Water and Environment Journal.

Print ISSN 1747-6585

A new mode of river basin management in South Korea

Seungho Lee1 & Sung Kim2
1
Graduate School of International Studies, Korea University, Anam-Dong, Sungbuk-Ku, Seoul, South Korea and 2Sustainable Water Resources Research
Center, Korea Institute of Construction Technology, Ilsanseo-Gu, Koyang, Gyeonggi-Do, South Korea

Keywords
England and Wales; France; National Water
Council; River Basin Authorities; River Basin
Committees; river basin management;
South Korea; water governance;
water law.
Correspondence
Seungho Lee, Graduate School of
International Studies, Korea University, Anam-
Dong, Sungbuk-Ku, Seoul, South Korea. Email:
seungho.lee@korea.ac.kr
doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2008.00114.x
Abstract
This study aims to explore a new mode of river basin management in South
Korea by evaluating the current river basin management system and taking
lessons from the British and French cases. This research is based on literature
reviews and interviews in the United Kingdom, France and South Korea. The
British case emphasizes the importance of regulatory framework and limita-
tions of public participation. The French experience epitomizes the empower-
ment of river basin organizations. The new system in South Korea includes an
enactment of water law, a set-up of the National Water Council, the River Basin
Authorities and the River Basin Committees. The new model will not be
established soon but needs to take a step-by-step approach to minimize social
conflicts, accommodate diverse opinions in society and satisfy a variety of
demands.

Introduction Study area and methodology

The purpose of this study is to explore a new river
basin management system in South Korea by evaluat-
ing the current river basin management system and
taking lessons from the British and French cases. This
empirical research is based on extensive literature
review and interviews with experts in water management
in the United Kingdom, France and South Korea. The
case studies on the British and French river basin manage-
ment will provide sound examples to South Korea. The
new system will not be the same as the British or French
but a unique one that reflects the complexity of socio-
economic and political landscape in South Korea’s water
policy.
The first section of this paper is to show a general
overview of water resources, management frame-
work and critical issues in South Korea, and research
methodology. The challenges in the current river
basin management system of South Korea will be dis-
cussed, and the case studies of England and Wales and
France will be followed. A new mode of river basin
management in South Korea will be analysed and sug-
gested based on the lessons from the British and French
experiences and new ideas to overcome the current
challenges.
Study area
Location
Korea is located in the Korean Peninsular in East Asia,
which is adjacent to China and Japan. The west coast of
the peninsular faces the Yellow Sea towards China. The
east coast borders the East Sea towards the Pacific Ocean.
The south coast faces the South Sea towards Japan. Korea
has been divided into South and North Korea since 1945
(see Fig. 1), and this research only focuses on South
Korea.
Water resources
A yearly average precipitation in South Korea reached
1245 mm in the period between 1974 and 2003, which is
1.4 times more than the world average, 880 mm. Thanks
to the high population density (approximately 49 million
in 2006 in the area of 98 477 km2), a yearly average
precipitation per capita amounts only up to 2591 m3, just
one-eighth of the world average, 19 635 m3. The total
volume of renewable water resources is approximately
72.3 billion m3 and the availability of water resources per

Water and Environment Journal (2008)

c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation

c 2008 CIWEM. 1
River basin management in South Korea
Fig. 1. Geographical location of South Korea.
(Website of Australian War Memorial). http://
www.awm.gov.au/korea/maps/images/
establishing.gif
capita 1512 m3 [18Ministry of Construction and Trans-
portation (MOCT) 2006]. These figures signify the inten-
sity of water scarcity in South Korea.
The climatic and territorial characteristics also contri-
bute to water scarcity. A large difference in precipitation
from season to season often entails a high degree of flow
volume change in rivers. A sudden increase of flow
volume in rivers usually takes place from June to Sep-
tember, and two-thirds of the yearly average precipitation
is often concentrated in the period. On the contrary, the
period from November to April experiences droughts. An
uneven composition of water resources has accelerated
water scarcity in many localities. Urban areas around the
capital, Seoul, have suffered from the lack of water
resources because of the rapid urbanization, industrializa-
tion and population growth over the past few decades
(MOCT 2006).
Water management framework
Currently, the MOCT is in charge of bulk water supply
through dams and multiregional supply systems, flood
2 Water and Environment Journal (2008)
S. Lee and S. Kim
management and inland navigation through rivers and
canals. The Ministry of Environment (MOE) oversees
water quality control focusing on environmental protec-
tion. In addition to MOCT and MOE, there are three more
major ministries engaged in water management such as
the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MOAF), the
Ministry of Government Administration and Home Af-
fairs (MOGAHA) and the Ministry of Commerce, Industry
and Energy (MOCIE) [KICT et al. 2003; Presidential
Commission on Suitable Development (PCSD) 2004].
Table 1 illustrates the complexity of water management
in the country where many actors are involved in water
policy making.
Critical issues
The country embraces a myriad of water issues that need
to be resolved soon through new institutional ap-
proaches. First, the instability and inequality of water
resources in different regions have become acute since
the 1990s. For instance, the rate of piped water provision
in the nation was 89.4% in the year 2003. The rate of
c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2008 CIWEM.
S. Lee and S. Kim River basin management in South Korea

Table 1 Allocation of competencies categorized by the roles of ministries

Tasks Detailed Concerned ministries
Water management Planning MOCT
Permission MOCT
Price of water MOCT (multiregional)
MOE and local governments (piped water and sewage treatment)
Designation of water intake protected areas MOGAHA
Dam (water/power) MOCT (water resources), MOCIE (power generation) and MOAF
(irrigation)
Inland waterways MOCT
Irrigation MOAF
Embankment MOCT (flood prevention), MOAF (agriculture/irrigation)
Rivers (small and medium/large) MOGAHA (small and medium-sized rivers), MOCT and MOE (large
rivers)
Water supply Urban piped water supply MOE (general guideline, policy, funding), MOGAHA (infrastructure
and management monitoring)
Multi-regional piped water supply MOCT (through KOWACO)
Water quality Water quality control and regulations MOE
Sewage treatment MOE (general guideline, policy, funding)
MOGAHA (infrastructure and management monitoring)
Environmental Impact Assessment MOE
Flood River basin flood management MOCT
Urban flood and designation of national disaster areas MOGAHA
and financial support for affected residents

MOCT, Ministry of Construction and Transportation; MOAF, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; MOE, Ministry of Environment; MOGAHA, Ministry of
Government Administration and Home Affairs; MOCIE, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy; KOWACO, Korea Water Resources Corporation.

piped water provision of major cities and urban areas
reached over 97% while that of rural areas varied from 33
to 80%. This highlights the inequality of piped water
provision between urban and rural areas in the country
(MOCT 2006). Second, it is difficult to launch new water
resources development projects such as dam building,
canal construction and water transfer because of concerns
about environmental impacts and an increase of environ-
mental awareness in public.
Third, there have been numerous conflicts between
different water users, such as upstream and downstream
residents, and rural and urban residents in order to secure
more water resources. Such situation might be intensified
due to a rapid pace of urbanization, industrialization and
population growth. Fourth, continuous disastrous floods
and droughts in recent few years need an urgent call for
actions on climate change. It is necessary for the govern-
ment to take into account the uncertainty of hydrological
regime related to climate change when the national water
plan is drawn up (MOCT 2006).
Methodology
The primary methodology used in this research is a
comparative analysis on water policy between England
and Wales, France and South Korea. First, a thorough
literature review on water policy in these countries has
been conducted. The historical overview of water policy
framework and the exploration of uniqueness and pro-
blematic issues of river basin management in England and
Wales have proved to be useful for the establishment of a
future model for river basin management in South Korea
(Kinnersley 1994; Hassan 1996; Rees & Zabel 1998;
Bakker 2003; Page & Bakker 2005). The characteristics of
river basin management in France have been widely
discussed among experts (Barraque et al. 1998; Barraque
2001; Sangare and Larrue 2004). The democratic and
decentralized nature of the French example implies an
innovative approach South Korea should take in order
to overcome current challenges in water management
(Betlem 1998; Barraque 2001). The exhaustive summary
and discourses on water policy in South Korea has been
discussed based on a myriad of official reports published
by the government and articles in newspapers (MOCT
2001, 2006; Kim 2006; Lee 2006; Water Forum Korea
2006).
Second, there have been a series of interviews with
experts in academia, governments and research institutes
in these countries. A thorough analysis and critical over-
view of water policy in England and Wales has been
possible through interviews with academics who have
advised the British government and the European Union.
The discussions with the policy expert in France have
helped clarify the major characteristics and uncover

Water and Environment Journal (2008)

c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation

c 2008 CIWEM. 3
River basin management in South Korea
challenging issues of the current French water manage-
ment system. The views and opinions on water policy in
South Korea have been reflected in this study based on
interviews with numerous researchers and government
officials (Lee 2005, 2006).
Results and discussion
River basin management
South Korea
River basin management is the responsibility of MOCT
and MOE, and each has different organizations in the four
major river basins, namely the Han River, the Nakdong
River, the Keum River and the Youngsan/Seomjin River
Basins. The Youngsan and Seomjin River Basins are
separated geographically but managed as one river basin.
Figure 2 shows the four major river basins in South
Korea.
MOCT deals with river basin management through six
local land management bureaus. These bureaus are in
charge of river management with four river management
committees in each of major rivers and conduct-related
administrative works. In addition to the bureaus, four
river flood control offices undertake river forecasting and
warnings, control dam management and an issue of water
intake licences (KICT et al. 2003). The tasks of local land
management bureaus and flood control offices under
Fig. 2. Four major river basins in South Korea.
4 Water and Environment Journal (2008)
S. Lee and S. Kim
MOCT indicate that MOCT has partly adopted approaches
of river basin management, particularly in river manage-
ment including flood control.
Although MOCT has led water management over the
past decades, MOE looks like a competent agency in river
basin management. The ministry has river basin environ-
mental offices responsible for water quality control in the
four major river basins. The major tasks of these offices
are to regulate polluting activities, levy and collect water
use charges, manage the River Basin Management Fund,
and support local people living in water intake protection
zones (Lee 2005). In addition to the offices, MOE has
established the ‘River Basin Management Committee’ in
each river basin (MOE Website 2006). In theory, the four
river basin environmental offices and river basin manage-
ment committees are similar to the French river basin
organizations. However, the four river basin environmen-
tal offices only conduct water quality control and often
face difficulties implementing regulatory works on certain
projects because of resistance from local governments.
This confirms that the offices of MOE have also not been
able to implement policies covering overall water man-
agement issues.
There are several challenges in river basin management
in South Korea. First, water resources have been mana-
ged not based on river basins but administrative bound-
aries over the past decades. Such management style has
caused a few problems: (1) difficulty making an overall
water management plan based on hydrological cycles; (2)
difficulty drawing up a comprehensive river basin water
management plan and (3) conflicts in water use between
different administrative regions. In addition, all the power
and responsibilities are concentrated within the hands of
MOCT and MOE at the central government, which often
fails to reflect local water conditions in water manage-
ment plans (Hong 2002).
The second challenge is related to the little integration
between water management and land use and planning.
There is the ‘National Land Development Plan’ in South
Korea to provide a macro-scale planning on land devel-
opment. This does not well reflect water issues in river
basins. Local governments and developers do not prior-
itize or seriously consider water management plans in
their projects (Hong 2002). This situation has worsened
since the early 1990s due to the decentralization process.
A growing number of local development projects have
resulted in a rapid increase of built environments. Such
expansion of the built environments has prevented urban
runoff from being absorbed by soil and aquifers and has
eventually exasperated the peak of floods.
The fragmented management is the third challenge.
There are three more ministries – MOAF, MOGAHA and
MOCIE – involved in water policy in addition to MOCT
c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2008 CIWEM.
S. Lee and S. Kim
and MOE. Such a complex system has caused not only
inefficient water management but also conflicts between
ministries because of ‘departmentalism’ (Richards &
Smith 2003). The key to success in establishment of river
basin management will be closely related to how to
deconstruct the current complex policy-making mechan-
ism and reconstruct a new governance system at the
central and river basin levels (Hooper 2005).
A lack of legal foundations that support river basin
management is discussed as the next challenge (KICT et al.
2003). Many legal institutions on water have been en-
acted and implemented, and this might lead to a conclu-
sion that the country is well equipped with legal settings
for water management. However, these laws have been
made by different ministries and in some particular con-
texts. This has triggered a lack of coherent legal applica-
tion and the repetition or contradiction of laws. For
instance, the Civil Law defines water rights and the River
Law includes water abstract rights. Although these two
rights are similar, the two laws indicate the different range
of rights regarding water abstraction and use. Such con-
tradiction has brought about confusion and conflicts
between water users. More importantly, there is no basic
water law that can systemize disjointed and incompre-
hensive laws in water management, clarify goals of the
national water management based on basic principles and
serve as a reference to interpret relevant laws and regula-
tions (PCSD 2004). In addition, no law can be referred to
as the one advocating river basin management.
There is no mechanism to finance river basin orga-
nizations away from the hands of ministries at the central
government. MOE has created a water fund in river
basins, called ‘Four River Basin Management Fund’
through levying and collecting water use charges (PCSD
2004). Such fund has been exploited to provide financial
support for water quality enhancement projects and
regional development projects in river basins, which is
similar to the French case. One of the fundamental flaws
in the fund is that unlike the French case, the fund is
managed by MOE through river basin environment of-
fices, which does not guarantee the administrative and
financial independence of the river basin environment
offices. In addition, the fund is supposed to be utilized for
enhancing water infrastructures and institutional settings
based on a consensus between water-related bureaus and
local governments. The reality is that MOE exclusively
uses the fund without any consultation with other gov-
ernment bureaus, including MOCT.
There is no adequate organization to mediate water
conflicts between government bureaus, local govern-
ments and water users in South Korea. The central
government established a mediating organization such as
the ‘Water Management Mediation Council’ in the late
Water and Environment Journal (2008)
c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2008 CIWEM.
River basin management in South Korea
1990s. This organization was unsuccessful because it
worked on an ad hoc basis without sufficient legal
foundations and had no administrative or financial man-
date to enforce policies (KICT et al. 2003).
Faced with the challenges discussed above, the water
community in South Korea has taken into account intro-
duction of a new river basin management framework in
the recent few years. It is useful to take lessons from the
countries that have continued to implement river basin
management i.e. England and Wales and France. These
countries are different from South Korea in many ways,
including socio-economic and political systems, physical
geography, and historical backgrounds. However, the
countries provide some of the few success cases in river
basin management in the world (Interview 130705). It is
worthwhile to look at the development and current
circumstances of the river basin management in the
countries. The case studies will provide invaluable lessons
to learn for policy makers in South Korea.
England and Wales
The river basin management in England and Wales has a
series of characteristics including strong regulatory autho-
rities at the centre and integrated water management in
river basins primarily led by Environment Agency (EA)
and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA). Also distinctive features are water sup-
ply and sewage treatment service privatization that was
completed in 1989 and the limited roles of local govern-
ments and the public (Kinnersley 1994; Hassan 1996;
Rees & Zabel 1998; Bakker 2003).
EA takes the lead to implement river basin manage-
ment in England and Wales. Ten water supply and sewage
treatment service companies in the river basins are under-
taking water resources management works in coopera-
tion with EA and other relevant regulatory bodies such as
the Office of Water Services (OFWAT), and the Drinking
Water Inspectorate (DWI) (Balance & Taylor 2005). EA is
the competent agency to deal with water supply, water
quality control, flood management and environment
protection. The agency, however, does not have any
mandate to make a final decision on land use and plan-
ning, which is the responsibility of the Deputy Prime
Minister’s Office (Tunstall & Green 2003; Interview
190705). This resembles the case that there is little
cooperation between water management and land devel-
opment plans by local governments in South Korea. Such
challenge requires water authorities in South Korea to
consider the preparation of institutional reform to com-
bine water management with land use and planning.
The political and administrative independence of eco-
nomic regulator, the OFWAT and EA will be an example
5
River basin management in South Korea
which a new mode of river basin management in South
Korea has to emulate when the system encompasses
privatization of municipal water supply and sewage treat-
ment systems and needs regulatory authorities (Balance
& Taylor 2005). A weak point in the system is stakeholder
participation. The Consumer Council for Water is created
as a public body to represent views and opinions from
water users. This organization has been supposed to
reflect what water users think about water services and
demand service improvement to water companies and
regulators. However, the evaluation outcome of the role
of the council has not been positive, because their activ-
ities are not well publicly informed and contribution to
water services seems to be very minimal (Page & Bakker
2005).
Another example in relation to the weak stakeholder
participation is that there is no legal mechanism to
encourage local governments to collaborate with EA in
terms of their land development projects. Because EA
does not have any enforcement power to suspend envir-
onmentally unfriendly land development projects, some
projects do not properly consider the impacts of projects
on the environment including water (Interview 190705;
Lee 2005). Water managers in South Korea should not
make similar mistakes, and the new system has to
introduce plausible institutional channels and adequate
administrative and financial support for stakeholder
participation.
France
The river basin management in France has been regarded
as a successful system because of the roles of the River
Basin Authorities (RBAs – Agence de l’eau), the River
Basin Committees (RBCs) and local governments. The
characteristics of the river basin management in France
are: (1) financial independence of RBAs and subsidies to
local governments; (2) multistakeholder participation
through RBCs and (3) active roles of local governments
in policy making (Barraque et al. 1998; Barraque 2001;
Sangare & Larrue 2004). It has been noted that the central
government has the National Water Council (NWC) to
provide advice to the Prime Minister about water issues
on an ad hoc basis and the Water Department under the
Ministry for Ecology and Sustainable Development. But
these organizations have not been able to have a large
impact on river basin and local water management since
the mid-1960s because of the decentralized political
system as well as the political, administrative and finan-
cial independence of river basin organizations (Interview
130705).
The most significant implication from the French case is
that a prerequisite to implement river basin management
6 Water and Environment Journal (2008)
S. Lee and S. Kim
is to transfer the political, administrative and financial
power from the centre to river basins. Otherwise, river
basin management cannot be led by river basin organiza-
tions but by ministries at the centre. The complex political
situations in the 1960s in France paved the way for the
central government to allow river basin organizations to
levy and collect water taxes within the river basins
(Barraque 2001; Interview 110705; Interview 130705).
South Korea has to find a suitable solution to emulate the
success of the French system. The financial independence
of RBAs is a sound example for future RBAs in South
Korea to secure an administrative and political indepen-
dence from the central government. Another distinctive
feature of RBAs in France is that RBAs have served as a
mutual bank to provide subsidies to local governments in
case local governments need to implement water projects.
Such system has spawned favourable relationship be-
tween RBAs and local governments and has successfully
achieved water management as well as land develop-
ment thanks to the close collaboration between them
(Barraque 2001; Interview 110705; Interview 130705).
The RBCs in France encourage the active participation
of local governments, water service companies, environ-
mental NGOs and the general public on river basin issues
(Betlem 1998). As noted above, the financial subsidies of
RBAs have triggered the active participation of local
governments in river basin management. Similarly, an
allocation of relatively large number of seats to local
governments in RBCs has helped local governments ex-
press their development-related concerns in relation to
water issues (Barraque 2001; Interview 110705; Inter-
view 130705). Such institutionalization of local govern-
ments’ participation can give a sound example for a
Korean model in terms of stakeholder participation and
integration of water management and land development
issues.
New river basin management in South Korea
This section explores which policy options South Korea
will have to consider in order to cope with the challenges
in river basin management. The options will reflect the
lessons from the England and Wales and French models
and new ideas to overcome the current challenges. The
necessary elements of the new river basin management
include an enactment of Water Law, a set-up of the NWC,
and an establishment of the RBAs and the RBCs (Lee
2005).
One of the institutional priorities for river basin man-
agement in South Korea is to establish an adequate set of
legal instruments. It is urgent to take into account enact-
ment of water law that has been debated for years. The
country has enacted a list of laws on water such as River
c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2008 CIWEM.
S. Lee and S. Kim
Law and Municipal Water Law (KICT et al. 2003; PCSD
2004). However, there is no overarching law that encom-
passes fundamental philosophies in water policy and
management and proposes goals and directions of water
management. The Water Law in South Korea has to
accommodate the principles of river basin management
and propose new ideas to enhance the current fragmen-
ted management system. The good news is that the
central government made a draft water law in August
2006 (MOCT and MOE 2006). On the one hand, this was
heavily criticized due to the incompleteness that failed to
embrace important general principles in water manage-
ment and river basin management. On the other hand,
the draft law was widely hailed in the water community,
because that kind of law is very necessary at the initial
stage of institutional reform (Kim 2006; Lee 2006; Water
Forum Korea 2006).
The draft law has not been endorsed at the National
Congress and is still on the table as of December 2007.
According to some senior water engineers in South
Korea, it is difficult to expect the law to be in effect soon
because of conflict of interests between MOCT and MOE.
It is argued that the Water Law should come into effect as
early as possible and be revised in order to make water
management more efficient, and legitimize river basin
management and provide political and institutional sup-
port in the implementation of the new system.
An overall framework of river basin management has
to accommodate what has been done under the auspice of
MOCT and MOE and set up a series of new organizations
in river basins. As an overarching central unit, an estab-
lishment of ‘the National Water Council’ has been con-
sidered. The major roles of the NWC will be to coordinate
water-related works, endorse national water manage-
ment plans and make decisions on various issues in water.
The head of the council will be the Prime Minister, and
major decisions in the council will be made collectively by
a group of ministers. The council also includes the heads
of the four RBCs RBAs and water experts. Such a wide
range of stakeholders in the council will pave the way to
establish water governance based on stakeholder partici-
pation (Hooper 2005).
As an implementing body, ‘the RBAs’ are suggested in
the four major river basins, and the branch offices of the
authorities will be set up in smaller river basins. This is a
new organization but takes over the tasks previously
undertaken by the local land management bureaus and
the flood control offices in MOCT and the four river basin
environment offices in MOE. The major tasks of the
authorities are: (1) to conduct water resources develop-
ment and plans in river basins; (2) to issue water intake
permissions and undertake water quality control and (3)
collect water intake and pollution discharge fees as ‘Water
Water and Environment Journal (2008)
c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2008 CIWEM.
River basin management in South Korea
use charges’. The River Basin Fund, accumulated by
water use charges, will be set up as a modified version of
the previous ‘River Basin Management Fund’, and will
help finance water projects by local governments which is
similar with the French case. The budget and financial
matters will be decided and audited by the RBCs. The
heads of the RBAs and the RBCs participate in the NWC at
the centre and play a pivotal role in reflecting river basin
circumstances in national water management plans (Lee
2005).
‘The RBCs’ will be another core organization in river
basin management together with the RBAs. The commit-
tees encourage a number of stakeholders to participate in
decision making in river basins. The committee members
consist of civil servants from local authorities, politicians,
water experts, heads from diverse social associations,
representatives of farmers, fishermen, and industries and
environmental NGOs. The multistakeholder dialogues in
the committees will be able to reflect diverse voices in
society into policy making. The main tasks of the commit-
tees are to establish river basin plans in collaboration with
RBAs, evaluate water projects in river basins, mediate
water conflicts, and audit and manage water use charges
and the River Basin Fund.
The RBCs also take a part in the NWC together with
RBAs and contribute to the establishment of national
water management plans. The committees will serve to
reflect the integrated management between water and
land use in collaboration with local governments. In
addition, the reflection of regional development plans
by local governments in river basin plans will not
only contribute to the enhancement of integrated
management between water and land use but also im-
prove ecological restoration and biodiversity in river
basins.
It is envisaged that there will be a number of obstacles
to implement the new water management system in the
current Korean context. Therefore, this research recom-
mends the two evolutionary phases South Korea has to
adopt. The first stage is to keep the current partial river
basin management system, made up of the six local land
management bureaus and the four flood control offices
under MOCT and the four river basin environment offices
under MOE. It is necessary to finalize enactment of water
law soon. On the basis of the law, the NWC should be
established at the central government and RBCs have to
be created in the four river basins. The council will serve
to mediate conflicts between different government bu-
reaus in water management and to draw national water
management plans. In the long term, the council will be
empowered to take responsibility of drawing up the
National Water Management Plan reflecting river basin
circumstances.
7
River basin management in South Korea
MOCT, MOE, National Water
MOAF, Prime
Council minister
MOGAHA and
MOCIE
Four River Basin Four River Basin
Authorities Committees
Local
stakeholders
Local
governments
Fig. 3. New river basin management in South Korea.
The second stage will come after testing the first stage
in subsequent years, about 5–6 years. The second stage
will complete a transfer of power in water management
from the centre to river basins. RBCs will be set up and
reinforced to bring in more stakeholders in society and
accommodate diverse voices of water users by improving
the limited participation of stakeholders in the current
River Basin Management Committee under MOE and
River Management Committee under MOCT. RBAs will
take over the tasks of the local land management bureaus,
the flood control offices, and the river basin environment
offices. Figure 2 shows the ultimate form of river basin
management in South Korea (Lee 2005). In Fig. 3, the
bold arrows indicate that there is a direct relationship
between organizations, and the dot arrows imply an
indirect relationship between organizations.
Conclusion
(1) This research has discussed a new mode of river basin
management in South Korea by assessing the current
river basin management system and challenges since the
1990s. The study has also had an insight into river basin
management in England and Wales and France as the
benchmarking cases.
(2) A new system has been suggested based not only on
the new ideas to overcome the current problems but also
the lessons from the British and French experiences.
(3) The process to establish a new river basin manage-
ment system in South Korea requires the two evolution-
ary phases. At the first stage, the most urgent element to
be introduced is a water law. The new water management
system cannot be sustainable without such legal founda-
tion. At the central level, the NWC will be established as
an overarching bureau to mediate conflicts on water
between ministries, bureaus and local governments. At
the second stage, the RBAs and the RBCs are established
8 Water and Environment Journal (2008)
S. Lee and S. Kim
after the previous bureaus under MOCT and MOE are
amalgamated into these new river basin organizations.
(4) RBCs and RBAs will eventually serve to achieve
water governance, reflecting the opinions of the pre-
viously marginalized, such as local governments, ordinary
people, environmental NGOs and water service providers.
(5) The key to success of the new system in South Korea
lies in creating an adequate model that all of the stake-
holders agree with. This study suggests the step-by-step
implementation of river basin management, because the
new mode of water management in the country has to
minimize social conflicts, accommodate diverse opinions
in society and satisfy a variety of demands.
(6) It takes time to transform from an old to a new
system, which might spawn disagreements and conflicts
between groups in society. RBAs in England and Wales
and France have spent more than 30 years to become
competent agencies in river basin management.
(7) A few or 10 years might not be a long period in firmly
establishing the river basin management system. It is
imperative to continue to make an effort to create an
appropriate Korean model of river basin management
through trials and errors.
Acknowledgements
The research work was sponsored by the Korean 21st
Century Frontier Project (Grant Code:1-0-2). The authors
are grateful to Professor Tony Allan, King’s College Lon-
don, University of London, UK, Professor Colin Green,
Middlesex University, UK and Professor Bernard Barra-
que, ENPC, France, for their comments on the research.
References
Bakker, K. (2003) An Uncooperative Commodity. Oxford Univer-
sity Press, Oxford.
Balance, T. and Taylor, A. (2005) Competition and Economic
Regulation in Water. IWA Publishing, London.
Barraque, B. (2001) Water21-DGXII: water institutions and
management in France. Unpublished Report, European
Community, Brussels.
Barraque, B., Berland, J. and Cambon, S. (1998) France. In
Correia, F.N. (ed.) Water Resources Management in Europe –
Institutions, Issues and Dilemmas – Vol. 1: Institutions for Water
Resources Management in Europe, pp. 85–182. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam and Brookfield.
Betlem, I. (1998) River Basin Planning and Management. In
Correia, F.N. (ed.). Water Resources Management in Europe –
Institutions, Issues and Dilemmas – Vol. 2: Selected Issues in Water
Resources Management in Europe, pp. 73–104. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam & Brookfield.
Hassan, J. (1996) England and Wales – An Historical Perspec-
tive. In Hassan, J., Nunn, P., Tomkins, J. and Fraser, I. (eds).
c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2008 CIWEM.
S. Lee and S. Kim
The European Water Environment in a Period of Transformation,
pp. 100–120. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Hong, W. (2002) 21C National Water Resources Policy. Donghwa
Technology Press, Seoul.
Hooper, B. (2005) Integrated River Basin Governance. IWA Pub-
lishing, London.
Kim, S. (2006) Make an adequate Water Law in South Korea,
Hangyerae Newspaper, 4 September 2006.
Kinnersley, D. (1994) Coming Clean. Penguin, London.
Korea Institute of Construction Technology, Korea Environ-
ment Institute, Korea Water Resources Association, and
Korea Water and Wastewater Association. (2003) Water
Management Framework Improvement Study. Research Report,
Seoul, Korea.
Lee, H.Y. (2006) Swift policy measures needed about muddy
waters in Soyang Dam, Yonhap News, 15 December 2006.
Lee, S. (2005) Establishment of River Basin Management in
South Korea: Comparative study between UK, French and
Korean water policy. Sustainable Water Resources Research
Center, Korea.
Lee, S. (2006) A prudent approach to enactment of Water Law
in South Korea. Environment Daily, 27/28 October.
Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT). (2001)
National Water Resources Plan. Ministry of Construction and
Transportation, Seoul, Korea.
Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT). (2006)
National Water Resources Plan Update. Ministry of Construc-
tion and Transportation, Seoul, Korea.
Ministry of Construction and Transportation and Ministry of
Environment (MOCT and MOE). (2006) Draft Water Law,
24 August, Seoul, Korea.
Page, B. and Bakker, K. (2005) Water Governance and Water
Users in a Privatised Water Industry: Participation in Policy-
Making and in Water Services Provision: A Case Study of
England and Wales. Int. J. Water, 3 (1), 38–60.
Water and Environment Journal (2008)
c 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2008 CIWEM.
River basin management in South Korea
Presidential Commission on Sustainable Development. (2004)
Sustainable Water Management Policy. Bakyoung Press, Seoul,
Korea.
Rees, Y. and Zabel, T. (1998) United Kingdom. In Correia, F.N.
(ed.). Water Resources Management in Europe – Institutions,
Issues and Dilemmas – Vol. 1: Institutions for Water Resources
Management in Europe, pp. 537–670. A.A. Balkema, Rotter-
dam.
Richards, D. and Smith, M.J. (2003) Governance and Public Policy
in the UK. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sangare, I. and Larrue, C. (2004) The Evolution of the
Water Regime in France. In Kissling-Naf, I. and Kuks, S.
(eds). The Evolution of National Water Regimes in
Europe, pp. 187–234. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Tunstall, S. and Green, C. (2003) From Listener to Talker: The
Changing Social Role of the Citizen in England and Wales.
Work Package 4 of the HarmoniCOP Project, European
Community, Brussels.
Water Forum Korea. (2006) Comments on the Draft Water
Law. 12 September. Water Forum Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Interviews
Interview 110705
Mr Olivier Bommelaer, Seine-Normandy Agence de l’eau,
Nanterre Prefecture, France, 11 July 2005.
Interview 130705
Professor Bernard Barraque, ENPC, outskirts of Paris, 13 July
2005.
Interview 190705
Professor Colin Green, Middlesex University and Professor
David Hall, University of Greenwich, in Greenwich, UK, 19
July 2005.
9