sihwa Lake shows. In the proposed project area, nutrient pollution is already dangerously high [6] and continues to worsen, but the tidal flats are not yet experiencing eutrophication and dead zones due to the counterbalancing effect of natural tidal mixing. The large tidal barrages built under the proposed Incheon TPS, however, would invariably limit the tidal mixing of these already polluted waters. What specific “chemical and biological measures” would be proposed to counteract these effects, and how much would they cost? What side effects would these “measures” have on other components of the ecosystem?

Page 41, Comment 1: “Concerning on [sic] the damage to the local environment such as mud flat decrease and biodiversity change”, and proposed countermeasure “Design the plant to minimize the negative impact on the mud flat and biodiversity”.

Comment: The proposed countermeasure is not specific enough to evaluate. The tidal flats in the proposed project area are already experiencing massive population declines of important benthic species due to pollution [3]. Damage from the proposed project would further damage populations already on the brink. How would the revised design minimize negative impacts? What negative impacts would remain? What are the costs of those unavoidable impacts? We believe that the unavoidable negative impacts are too great and too costly to justify. The impoundment inside the proposed seawalls would cause changes to the natural tidal flows and to the

Page 5, SAVE International comments ecosystems that depend on those flows. See also our comment, above, on the stated Ecology impacts and countermeasures (page 38). If standard best practices are a consideration, the Incheon TPS cannot be approved until a detailed plan for this mitigation is developed. No such mitigation has been successful in other tidal power projects. Page 41, Comment 6: “Concerns on the destruction of wild life sanctuary”, and proposed countermeasure “Part of the project will be prepared for the wild life and alternative habitat is also prepared”.

Comment: The proposed countermeasure is not specific enough to evaluate. How much of the project (area, in hectares) would be “prepared” for wildlife? How and where would “alternative habitat” be prepared? What populations would the preserved habitat support, and how do those populations compare to the existing populations that rely on the existing tidal flats? Again, we believe that severe negative impacts to wildlife are inherent in the project and are irreconcilable with the principles of sustainable development. See also our comment, above, on the stated Ecology impacts and countermeasures (page 38), and the attached address by the Ornithological Society of Korea. If standard best practices are a consideration, the Incheon TPS cannot be approved until a detailed plan for this mitigation is developed. No such mitigation has been successful in other tidal power projects. Page 41, Comment 7: “Minimization of the environmental damage and the frequent consultation with the local residents to solve their issue on fishery”, and proposed countermeasure, “Establishment of alternative farms, fisheries after the investigation for finding the most appropriate place to move on” and “Financial compensation by the investigation of the damages to the local residents”.

Comment: The proposed countermeasures are not specific enough to evaluate. Where would alternative fisheries (or “farms”) be established, and at what cost? These sites must be acquired, built, and proven to be productive before the project could be approved. We do not believe that there are suitable sites nearby for these replacements. Also, is the cost of the “financial compensation” included as an operating cost of the project? The comment raises the real issue, while the countermeasure glosses over it: a sustainable economy already exists here, with inexhaustible long-term jobs in the fisheries, but the project would displace that economy. Please see, also, the attached statement by the City Council of Incheon. If standard best practices are a consideration, the Incheon TPS cannot be approved until a detailed plan for this mitigation is developed. No such mitigation has been successful in other tidal power projects. Socio-Economic Aspects

General Comment: We commend the CDM for acknowledging and accounting for the external benefits of worthy projects that would not otherwise be economically feasible, such as new technologies whose lack of an established market makes them expensive. The applicants for the Incheon TPS CDM Project admit that their project is “not economically attractive” (page 38) or “not economically feasible” (page 39), but their analysis does not account for external environmental costs, which would be immense and would make the project even less economically feasible. Page 3: “The proposed project will create job opportunities directly and indirectly through construction and operation of the plant.”

Comment: According to pages 38-39, only 76 workers would be employed during construction, and only 40 workers would be employed during operation. The report does not state how many existing jobs in the fishing industry would be eliminated, although page 39 does acknowledge “inevitable” impacts to that industry. The tidal flats around Incheon, including the sites of the proposed Incheon TPS and another proposed tidal power station farther north around Ganghwa Island, already support 5,000 jobs in fishing. These jobs would be reduced or eliminated if the project were built. Further, the unique existing ecosystem of the tidal flats around

Page 6, SAVE International comments Incheon would make this area ideal for creating new, sustainable, local jobs in industries such as environmental tourism (ecotourism). A precedent from the recently established Southwest Coast National Scenic Area (Taiwan), which attracts nearly 4 million visitors a year, shows that a healthy ecosystem can support an economy more robust than one based on constructing massive industrial projects with only a small permanent workforce. Pages 12 and 15, Table B.4: “Detail information of the construction and O&M cost”, and Table B.7, “Economic analysis for the project activity”.

Comment: The reported costs do not include two important sources of external costs. External cost: Lost value of existing tidal flats. The project would disrupt the ecosystem and

environmental function of the existing healthy tidal flats in the impounded area, roughly 104.70 km2 (10,470 ha), including destroying 1,790 ha. Various studies have quantified the economic benefits of tidal flats in Korea and specifically around Incheon. A 2006 study by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Marine Products [4] came up with a value of 39.2 million KRW/ha/yr, including 4.4 million KRW/ha/yr for water purification, but a 2007 study by the Korea Environment Institute [5] figured the benefits of water purification alone at roughly 33.6 million KRW/ha/yr (7.5 times the 2006 study’s figure). Other factors, including marine products, ecosystem preservation, and habitat, account for larger benefits. Economic benefits associated with recreation might increase if the Incheon TPS is built, but the existing benefits from recreation amount to less than 5% of the total benefits (according to the 2006 study). The applicants predict income of 229.7 billion KRW/yr from electricity generation, but if the lost benefits amounted to even 21.7 million KRW/ha/yr over the 10,470 ha affected, the environmental costs would exceed the electricity benefits.

External cost: Lost jobs in fisheries. The project proposes either direct compensation to fishermen or providing new fisheries for them. (Refer to our comment, above, about the applicants’ response to Comment 7 on page 41.)

Alternatives Page 2: “The proposed project can diversify sources of electric generation and help improve the tidal power generation technology.”

Comment: The proposed project would not improve technology. Page 4 states that the bulb turbine generators are “widely manufactured, installed, and operated in the world.” This project would use existing, established technology, albeit at a massive scale never before attempted. Page 10: Analysis of Alternative 3 (A3), “Construction of a power plant using other renewable energy, such as hydro power plants or biomass power generation with equivalent installed capacity or annual electricity generation”.

Comment: Alternative A3 has not been adequately assessed. The one-or-none choice that Alternative 3 implies is a false one. In the United Kingdom, the

government’s decision to abandon plans for the proposed Severn Barrage shows that one single project is not necessarily the best way to provide a given quantity of power. As a rhetorical extreme, would Korea prefer to generate all of its power through one gigantic power station?

The applicants state that, “In terms of project scale, none of the other renewable projects have been implemented in Korea to produce the comparable amount of electricity that the proposed project will produce.” Dismissing other technologies because they have not been implemented on a large enough scale is inconsistent with the proposal for the Incheon TPS project itself. The proposed project is already of a scale unprecedented in the world: its capacity (1,320 MW) would be 5.2 times the capacity of the

Page 7, SAVE International comments

largest existing tidal power station (Sihwa Lake TPS, 254 MW). Earlier this year, Sihwa Lake TPS narrowly surpassed the previous record-holder, La Rance TPS in France, which has a capacity of 240 MW and which opened in 1966.

The applicants state that, “In case of land-based renewable sources such as solar energy, it would be difficult to secure the area where the capacity of 1,320 MW (capacity of this project) could be installed.” If the cost of the land is the “difficult” factor, that is the very difficulty that the CDM is intended to address. If the physical limitation of space is the “difficulty”, the applicants might not be considering that the actual footprint of solar or wind installations can be very small if other buildings or uses are allowed between the structures. A research team at the University of California, Berkeley, determined that an equal capacity (1,320 MW) of solar power would require 3,400 ha (34 km2), and the same capacity of wind power would require only 140 ha (1.4 km2, actual footprint of the turbines). Furthermore, the land required for land-based renewable sources could be spread over more than one project: not just “the area” but rather “the areas”.

The applicants state that, “due to the technological difficulty and lack of experience in the relevant area, it is not plausible for the project participant to promote other renewable energy project[s]”, and they conclude that “Alternative 3 is not [an] available option for the project participant”. They do not, however, acknowledge that Alternative 3 could be an available option for a different project participant—an entity other than Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co.

Other forms of ocean energy are being developed, and less intrusive ones should be encouraged. New technologies could avoid the need for the vast seawalls involved in tidal barrages like the proposed Incheon TPS. Projects installing such technologies, perhaps installed incrementally or phased, would be ideal candidates to be CDMs because their high starting costs would otherwise make them economically infeasible.

Page 10: List of three Alternatives.

Comment: The list is incomplete. A research team at the University of California, Berkeley, has identified and analyzed at least two additional alternatives worthy of approval as CDMs, which should be included in the application.

Additional Alternative: Construction of a distributed network of small-scale renewable energy, such as wind or solar, integrated into already developed areas, infill, or redevelopment in the Incheon Metropolitan Area. Such a distributed network would likely involve higher land costs, and the equipment costs may be higher, but the external environmental costs would be lower than those of the Incheon TPS. If the elements of the network were added onto existing buildings or developed areas, the additional infrastructure and earthmoving required would be minimal.

Additional Alternative: Reduction of electrical demand, through investments in energy efficiency. Improved efficiency could reduce the overall electrical demand, eliminate emissions, and avoid the need for new power generation altogether. The Berkeley team and Incheon Development Institute found that it would be 3.2 times more expensive to generate 1 kWh of energy at a Korean tidal power station (US$0.08) than it would be to reduce demand by 1 kWh through efficiency (US$0.025).

Page 8, SAVE International comments We hope the evidence we provide above will lead you to the conclusion that we have reached: Incheon Tidal Power Station is an unsustainable project, undeserving of approval as a CDM. We hope that you will deny the application. If you have questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at the addresses provided in our letterhead. People around the world will be watching your decision. Some might see it as a test of the CDM procedure itself. We are alerting our contacts with other Korean and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) concerned with environmental and energy policy. We are also alerting various media outlets—scientific journals, institutes involved with Pacific Rim policy, and major American newspapers. Respectfully submitted, Derek Schubert President, SAVE International Further references: [1] Ko, Y., Schubert, D.K., Hester, R.T. 2011. “A conflict of greens: green development versus habitat

preservation; the case of Incheon, South Korea.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53: 3, 3- 17. http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2011/May-June%202011/conflict-of-greens-full.html

[2] Ko, Y. & Schubert, D.K. “South Korea’s Plans for Tidal Power: When a ‘Green’ Solution Creates More Problems.” Nautilus Institute Special Report November 29 2011. http://www.nautilus.org/publications/essays/napsnet/reports/ROK_Tidal_Power_Ko_Schubert

[3] Choi, K. H., S. M. Lee, S. M. Lim, M. Walton, and G. S. Park (2010), “Benthic habitat quality change as measured by macroinfauna community in a tidal flat on the west coast of Korea,” Journal of oceanography, 66(3), 307-317.

[4] Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Marine Products, “Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan,” presented at the Symposium for Tidal Flat Conservation and Sustainable Use, Gochang, Republic of Korea, 28 September 2006. iIn Korean)

[5] J. H. Mang et al., Improving Environmental Assessment in Tidal Flat Reclamation, Seoul, Republic of Korea: Korea Environment Institute, 2007. (in Korean) http://library.me.go.kr/DLiWeb25/comp/search/viewer.aspx?type=F&cid=176063&id=20391&url=

[6] UNEP/Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (YSLME) 2009 Final Report: “Improve management of critical habitats around the Yellow Sea”.

Attachments (listed chronologically): Cho, S.R. “The Construction of Incheon Bay Tidal Power Station Threats the Largest Habitats of Waterbirds in

Korea!” Press Release, March 18 2010. (in Korean and translated into English) The Council of Incheon Metropolitan City. “Resolution for Stopping the Construction of Incheon Bay Tidal

Power Station.” December 23 2010. (in Korean and translated into English) Cho, K.D., Choi, B.K., Kim, S.W., Cho, S.H., Cho, H.J. “Investigation of Tidal Power Plants Construction

Plans (Draft).” Incheon Development Institute. June 2011. (in Korean)

총 4 , 사진 ☑

보 도 자 료

제공일자 : 2010. 3. 18. 보도요청일자 : 2010. 3. 19.

한국조류학회

한국조류학회 회장 조삼래(전화번호 041-850-8501 )

공주대학교 교수

한국조류학회 / 전화 : 041)850-8501 , 팩스: 041)850-1505

성 명 서

인천만 조력발전소 건설, 국내 최대 물새 서식지 위협한다 !

최근 범지구적으로 갯벌을 포함한 습지의 중요성이 강조 되고 있다. 강화도와

한강하구 일대의 갯벌은 오래 전부터 동아시아~대양주 이동경로를 이용하는

물새류의 중요한 채식 및 휴식 공간이다. 이 지역의 갯벌에는 10여종의

멸종위기종을 포함하여 연간 10만 개체 이상의 도요․물떼새류가 도래하고 있어

습지보전을 위한 국제협약인 람사르협약에서 필수적으로 보호하도록 권고하는

중요한 갯벌습지 지역이다. 따라서 2008년 10월 국제 습지올림픽인 경남

창원의 람사르총회의 개회연설에서 우리의 대통령께서도 갯벌을 포함한 습지를

보호하겠다고 전 세계인을 상대로 국제적인 약속을 하셨다.

그러나 국토해양부와 인천광역시는 수조원의 예산을 들여 강화도 남단

갯벌과 교동도 및 석모도 일대의 한강하구 갯벌생태계를 파괴하는 대규모의

조력발전소 건설을 추진하고 있다. 이는 새만금 매립 이후 최대의 간척사업으로

한강하구와 강화도 일대 갯벌에서 서식하는 수많은 물새류에게 치명적인위협이

될 것으로 예상 된다. 전 세계적으로 2,300여 개체만 생존하고 있는 저어새

무리의 대부분이 강화도와 한강하구 일대의 무인도에서 번식하며 강화도

일대의 갯벌을 주 먹이터로 이용하고 있다. 또한 국제적 멸종위기종인

검은머리갈매기나 알락꼬리마도요의 전 세계 생존집단의 10% 이상이 관찰

되며 노랑부리백로, 두루미, 청다리도요사촌, 넓적부리도요, 검은머리물떼새 등

수많은 멸종위기종들이 서식하는 곳이다. 따라서 조력발전소의 건설이 저어새를

비롯한 많은 법적보호종의 생존의 치명적인 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상된다.

친환경적 재생에너지를 생산하는 모범적인 사례로 선전하고 있는 프랑스의

“랑스 조력발전소” 는 방조제의 길이가 750m에 불과하다. 또한 프랑스에서는

조력발전으로 얻을 수 있는 경제적 이익에 비교하여 생태계 미치는 손실이

너무 크다는 것을 인식하였기 때문에 더 이상의 조력발전 건설을 추진하지

않고 있다. 그러나 20km 이상에 달하는 인천만의 방조제의 건설은 최소한 20%

이상의 갯벌이 감소될 것으로 예상되며 갯벌생물에 의존하며 살아가는

멸종위기조류를 포함한 다양한 물새류의 생존에도 심각한 위협이 될 것이다.

이처럼 인천만 조력발전소는 생물종다양성을 증진시키고 습지를

보호하려는 국제적 움직임에 역행하는 사업이다. 참고로 올해는 유엔(UN)에서

전 세계 생물 다양성의 중요성에 대한 인식 향상을 돕기 위해 '세계 생물

다양성의 해'로 선언한 특별한 해이다. 조력발전소 예정부지에 포함된 장봉도

일대의 갯벌은 국토해양부에서 습지보호지역으로 지정하였으며, 강화도 일대의

갯벌은 문화재청에서 저어새 보호를 위한 천연기념물 보호구역으로 지정한

곳이다. 따라서 조류연구자들의 학술모임인 한국조류()학회는 인천만

조력발전소건설을 위한 대규모 방조제 건설이 물새류 서식지에 심각한 영향을

줄 것을 심히 우려하는 바이다. 또한 생물종다양성 보존과 지속적이고 현명한

이용을 위한 갯벌 생물부양시스템을 위해서 한국 특유의 습지생태계인

강화도와 한강하구 일대의 갯벌을 훼손하는 인천만 조력발전소 계획을 즉각

철회하기를 촉구하는 바이다.

2010년 3월 18일

한국조류학회

그림 1. 강화도와 한강하구 조력발전소 조성 예정지, 그리고 옹진 장봉도

습지보호지역과 강화갯벌 및 저어새번식지 천연기념물 보호구역

그림 2. 인천만 조력발전 예정지 주변 저어새 서식 현황.

그림 3. 인천만 조력발전 예정지 주변 노랑부리백로 서식 현황.

< 표 1. 인천만 조력발전소 건설로 인한 피해 예상. >

피해 예상 세부 사항

조간대 면적 감소

저어새, 두루미 등 멸종위기종과 도요,

물떼새류의 주 먹이터인 하부 조간대 면적

축소로 절대 먹이원 감소함

조류의 먹이생물 감소

방조제 건설로 한강의 유기물 유입량이 줄어들고

회유성 어류의 이동 방해. 칠게, 갯지렁이,

새우류, 회유성 어류의 심각한 감소 예상

멸종위기종 조류 위협 저어새, 검은머리갈매기, 노랑부리백로, 두루미,

알락꼬리마도요 등

번식지 방해, 훼손 위협 서만도, 동만도 물새 번식지, 각시암, 수하암

저어새 번식지 위협 가능

물새 먹이터 이동 방해 제방으로 인해 물때에 따른 물새들의 이동에 큰

영향

물새 휴식지 감소 방조제의 차량통행, 향후 해안의 개발과 도로

확장 등으로 만조 시 쉼터 부족 예상

Incheon Tidal Plant Construction, Threatens Korea’s Largest Habitat for Water Birds! Recently the importance of wetlands including mudflats has been emphasized globally. Mudflats in Ganghwa Island and adjacent regions of Han River Estuary have long been resting and food-obtaining grounds for water birds, which move along the East Asia – Oceania migratory route. The mudflats in these regions host snipes, plovers, and about ten endangered species, and the number of migratory birds visiting these regions amounts to 100,000 annually. Thus, an international convention for the preservation of wetlands, Ramsar Convention, advises these regions as important wetland regions that must be protected. Consequently, at the opening remarks of Ramsar General Meeting, which is the international wetland Olympics held at Changwon, Gyeongnam in October 2008, the president of the Republic of Korea internationally promised the world that he would protect wetlands including mudflats. However, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and Incheon Metropolitan City plan to spend trillions of won to build large-scale tidal power plants that are bound to demolish southern mudflats of Ganghwa Island and wetland ecosystem of Han River Estuary around Gyodong Island and Sukmo Island. This is the biggest reclamation project since the reclamation of Saemangeum, and it is predicted to pose detrimental threats to numerous water birds inhabiting mudflats around Ganghwa Island and Han River Estuary. Currently there are around 2,300 black-faced spoonbills alive worldwide, and most of them breed in deserted islands near Ganghwa Island and Han River Estuary and utilize mudflats around Ganghwa Island as the main feeding ground. Also more than 10% of the surviving group of internationally endangered Saunders’s gull or eastern curlew can be observed, and various endangered species, such as Chinese egret, Japanese crane, greenshank, spoon-billed sandpiper, Eurasian oystercatcher, etc., inhabit these regions. Therefore, the construction of tidal plants is anticipated to have fatal influences to the survival of many legally protected species including black-faced spoonbill. “Rance Tidal Plant” in France is deemed as an exemplary model of environment-friendly renewable energy production, and the length of its breakwater is only 750 m. Also, because France recognized the fact that the loss of ecosystem is too great compared to the economic income obtainable through tidal power generation, they are no longer pushing construction of tidal plants forward. But the construction of Incheon breakwater, which amounts to over 20 km, will eliminate at least 20% of mudflats and seriously threaten the survival of various water birds including endangered birds that depend on mudflat organisms. Incheon tidal barrage is a retrogressive enterprise that contradicts international movement of promoting the diversity of biological species and protecting wetlands. For reference, this year is a special year that UN has declared as “Year of Biological Diversity of the World,” to help raise awareness of the importance of biological diversity. Mudflats around Jangbong Island, which are within the anticipated construction site for tidal barrage, have been designated as a Wetland Protected Area by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and also as a Natural Monument Protected Area for the protection of black-faced spoonbill by Cultural Heritage Administration. Therefore, the Ornithological Society of Korea, an academic gathering for bird researchers, is deeply concerned that the construction of breakwater for Incheon tidal barrage will seriously influence the habitat for water birds. Moreover, for the preservation of biological diversity and consistent and wise usage of mudflat organism support system, we urge to immediately retract the plan to construct Incheon-bay tidal barrage that destroys mudflats around Ganghwa Island and the Han River Estuary, which constitute the unique wetland ecosystems of Korea.

2010. 3.18 Ornithological Society of Korea

Ornithological Society of Korea, 2010.3.18, page 2

Figure 1. The construction site for tidal barrages in Ganghwa Island and Han River Estuary, and the Wetland Protected Area of Ongjin Jangbong Island, Ganghwa mudflats and the Natural Monument Protected Area for the habitat of black-faced spoonbill Figure 2. Habitation status of black-faced spoonbill around the anticipated site for Incheon-bay tidal barrage construction Figure 3. Habitation status of Chinese egret around the anticipated site for Incheon-bay tidal barrage construction Table 1. Anticipated damage due to the construction of Incheon tidal barrage

Anticipated damage Details

Decrease in the area of intertidal zone

Due to the decrease in the area of infralittoral zone, which is the main feeding ground for endangered species, such as black-faced spoonbill and Japanese crane, and snipe and plover, the absolute source of food will decrease.

Decrease in the live food for birds

Due to the construction of breakwater, the inflow rate of organic matter into the Han River will decline. The obstruction of movement of migratory fish and the extreme decrease in the amount of Japanese ghost crab, lugworm, macrura, and migratory fish are anticipated.

Threaten the endangered birds species

Black-faced spoonbill, Saunders’s Gull, Chinese egret, Japanese crane, Eastern curlew, etc.

Disturbance, demolition, and threat of breeding ground

Possible threat to water birds breeding ground in Suhman and Dongman Island, and black-faced spoonbill breeding ground in Gaksiam and Soohaam.

Disturb the movement of water birds to feeding ground

Because of the breakwater, the movement of water birds according to tide time will be largely influenced.

Decrease in the resting ground for water birds

Due to traffic on breakwater, development of sea shore, and expansion of roads, shortage of resting ground is anticipated.

인천만 조력발전소 건설 중단 촉구 결의안

인 천 광 역 시 의 회

인천만 조력발전소 건설 중단 촉구 결의안

의 안번 호

133 발의연월일 : 2010. 12 . .

발 의 자 : 산업위원장

주 문

○ 인천만 조력발전소 건설 중단을 촉구한다.

제안이유

○ 인천만 조력발전소의 건설예정지인 강화해역은 우리나라에서 현재까지

온전하게 보전된 유일한 하구역 갯벌로서, 철새와 회유어의 서식지로

국제적으로 중요한 곳으로 우리의 삶뿐만 아니라 미래를 위한 자산

으로 잘 가꾸고 보전해서 물려 주어야 하는 소중한 자연유산임.

○ 인천만 조력발전소 건설이 전반적인 환경피해에 대한 저감대책이 가능

하지 않음에 따라, 풍요로운 갯벌과 해양생태계를 심각하게 훼손할

수 있어 환경파괴를 전제로 한 인천만 조력발전소 건설을 반대하며,

중단할 것을 촉구함.

결의안 이송처

가. 국토해양부장관, 인천광역시장, 한국수력원자력(주)

첨 부

가. 인천만 조력발전소 건설 중단 촉구 결의안 1부.

인천만 조력발전소 건설 중단 촉구 결의문

갯벌은 우리의 미래자원으로 수천년에 걸쳐 해안환경이 형성된 곳입니다.

특히, 조력발전소의 건설예정지인 강화해역은 우리나라에서 현재까지 온전

하게 보전된 유일한 하구역 갯벌입니다.

강 하구는 현재 가장 생산적이며 연약하면서도 역동적인 해양생태계로

수많은 사람들이 갯벌에 기대어 살며 자연의 품에서 풍요로운 혜택을 입어

왔습니다.

특히, 강화남단은 철새와 회유어의 서식지로 국제적으로 중요한 곳으로

우리의 삶뿐만 아니라 미래를 위한 자산으로 잘 가꾸고 보전해서 물려

주어야 하는 소중한 자연유산입니다.

사실이 이러함에도 작금에 일방적으로 추진되고 있는 인천만 조력발전소

건설사업은 풍요로운 갯벌과 해양생태계를 심각할 정도로 훼손할 수 있어

명백히 반대의 입장을 밝힙니다. 2005년부터 국토해양부가 연구개발사업으로

진행해 온 인천만 조력발전소 건설사업은 인천광역시와 일절 협의가 없었

음은 물론 객관적인 논의로 시작되지도 않았습니다.

최근 주민설명회와 토론회를 통해 인천만조력발전사업의 환경파괴의

심각성이 속속들이 들어나고 있음에도 불구하고 정부와 한국수력원자력은

여전히 사업을 강행하고 있음에 심각한 우려를 표명하며, 인천광역시의회는

다음과 같은 입장을 발표하는 바입니다.

하나, 우리는 인천만조력발전소 사업을 위해 건설하는 댐과 인공저수지가

강하구와 해양생태계에 끼치는 영향을 우려한다. 이러한 영향에는 갯벌의

유실, 공사영향, 어업 및 어장의 황폐화, 보전지역에 대한 영향 , 수질악화,

해저지형의 변화, 퇴적침식의 변화, 수자원의 저감, 해류의 변화 및 서식지의

영향이 포함된다.

우리는 지난 인천만조력발전 토론회를 통해 인천만조력발전소로 인한

전반적인 환경피해에 대한 저감대책이 가능하지 않은 것을 확인한 바, 환

경파괴를 전제로 한 인천만조력발전소 건설은 바람직하지 않음으로 중단

할 것을 촉구한다.

하나, 인천지역의 유일한 장봉도 습지보호지역과 천연기념물 지역은

보존되어야 한다. 강화해역과 갯벌은 희귀물새류의 서식지이자 다양한 해양

생물의 서식처로 세계적으로 가장 우수한 갯벌로 2003년 국토해양부에서

장봉도 습지보호지역을 지정한 바 있고, 2000년 문화재청에서 천연기념물

(제419호)로 지정한 바 있다. 그러나 인천만조력발전소를 건설할 경우

이 지역은 개발지역으로 일부 포함되어 습지보호지역과 천연기념물을

해제해야 한다.

인천은 수도권 인근에 위치한 관계로 전국에서 개발과 매립으로 인한

연안습지 파괴와 훼손이 가장 심각한 도시로, 더 이상의 천혜의 습지보전

지역이 훼손되어서는 안된다.

하나, 인천만 조력발전소 건설로 인한 이익은 인천시민과 무관한 것으로

어장 훼손, 어족자원 고갈, 관광자원 훼손 등으로 인한 부담과 피해만

고스란히 인근지역 주민들이 입게 되고, 인천-개성간 직항로를 차단함으로써

향후 남북교류활성화에도 부정적 영향을 미치게 합니다.

현재 인천은 영흥화력발전소 등 9곳에서 가동되는 64기의 발전시설이

수도권 발전용량의 62%를 생산하면서 엄청난 대기오염물질을 배출하고 있다.

게다가 정부의 전력수급기본계획에 따르면 2020년까지 인천지역 발전시설

은 전국의 24%, 수도권의 78%에 이르게 된다. 여기다 해양과 갯벌을 훼손

하는 조력발전소의 건설은 새우젓생산 등 수산물 어획량에 심각한 타격을

미쳐 주민의 삶에 심각한 피해가 예상되어 지역경제활성화에 도움이 될

수 없다.

하나, 우리 인천은 기후변화에 대응하고 재생에너지의 공급을 확대하기

위해 노력해야 한다는 점에 동의하며 최선을 다하고 있다. 그러나 현재의

인천만 조력발전은 17km에 달하는 바다를 가로막는 대규모 인공방조제를

전제하고 있어 재생에너지라고 정의할 수 없다.

정부의 사전환경성보고서에서도 인천만조력발전사업이 해양환경 및

생태계에 심각한 영향을 미칠수 있음이 밝혀졌다. 재생에너지의 기본 전제가

친환경성임을 고려하면 인천만 조력발전사업은 환경파괴형 대규모 토목

사업으로 정의 하지 않을 수 없다.

이에 우리는 현재 진행하고 있는 행정절차는 당장 중단되어야 한다고

판단한다. 이를 위해 첫 절차로 현재 올 연말에 확정예정인 제5차 전력수

급기본계획에서 인천만 조력발전을 반영하지 말아야 한다. 그리고 중앙

정부와 인천시와 함께 종합적으로 검증하기 위한 재검토위원회를 구성할

것을 요청하는 바이다.

280만 인천시민과 인천광역시의원 모두는 위에서 제시한 사항에 대한

요구가 관철될 수 있도록 관심과 노력을 기울일 것을 다짐하며, 시 집행부와

함께 힘을 모아 공동 대처할 것을 엄숙히 결의하는 바이다.

2010년 12월 23일

인천광역시의회 의원 일동

Incheon City Council, Dec. 23, 2010 page 1

A resolution insisting on stopping Incheon tidal power plants construction.

In South Korea, the tidal flat has very important value and is future resource which has created good coast environment for millions of centuries. Especially the Ganghwa coast area threatened by the plan of constructing big tidal power plants by Hankugsuryokwonsaryk (Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Ltd.) is the unique place where has been preserved naturally. River mouth, as you know, produces various creatures. This dynamic sea- ecosystem gives people enough benefits of nature. Southern tidal flat of Ganghwa Island is the representative migratory bird & fish habitation. Ganghwa area also includes the natural heritages and surely need to be preserved both nationally and globally. In spite of this fact, the plan of constructing Incheon tidal power plants has been so one-sidedly proceeded that we cannot help revealing the serious objection for the tidal flat damage & sea- ecosystem destruction. Although MLTM (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs), one of the apparatus of South Korea government, began this plan with its early research project from 2005, it has recently entered into the implementing stage with private enterprisers. In the proceeds of such huge national construction work, they didn’t have any conference or objective discussion with local government of this area. In the recent forum and presentation meeting, we could see that the parts of enterprisers were still enforcing this big plan without considering the serious environmental destruction. Thus, we, Incheon metropolitan council members express the grave concern of this plan and make the public statement. 1. We insist on stopping the Incheon tidal power plants construction. We concern the results that the big dam and facilities of tidal power plant shall bring to this area, especially the Han River mouth, many fishing grounds and coast ecosystem. These influences include the loss of tidal flat, damage of fishing grounds, breakage of protective area, water pollution, change of accumulation-erosion, seabed features & ocean flows and influence on habitation. 2. The Jang bong wetland and natural monument protective area should be preserved naturally. This area was designated as important one of the wetland protective areas in 2003 by MLTM and the place that such rare variety birds as the black-faced spoonbill inhabit. The bird also was designated as a natural treasure. Meanwhile, this area has been damaged by thoughtless development and landfill because of good accessibility from big cities. We make clear that we don’t want any more.

Incheon City Council, Dec. 23, 2010 page 2

3. This plan should be ceased because the benefit of this plan has no relation with the local residents, but they rather suffer heavy losses for the breakage of fishing grounds & coast sightseeing resources. Incheon tidal power plants are now located near Gaeseong (North Korean special industrial complex). We cannot but consider bad effect of the inter Korean cooperation caused by block the straight way between Incheon(south)-Gaeseong(north) . In Incheon, there are many thermal power plants, which give 62% electricity to near big cities. The government has plan to install more in this area, so that our amount of supplying electricity to other near big cities reaches up to 78% in 2020. In addition to air pollution of these thermal power plants, the damage caused by big dams of tidal power plants will spoil the life and local economy of fisherman and residents. 4. We should do our best so as to do action for the climatic change and enlarge the renewable energy system. However, according the plan of tidal power plants construction, they need to install big dams which give bad influence of water current and force the tidal flat in that area to be lost. The evaluation of environment influence before fulfillment also reports that this construction work could cause serious damage on the coast surroundings and ecosystem. If the renewal energy is based on the environment friendly aspect, we can define this reckless enterprise as environment-destructive construction From the above various reasons, we decide the administrative procedures related to this plan should be immediately ceased. In order to do this, we insist that Incheon tidal power plant should not be reflected on the 5th general planning of electric power supplies supposed to do next year, and the Government and the Incheon city forms the reexamination committee so as to inspect totally. We, 2,800,000 Incheon citizens and all council members solemnly confirm our determination of trying to do our best and concentrating our interest on the fulfillment of the above demands, plus facing up to the crisis with the Incheon metro city executives.

Dec. 23, 2010

Incheon metro city councilmen concerned

조력발전소 건설계획 검토 안( )조력발전소 건설계획 검토 안( )

2011. 6.

인천발전연구원Incheon Development Institute

연구진 조력발전소 건설계획 검토/ Task Force

/∙

/∙

/∙

/∙

/∙

본 연구결과는 초안으로 내용을 수정 보완하여 최종안을 도출할 계획입니다.※ ㆍ

요 약

m 수질악화와 해양생태에 부정적이었던 시화호의 환경문제를 해소하기 위한 대안

으로 제시되어 추진된 시화호 조력발전소 발전용량 규모 의 건설을 계기( 254 )㎿

로 저탄소 녹색성장이라는 정부의 정책기조에 따라 인천연안과 가로림만, MB

등지에 조력발전소 건설계획이 마련되었고 강화일대가 조력발전사업의 적지로

각광받아 인천만 조력발전소와 강화 조력발전소가 각각 중앙정부와 인천광역시

에 의해 추진됨.

m 지난 지방선거과정에서 조력발전사업은 전력생산 등 실익에 비해 갯벌손실“ ,

수질오염 홍수통제 기능 상실 등 환경파괴 우려를 비롯한 손실이 더 크다 는, ”

지적이 제기되었고 이에 따라 조력발전을 둘러싼 찬반토론 및 검증작업이 다,

각적으로 진행되고 있음.

m 인천광역시는 신재생에너지 의무할당제 때문에 환경파괴가 수반되는 인천만“

조력발전소를 건설한다는 것은 말이 안되는 일 이라며 반대 입장을 밝히며 인”

천광역시가 추진하던 강화 조력발전사업도 추진하지 않겠다는 의사를 천명했으

며 한국수력원자력 주 은 이와 반대로 조력발전소 건립에 따른 환경문제 주장, ( )

을 반박하며 친환경 건설을 강행하겠다는 의지를 밝히고 있음.

m 인천만 및 강화 조력발전소 건설을 둘러싼 강화주민들의 찬반 논쟁과 인천광역

시와 중앙정부의 갈등구조를 해소하고 인천광역시의 합리적인 정책결정과 시민

들의 올바른 이해를 위하여 조력발전소 건설에 따른 편익과 환경비용에 관한,

합당한 검토가 필요하며 조력발전소 건설과는 별도로 검토 중인 연육도로 건설

계획과의 이해득실과 의사결정에 따른 관광편익의 변화 등에 대해서도 점검해

보아야 할 시점임.

m 조력발전개발사업에 대한 검토의견은 다음과 같음.

에너지정책의 최상위 목표에 대한 정당성 확보가 필요하다“ ”⑴

에너지 절감과 효율 증진 수요억제정책의 우선적 배려,○

신재생에너지 생산목표는 과다한 수요의 충족보다 원전 및 화력발전시○

설의 규모 축소와 연계되어야

해양에너지를 활용하는 최선의 대안을 찾는 신중함이 필요하다“ ”.⑵

전세계적으로 해양에너지 개발을 위한 기술개발이 한창 진행 중○

최적 입지 및 적정기술 도입의 지혜 필요○

급 조력발전시설 건설과 운영의 교훈에 유의해야 한다“Protocol ”.⑶

침사 등으로 수위 및 조석특성 변화로 계획발전량 미충족○

당초 추정사업계획에 비해 상당한 추가비용 소요와 인력 투입○

조력발전을 위한 제방규모에 비해 발전량이 상대적으로 부족하다“ ”.⑷

제방연장 및 조지면적 대비 연간 발전량은 매우 미흡한 수준○

경제성 미흡으로 철회된 영국 서번의 사례를 타산지석으로 삼는다“ ”.⑸

경제성 미흡으로 포기한 영국 서번 사례보다 지표상 불량○

조력발전 제방도로는 광역도로 기능을 수행할 수 없고 환서해안 고속도“ ,⑹

로 건설추진에 부정적이다”.

광역도로와 지방도로의 도로위계에 대한 이해 부족○

부적절한 도로선형으로 인한 장기적인 손실 우려○

조력발전소 건설에 따른 교통수요와 활용성이 다소 과다하다“ ”.⑺

기존 개발계획의 추진일정이나 계획내용이 수정될 가능성○

대안노선인 환서해안 고속도로의 교통량 미제시○

제방 건설고와 조위특성 기후변화에 따른 해수위 변동고려 미흡,○

조력발전 건설로 인해 인천권역 관광개발계획의 교란이 우려된다“ ”.⑻

습지보전지역과 천연기념물 해제로 생태경관자원의 훼손 불가피○

역사 및 경관생태관광자원을 중심으로 한 기존 관광계획과 상충○ ․

조력발전 건설로 인한 관광편익을 보다 엄밀하게 추정해야 한다“ ”.⑼

통상적인 관광편익 추정과는 상이한 통합계상의 문제○

조력발전개발사업에 국한하여 관광편익의 증감에 대한 분석 필요○

조력발전 건설입지는 기존 연안환경보전의 정책논리와 상충된다“ ”.⑽

동일 입지에 대한 국토해양부 연안환경정책의 내부혼선과 모순○

조력발전 개발사업에 의한 환경영향 평가항목과 방법이 미흡하다“ ”.⑾

해역의 수리수문학적 예측평가와 갯벌가치에 대한 평가 미흡○

수질오염과 해수교환율에 대한 예측 미흡○

퇴적환경 변화 및 환경영향 등에 대한 저감비용의 고려 부족○

제방축조에 따른 생태환경 변화로 수산업 편익보다 악영향이 크다“ ”.⑿

새우 서식환경과 주민 소득기여도에 대한 고려 미흡○

발전시설에 의한 어족자원의 부정적 영향에 대한 고려 보완○

목 차

I. 운영개요TF ·························································································1

구성1. Task Force ··············································································1

조사 및 연구영역2. ··············································································1

II. 대상 사업의 개요···············································································2

인천만 조력발전소1. ············································································2

강화 조력발전사업2. ············································································3

III. 추진방식······························································································4

IV. 조력발전 관련논의 및 동향·····························································4

V. 부문별 검토사항·················································································7

해양에너지 개발방향의 세계적 경향1. ·················································7

국외 조력발전소 건설에 따른 경제성 관련지표 비교2. ·····················10

도서지역 연륙화 및 도로교통망 개선효과3. ·······································12

관광자원 확보 및 연계에 따른 효과4. ···············································13

환경분야의 문제점5. ··········································································15

VI. 비용편익분석 검토··········································································18

VII. 비용편익분석 재산정 결과····························································23

1

I. 운영개요TF

1. 구성Task Force

m :

m :․

m :․

m :․

m :

m

우선 원내 인원으로 구성하고 향후 연구방향 설정 등에 따라 주체별 담당부서 및 시민※

단체와 관련분야 전문가로 확대하여 인적구성을 변경확대할 수 있음TF / .

2. 조사 및 연구영역

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

조력발전소 건설 및 연육교 건설에 따른 교통편익과 관광편익에 대한 사항은 사업자측※

의 사업계획과 홍보자료에 검토를 통해 제한적 범위에서 진행하였음.

인천광역시의 정책의지에 따라 추진 또는 중지결정이 상대적으로 용이한 강화조력발전※

사업보다는 중앙정부와 갈등관계에 놓여 있는 인천만 조력발전소 건설과 관련한 논의

와 점검을 우선하여 진행하였음.

2

II. 대상 사업의 개요

1. 인천만 조력발전소

m - - 15.09 , 1,320㎞ ㎿

m : 1,320 (30 ×44 ) / : 2,414GWh㎿ ㎿

m : 18.3 ( )㎞

m ( ) : 157.5潮池 ㎢

m : ( )落潮

m : , , GS

m : 3 9000

인천만 조력발전사업< >

m

-2005.12 : (MOU)

-2006. 2 : ( , ,

, GS )

-2008.12 : 4 ('17 )

-2009. 3 : ( )

-2011. 6 : ( )

3

2. 강화 조력발전사업

m , , , 4 840㎿

( 1,556GWh)

m : 6.5 8.3km㎞

m : 28 , 18 , 3

m : ( )

m : , ( ), ( )

m : 2 3,530

①

②

③

④제 조력발전1

강화 조력발전사업< >

※ 방조제 건설 상부 도로 활용: ( )①～④

m

-2007. 5 : (MOU)

-2006.12 ~ 2007.10 : ( )

-2008. 4 : ( )

-2009. 7 : , ,

, , 2009 ,

,․

- 2010 ,

4

III. 추진방식

1. 한국수력원자력주 사업 홍보자료의 집중 검토 및 검증( )

m

2. 강화 조력발전 및 인천만 조력발전 관련자료 수집 및 집중 검토

m

,

,

3. 시민사회단체 및 관련 전문가의 의견수렴

m

,

IV. 조력발전 관련논의 및 동향

m 2010. 4 ,

- - - , -

-

,

,

국토부가 인천만 조력발전발전소 만 와 강화조력발전소 건설 만(181 1368 ) (58※ ㎡

예정해역을 제 차 공유수면매립기본계획안에 포함된 것으로 확인되어2911 ) 3㎡

지역 및 시민단체 반대로 갈등

5

m 2011. 2.23 ,

- 3 2 ‘ ’

-

m 2011. 2.25 ․

- 400 ( )․ ․

m 2011. 2.28 ( )․

-

- ( )

-

m 2011. 3. 2

- : 1)

- :

m 2011. 3.14 ( )

- , ,

- ,

m 2011. 3.15

- , ,

m 2011. 3. 9 1

m 2011. 4.11 2

m 2011. 4.15 '

'

년 월과 년 월 일 회에 걸쳐 진행하려던 주민설명회가 강화 주민2010 11 2011 4 11 2※

들의 저지로 무산됐고 향후 같은 상황이 반복될 것으로 예상

m 2011. 4.19 ·

m 2011. 4.27

1) 월 일 군의회 의원과 관련 공직자 시민 대표 어민 대표 수협 대표 및 사업자 등 명으로 구성되었으며 년3 9 , , , 11 , 2011

월까지 한시적 운영계획이며 활동기간을 연장할 수 있음7 .

6

- , , · · ,

-

- (6 ) : , ,

, ,

,

- : ( )

- : ( )

( )

- : , ,․ ,

(5 ),

m 2011. 4.29

- 144

-

m 2011. 5.11

- ‘

' '

'

-

-2011. 5.18

m 2011. 5.13 4

- :

- : ‘

'

- : 2011. 5.19 ‘ ,

’, ‘

,

7

’

- :

m 2011. 5.28 ,

- 10% 28

V. 부문별 검토사항

1. 해양에너지 개발방향의 세계적 경향

에너지정책의 최상위 목표에 대한 정당성 확보가 필요하다“ ”⑴

에너지 절감과 효율 증진 수요억제정책의 우선적 배려,○

신재생에너지 생산의 목표는 과다한 수요의 충족보다 원전 및 화력발○

전시설의 규모 축소와 연계되어야

m

,

.

국가에너지기본계획 본래 년마다 갱신 년 만에 개정2010.12. 7 ( 5 , 2 )

개정안에는 당초 계획보다 증가된 에너지 수요 예측- 13.4%

년 에너지수요 전망 석유환산톤2030 : 342.8TOE 388.9TOE( )→

에너지 소비억제보다는 에너지 다소비 수용-

이를 충족한다는 명목으로 전력수급기본계획에 조력발전소를 포함-

m 2012 (Renewable Portfolio Standard :

RPS) ,

인천만 및 강화조력발전 등 추진⇒

8

m RPS

' ' ,

' '

m

,

.

m ( ) ,

해양에너지를 활용하는 최선의 대안을 찾는 신중함이 필요하다“ ”.⑵

전세계적으로 해양에너지 개발을 위한 기술개발이 한창 진행 중○

최적 입지 및 적정기술 도입의 지혜 필요○

m 1 2

m

,

m

23 h/ ,㎿ ㎡

(16 h/ ), (15 h/ )㎿ ㎡ ㎿ ㎡

(9.2 h/ ), (8.8 h/ ) .㎿ ㎡ ㎿ ㎡

m ,

, 3

.

9

운영 중인 조력발전소의 개요□

프랑스 랑스 Rance (1966)①

조지면적 시설용량 연간 발전량- 22.5 / 240 / 544GWh㎢ ㎿

급 직경 의 벌브 터빈 기 복류식 발전- 10 5.4m 24 ( )㎿

제방 길이 서쪽 에서 동쪽 까지- : Brebis Briantais 750m

댐 중 조력발전시설- 332.5m

대규모 조력개발사업의 전초단계로 강 하구에 실험 도입- Chausey Rance

발전소 건설에 주의를 집중하여 과다한 건설비와 인력이 투입-

조력개발계획은 경제적 타당성과 생태환경문제에 대한 이견으로 인해 아직- Chausey ,

까지 실현되지 못하고 있음.

중국 지앙시아 Jiangxia (1984)②

최대조차 시설용량- 8.39m / 3.0(3.9)㎿

복류식 발전 연간 발전량- / 6.0GWh

번째로 큰 조력발전소- 3

러시아 키스라야구바 Kislay Guba (1968)③

시설용량 복류식 발전 연간 발전량- 0.4(1.5) / / 1.2GWh㎿

백해연안 만과 해 만 조력개발에 앞서 시험발전소 건설- Mezen Okhotsk Tugur

폭 간조시 길이 로 조지면적- 150m( 35m), 450m 1.1㎢

캐나다 아나폴리스 Annapolis (1984)④

시설용량 단류식 발전 연간 발전량- 20 / / 50GWh㎿

캐나다 동부 만의 거대한 반폐쇄 해역- Fundy

대규모 조력개발은 염두에 두고 급 시험발전을 위해 건설- prototype

당초 건설공사비 추정액 만 캐나다달러 실제 만 캐나다달러- 4600 6000→

단류식으로 발전 시간 조지 충수 및 수위조정 시간을 반복- 6 , 6

조지수위가 설계수위보다 낮게 유지되고 발전소 취배수구 수로가 설계치보다 높아서- ․

생긴 수리손실과 발전소 건설 후 주변해역의 조석 특성변황로 조차가 기대치보다 감

소되었기 때문에 연간 발전량이 줄어듦.

급 조력발전시설 건설과 운영의 교훈에 유의해야 한다“Protocol ”.⑶

침사 등으로 수위 및 조석특성 변화로 계획발전량 미충족○

당초 추정사업계획에 비해 상당한 추가비용 소요와 인력 투입○

m

10

2. 국외 조력발전소 건설에 따른 경제성 관련지표 비교

조력발전을 위한 제방규모에 비해 발전량이 상대적으로 부족하다“ ”.⑷

제방연장 및 조지면적 대비 연간 발전량은 매우 미흡한 수준○

m

, , , , ․

,

m 2)

표< 1> Extant large tidal power plants

Country Site Installedpower ( )㎿Basin area

( )㎢Meantide(m) 비고

France La Rance 240 22댐연장 750m

8.55

운영중Russia Kislaya Guba 0.4 1.1

댐연장 450m2.3

Canada Annapolis 18 15댐연장 47m

6.4

China Jiangxia 3.9 1.4 5.08

USA Passamaquoddy 400 300 5.5

계획 및검토 중

USA Cook Inlet Up to 18,000 3100 4.35

Russia Mezen 15,000 2640 5.66

Russia Tugur 6,790 1080 5.38

UK Severn 6,000 490댐연장 16㎞

8.3

UK Mersey 700 60 8.4

Argentina San Jose 7,000 780 6.0

Korea Garolim Bay 480 90댐연장 2.05㎞

4.7

Australia Secure 570 130 8.4

Australia Walcott 1,750 260 8.4

대한민국 인천만중규모안 1320(2414GWh)

(30 ×44EA)㎿157.45

댐연장 16.95㎞ 5.3정격낙차( )

타당성조사서

대규모안 1440(2676GWh)(30 ×48EA)㎿

196.04댐연장 19.44㎞

A. M. Gorlov(2001), Tidal Energy, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,인천만 자료는 비교를 위해 추가한 내용임Academic Press. ( ).※

2) 제방길이 년간 에너지생산량Gibrat's ratio = (m) / ( h)㎾

가 작을수록 조력발전시설의 입지는 더 좋은 것으로 평가- Gibrat's ratio

예 랑스 조력발전소 영국 미국- ) 0.36, Severn( ) 0.87, Passamaquoddy( ) 0.92.

11

경제성 미흡으로 철회된 영국 서번의 사례를 타산지석으로 삼는다“ ”.⑸

경제성 미흡으로 포기한 영국 서번 사례보다 지표상 불량○

m 1980 20 (Severn)

, 2 (12.8m)

, 16 (540㎞

) ‘

(high risk)’

m 5% 2~3

Severn 1930 Severn

,

,

.

m David Cameron

Severn , ,

m (DECC)․ ,

Severn Somerset Wales

m (RSPB, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds)英

우리는 경제적인 이유가 아닌 생태학적 이유에서 댐 프로젝트“ Cardiff-Weston

가 거부되기를 원한다 왜냐하면 경제적인 이유로 거부되면 이와 같은 환경 파.

괴적인 프로젝트가 다시 개발되어 시행될 수 있기 때문이다”

12

3. 도서지역 연륙화 및 도로교통망 개선효과

조력발전 제방도로는 광역도로 기능을 수행할 수 없고 환서해안 고속도“ ,⑹

로 건설추진에 부정적이다”.

광역도로와 지방도로의 도로위계에 대한 이해 부족○

부적절한 도로선형으로 인한 장기적인 손실 우려○

m

,

- -

.

m ,

,

.

m ,

,

.

m

,

.

13

조력발전소 건설에 따른 교통수요와 활용성이 다소 과다하다“ ”.⑺

기존 개발계획의 추진일정이나 계획내용이 수정될 가능성○

대안노선인 환서해안 고속도로의 교통량 미제시○

제방 건설고와 조위특성 기후변화에 따른 해수위 변동고려 미흡,○

m

,

. .→

m 2 ( 10,000pce

) →

m →

m ,

4. 관광자원 확보 및 연계에 따른 효과

조력발전 건설로 인해 인천권역 관광개발계획의 교란이 우려된다“ ”.⑻

습지보전지역과 천연기념물 해제로 생태경관자원의 훼손 불가피○

역사 및 경관생태관광자원을 중심으로 한 기존 관광계획과 상충○ ․

m ․

m

․

14

m

m ,․

, ․

, ( ),

조력발전 건설로 인한 관광편익을 보다 엄밀하게 추정해야 한다“ ”.⑼

통상적인 관광편익 추정과는 상이한 통합계상의 문제○

조력발전개발사업에 국한하여 관광편익의 증감에 대한 분석 필요○

m

,

m

m

,

m ,

,

15

5. 환경분야의 문제점

조력발전 건설입지는 기존 연안환경보전의 정책논리와 상충된다“ ”.⑽

동일 입지에 대한 국토해양부 연안환경정책의 내부혼선과 모순○

m 5

·

m 2003

, 2008 ,

m

( 205 )

419 ,

→

조력발전 개발사업에 의한 환경영향 평가항목과 방법이 미흡하다“ ”.⑾

해역의 수리수문학적 예측평가와 갯벌가치에 대한 평가 미흡○

수질오염과 해수교환율에 대한 예측 미흡○

퇴적환경 변화 및 환경영향 등에 대한 저감비용의 고려 부족○

m ,

17.1% →

m , 2009

,→

16

m :

m I

COD, T-N, T-P II

. ,

, , ,

,

, , ,

m , 17%

(←

12% ) → →

(370.7 ) 50%㎢

인천국제공항 건설시 영향없을 것으로 예측했던 강화남단 강화 신두리 앞바다에 가는※

점토성분의 토사가 이상이 들어차 펄이 썩고 있다는 주장과 부합1m

m

60%

m ,

17

m

→

m , ,

m , ( 345 , L=59 )㎸ ㎞

(cf. )

,

제방축조에 따른 생태환경 변화로 수산업 편익보다 악영향이 크다“ ”.⑿

새우 서식환경과 주민 소득기여도에 대한 고려 미흡○

발전시설에 의한 어족자원의 부정적 영향에 대한 고려 보완○

m ( )

⇒

강화 석모 수로에 총 종의 유영생물 채집 그 중 어류가 종으로 가장 많았고 새86 , 54※

우류 종 게류 등의 갑각류 종 두족류 종 그리고 종의 해파리 출현 보고16 , 12 , 3 1 (2009

년 황선도 박사의 연구자료 석모수로가 중요한 해양생물들의 이동경로) →

특히 유영생물 중 밀새우의 개체수가 로 최고 우점 젓새우 그라비새우32.6% , 15.9%,※

꽃게 중국젓새우 로 갑각류 종이 총 개체수의 를 차지9.9%, 7.7%, 6.9% 4 73.0% →

어민들의 주장과 같이 강화조력의 예정지인 석모수로가 중요한 새우 어장임을 확인

18

m 7~80%

, 1 ⇒

한수원 측은 조력발전개발사업에 따른 수산업 편익을 연간 억원으로 추정 어민93※ →

들은 해수정체로 적조현상 우려 젓새우 등이 완전히 사라지고 꽃게병어밴댕이주, · · ·→

꾸미 등의 산란 장소가 없어질 가능성 지적 현재 강화 어민들은 젓새우로 연간( , 150

억 억원 정도의 소득을 올리고 있음~200 )

터빈에 죽고 상처입는 어류들 조지내 유입수는 수문을 통해 들어오지만 나갈 때는 모( ,※

두 수차를 통해 유출 의 비율) 15%

강화조력 사전환경성 검토서 초안 수문과 터빈 설치시 터빈 통과시 사망하는 어류는( ) ,

에 이른다고 제시 이에 대한 근거자료 미제시15% →

인천만조력발전사업 사전환경성검토서 초안 의 제시 내용( ( ))

조력발전 운영시 수차와 수문을 통해 유출입하는 어류에 입히는 영향- ․

의 청어 마리를 통과시킨 결과 터빈 에서 마리가 생존45~60cm 20 (17MW ) 9 , 9~11cm․

청어는 사망 상처 로 조사23.9%, 63.0%

어류의 크기가 작을수록 터빈 충돌에 의한 영향은 줄어들지만 치어의 경우 수압에,․

의한 영향이 터빈충돌에 의한 영향이 더 큰 것으로 제시

VI. 비용편익분석 검토

m 2008 12 ( 5 )

5 , 4 , 5․

국내외적으로 여지껏 조력발전의 경제성을 이유로 번번이 논의가 중단되었음에도 불구※

하고 인천만 조력발전소 건설의 비용편익은 자그마치 중규모안 대규모안, 2.0( : 2.132, :

을 상회한다는 주장의 근거를 점검해야 할 것임2.063) .

m , →

m ,

19

인천만 조력발전사업 환경성 검토 토론회 인천시청2010.11.25 ( )

한국수력원자력 이용희 인천만조력사업팀장 경제성 논쟁 정리발언- ( )

조력발전소 건설의 경제성은 조력에너지 자체로부터 창출되지 않으며 주변 관광-

개발과 같은 부대사업을 통해서 가능하며 정부의 녹색성장 추진에 맞춰 추진하,

고 있음을 인정

조력에너지로서 발전 아까 전에 가 나오면 그게 인천시의 가 되었던" 2,414GWh 60%…

몇 프로가 되었던 저희들이 장사하는 입장에서 보면 전기 팔아가지고는 경제성이 없습니

다." (프레시안 2011. 1. 2, 황진태의 기고문)

( 5 )(2008)⑴

⑵ 2008 11 5→

(2010 ), 2009 12

⑶ 5 ,

30 →

‘ 55 ’ ‘ 30 ’

5.5%

⑷

- 5 ,

→

⑸ ‘ ( )’

-

- ( ) ,

( )

,

-

,

20

.

.

.

-

,

LNG

.

.

⅔

.

- ⅔

⑹

-

,

.

-

CO⑺ 2 CCS , CCS

: 2,414GWh CCS ,

- 1,219 50.5 / h→ ㎾

- 4

Point Carbon 3) .

- (0.000195 -C/ h)㎾

(20,000 / -C, 2010. 3. 10 30 )

→ 3.9 / h㎾

- (2009 )

6.1( / h) ,㎾

- 4

13 , 8.3

3) http://www.pointcarbon.com

21

93⑻

- →

-

1,347⑼

-

(single-purpose) (multi-purpose)

1,347→

-1 16,298 2008

36,385 ,

- 4) 2009 12 915.4

→

1.5

- 1 36,385 →

‘1 ’

,

1 ,⇒

- ,

,

- 2018

340 120 . 5)

6) , 104,390

208,780

4) 곽승준 조승국 유승훈 한려해상국립공원 보존의 경제적 가치 조건부 가치측정법을 이용하여 경제학연구, , (2002), : , ,

한국경제학회 제 권 제 호, 50 , 2 , pp. 85-104.

5) 통상 콘도와 호텔의 객실당 숙박인수는 각각 인과 인을 기준으로 추정하는 것이 적정함3.5 2 .

6) 년 기준으로 본 사업과 유사한 관광단지인 경주보문단지 보광휘닉스파크 성우 용평2004 29.5%, 27.0%, 33.7%,

등으로 평균 의 객실이용율로 를 약간 상회하는 수준이며 인천지역 방문객 중 콘도이용율은46.5% 31.8% 30% ,

년 기준 수준임 따라서 사업 타당성조사서의 사업성분석부문에서 제시한 객실이용율 는 회원권14.4%(2009 ) . 50~75%

분양 등 마케팅을 위한 과다한 영업목표라고 볼 수 있음.

22

-

, 209,563 419,126

.

- 3,702,195

209,563~419,126

( ) : 2,308 936⑽ ㏊

-

-

, Costanza

- (2004) ,

(2010. 6 ) 5,460 /ha/

- 2,308 /ha/ 2.4

-Costanza ,

- : 28,085 / 54,676 /㏊ → ㏊

( , , , )⑾

(-)

,

- .

-

,

, ,

-

.

- ( , , , )

(+) (-) , ,→

⇒

23

VII. 비용편익분석 재산정 결과

⑴

- ‘ 55 ’ → ‘ 30 ’, 5.5%

‘ ( )’⑵

- ⅔

-

-⑶ : CO2 , 3.9 / h㎾

⑷

-1 :

- 3,702,195 →

: 28,085 /⑸ ㏊ → 54,676 /㏊

: (-) ,⑹

: (+) (-) ,⑺

: ,⑻

• 비용편익비율의 재산정 결과

사업자측 타당성조사 중규모 개발사업 추진 시 에 제시된 비- ( ) B/C : 2.132

- 상기 원칙에 따라 조정한 경우 비 이상 감소B/C : 0.814 ~ 0.833 (60% )⇒

사업의 비용편익비율 및 해석•

사업의- 고유영역인 에너지부문 편익만 고려 시 ⇒ 비B/C : 0.758

직접편익 에너지 교통 환경 수산업 등 에 대한 과다산정- ( , , , )

비용편익분석에서 제외되어야 할 관광편익을 과다하게 포함하는 방식 도입-

편익발생기간의 과다 계상 등 엄격하게 검증되어야 할 항목이 다수 존재-

관광편익과 환경편익 수산편익 등은 편익의 발생 가능성도 있으나 이에- , (-) ,

대한 검증을 위해서는 보다 세밀한 평가분석이 필요할 것임.