Microsoft Word - Byun - formatted TRACKED CHANGES.DOC
Working Paper Series
“The Environmental Issues of a Unified Korea”
By Jinsuk Byun
Professor, College of Law, Sookmyung Women’s University
Note that these working papers may not be cited or referenced in any way.
Introduction
Considering the present tension between the two Koreas, manifested in the Cheonan-Ham incident, it might sound a little too soon to talk about the issues of a unified Korea. However, as we have seen in the German Unification case, the unification of the Korean Peninsula may come unexpectedly. If it does, the cost will be high. It could be higher simply because it comes unexpectedly. Considering the shock which former East European communist countries’ environmental degradation delivered when they collapsed and opened to the world in the late
1980s and the early 1990s, it is reasonable for us to expect and prepare for possible environmental problems in North Korea. Also as we have seen in the former East German case, the unexpectedness of the unification of Korean Peninsula might force us to pay additional costs. Besides, because environmental investments always have to compete against economic, defense, and other societal needs, unless it is embedded as an integral part of the plan for a unified Korea, environmental protection policies and measures will have to suffer endless compromises.
In the mean time, whatever path it may take, a unified Korea will have serious environmental problems and issues in its northern half. It is estimated that currently North Korea has environmental problems while its economy does not provide any hope of assigning substantial amounts of resources for the cleanup of pollution and contamination, not to speak of any preventive measures. The extremely closed nature of the regime and the sensitive succession process from Kim Jong Il to his son will severely limit the outside actors from providing help or exert influence for environmental protection. It is not unreasonable to assume that by the time the Korean Peninsula is unified, it is more likely that the environmental situation of North Korea will be more aggravated than improved. For this reason, it is not too soon to make intellectual efforts to forecast the possible problems and issues which we will have to face and to consider possible policy measures to address those problems and issues when we have a unified peninsula in our hand.
Two things should be mentioned regarding the approach of this paper to North Korea’s environmental situation. First, approximately two decades ago, a series of communist countries collapsed in Eastern Europe. They transformed themselves into market economies. During the collapse and transition period, those countries revealed their environmental problems, some of which were due to the nature of communist regime. Based on the assumption that North Korea, as another communist country with a command economy, shares these basic systemic aspects that are relevant to the management of the environment, this paper briefly reviews the developments in the former Eastern Bloc countries to draw similarities to the North Korean environmental situation. Second, because data on North Korea are not readily available, this paper attempts to estimate the environmental condition of North Korea. For example, the amount of emissions of various pollutants will be estimated based on the consumption of energy, simply because the data of the amount of emissions are not available.
This paper is composed of three main parts. The first part discusses the environmental conditions of the former East European communist countries when the communist regimes collapsed and during the transition period to a market economic system. It also attempts to find causes of the environmental degradation in the ideology and nature of the communist system. The second part starts with a discussion of two major causes of the environmental degradation in North Korea, i.e., the nature of communist regime with a command economy and the collapse of North Korea’s economy. It also deals with North Korea’s environmental condition, such as the contamination of water and soil, air pollution, and deforestation. The third part covers future environmental issues of a unified Korea. For this purpose, former East Germany’s experience after the unification of Germany is briefly reviewed because, if the Korean Peninsula is unified, the environmental project will have similarities with unified Germany’s environmental project in the former East German area. The future unified Korea’s environmental project in the North Korean area is provided under two categories. The first category covers what to do to clean up past contamination and current pollution while the second category covers a more fundamental approach: the industrial restructuring of North Korea, urbanization, transportation, energy issue, and restoration of forest.
Finally, this paper concludes with two suggestions as to ‘how to’ address the North Korean environmental issues under a unified Korea.
The Environmental Issues of Former Communist Countries in Eastern Europe
It will be very useful to review East European countries system changes and the accompanying environmental issues for our purpose because North Korea will follow the similar path.
Environmental Degradation under Communist Regimes
In the late 1980s and the early 1990s, when the iron curtain was opened after the collapse of communist regimes, the environmental degradation in the region shocked the world. After four decades of propaganda championing industrialization, what the outside world discovered was an abused environment. One third of the forests in the region were damaged by air pollution. The Baltic and Black seas were polluted by industrial waste, sewage, and oil. Large tracts of farmland were contaminated by carcinogenic heavy metals emitted by industry. In most areas of the region, the water in the river was not suitable for industrial use, not to mention potable.
More specifically, Poland’s upper Silesia, Czechoslovakia’s northern Bohemia, East Germany’s southern provinces, and Ukraine’s Donetsk Basin were similar industrial areas such as Ruhr or Pittsburgh half a century ago. Per month, these regions deposited over 1000 micro grams of sulfuric compounds per square meter. Most of the remaining areas of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany deposited more than 500 micrograms per month. Most of the damaged forest or forest deaths occurred in those areas. Among others, metal dust and suspended particles were the main culprit, damaging the development of children and increasing respiratory diseases. These cases then caused excess mortality and ill health.[1] In East Germany, motorists used headlights during the afternoon because of air pollution. One of five Polish children was born with either physical or mental deformities. In a 1985 health survey, 95% of 200,000 Romanian women screened showed signs of diseased uteri. According to medical researchers and environmental scientists, the undeniable factor in these and other health problems was environmental pollution.2
Water quality was poor too. The water in 95% of Poland’s rivers was unsuitable for municipal use; in 42% of the country’s rivers the water was unfit even for industrial uses. In northern Bohemia, Czechoslovakia’s industrial core, 70% of the rivers were heavily polluted, and 40% of wastewater went untreated. The Danube runs through many East European countries, such as Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania. But the river was so polluted that by the time it reaches Budapest, swimming was discouraged. Water pollution in Eastern Europe was largely a result of decades of deferred investment in wastewater treatment and unrestrained industrial dumping.
As communist countries, those East European countries shared similarities regarding environmental governance. First, Marxism ideologically focuses on the human which allows nature to be subject to exploitation for social benefit. This idea is not compatible with sustainable development, which does not allow maximum exploitation of nature for the benefit of human beings. This human-oriented idea is also not congenial to the ecological value that may restrain the human activities exploiting nature. Second, even under communist systems, the most important standard for development is quantitative growth. When this growth-first policy was combined with a legacy of tunnel vision of communist leaders, the result was that industrial output was the sole focus of their centrally-planned economies. Third, the ideological rigidity and closed nature of communist governments did not allow input from outside of the government on environmental issues. All governments, regardless of differences in ideology, focus primarily on providing physical security and material means of living for citizens. They tend to be responsive to the environmental issues raised by nongovernmental, civil society activist groups. In communist countries, those civil society activist groups were less active than those in democratic societies. Furthermore, they had very limited ways and means to affect the decisionmaking process. As a result, in communist countries, environmental problems have been frequently ignored or neglected at best. Paradoxically enough, in East European countries, the neglected environmental issues caused numerous health problems among the people which eventually led to the opposition to the communist governments and anti communist government revolutions.
Besides these systemic factors of communist countries, there have been several specific and immediate factors which were responsible for environmental degradation in East European countries. First, they used coal to fuel heating and electricity production. In 1988, the per capita consumption of coal in Poland was approximately 16 times more than the average of European Community countries. Former Czechoslovakia’s per capita consumption was 15 times more than the EC average, Hungary 8 times, Romania 5 times, Bulgaria 4 times, and so forth.[2] In 1991, low quality brown coal was responsible for 70% of the energy supply and 85% of the electricity production of East Germany.[3] The household burning of coal in small boilers primarily caused smog and the most damaging exposures to particulates and sulfur dioxide.
Second, these countries lacked advanced technologies to reduce pollution. The metallurgy industry emitting dust containing heavy metals was another cause of pollution. Most steel mills in the region relied upon old open-hearth furnaces that emit much more air pollution per unit of output than the basic oxygen or electric arc furnaces then standard in rich countries. In the 1980s and the early 1990s, the region’s nonferrous metal smelters, especially for lead and aluminum, had primitive equipment for filtering metal dusts from the exhaust gases coming from their furnaces.
A third factor was the low prices of energy. In the 1980s, energy prices for East European countries were significantly lower than the market prices in the western world. Energy prices in
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were 60%-80%, of the market price, while those of States of former Soviet Union were less than 20%.[4] The Soviet Union provided oil at a discounted ‘friendship price,’ half the market price. The same applied to most natural resources, eliminating incentive to save energy and raw materials. In the late 1980s, the energy intensity of former socialist countries in Eastern Europe was on average three times higher than that of western industrialized societies. In other words, those countries consumed three times more energy than western countries to produce the same amount of value.[5]
A fourth factor was the competition between socialist systems and capitalist systems that measure success by output. In order to maintain their status vis-à-vis western advanced capitalist countries, leaders in Eastern Europe ‘would do whatever they could.’ This mentality, combined with technological backwardness, cheap energy, and a lack of external pressure for environmental issues, led them to massive mobilization of resources to win the competition without considering the consequences on the environment.
These characterizations of former communist countries may mark communist systems as environmentally destructive forces. The former communist countries, however, attempted to address these environmental issues. Communist countries did make efforts to alleviate the extensive environmental degradation in the 1970s and 1980s with various pieces of protective legislation. Sometimes, governments in the region set higher levels of protection in this legislation to show that their systems were superior to the protective systems of the West. Some of the efforts did bring about positive results in reducing pollution levels in various parts of Eastern Europe.
In the Soviet Union, 240 factories were closed during perestroika in 1989. The installation of scrubbers in power plants and other factories reduced particulate matter. For example, during the 1975-1985 period, East Germany reduced solid emissions by 30% simply through the use of more effective filters. They also attempted international cooperation for environmental protection through the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance from early 1960s. They continued their efforts with the creation of a Joint Council for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in 1974.
Those efforts, however, turned out to be insufficient to provide meaningful protection of the environment in the region. A brief historical recount of these former communist countries’ economic policies will show the limitations of their environment protection efforts. Historically, Eastern European communist countries ambitiously embarked upon extensive industrialization projects based on mobilization of internal resources such as labor, raw materials, and financial resources. When these resources and Soviet assistance were exhausted, they began to borrow money from the West in the 1970s to finance industrial development and sustain high rates of economic growth. Eastern Europe’s gross indebtedness in hard currency increased about twelve fold in the 1970s, reaching $70 billion. Annual trade deficits with the West also increased from $0.5 billion in 1970 to $5 billion in 1975.
The communist countries responded to the increase in debt by cutting consumption and investment, particularly investment in the environment. In Poland, during the period between 1975 and 1979, investment to control water pollution reduced by 28.2% and the investment to control air pollution reduced by 20.2%. In order to service the debt, these countries had to export high quality coal and had only low quality coal remaining for domestic consumption. As the Soviet Union steadily increased oil prices, these countries had to use more coal, which worsened the air pollution problem. As a result, overall coal production in Eastern European countries rose by 13% between 1980 and 1985. The production of brown coal and lignite increased by almost 20% during the same period. In East Germany, 83% of electricity was produced from brown coal by the mid 1980s. Similarly, former Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria increased the use of brown coal for electricity production.
Under this reality, these countries had no choice but to sacrifice environment for production. Whenever there was a competition for scarce resources for investment, other areas such as the economy and defense with strong constituencies in society always defeated environmental concerns. This explains the limitations of former communist countries’ efforts to control pollution and improve the environment.
Environmental Issues after the Collapse of Communist Governments
What happened in the East European countries after communist regimes collapsed had a profound impact on the environment in the region. Market economies played a greater role in the distribution of resources. Governments became more open to various demands, including environmental issues. Civil society could have more access to information about the environmental condition of their town, region, and country. At first glance those changes would work favorably for the environment. The entire picture, however, was not so simple.
Cleanup by Default
Right after the success of the anti-communist revolution, people believed that the new government could handle environmental problems better. The new governments did set ambitious goals to reduce pollution. For example, the Czech Republic and Slovakia governments ordered all major air polluters to cut their emissions drastically by the end of 1998. In Poland, most of the top polluters were closed or restructured by the government. In former East Germany, mining and the use of brown coal for the production of electricity in Leipzig area ceased.[6] The environmental record of post anti-communist revolution countries showed a rapid decline in pollution and other improvements in environmental indicators. It was often judged that the new market-oriented regime was successful in handling these environmental problems.
This record, however, must be viewed in a different perspective too. The betterment of the environment in the region was not because of policy measures, but because major polluters such as factories and power plants shut down. The simple shrink of economic activities reduced the causes of pollution. The GDP in 1992 of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, and Bulgaria were in the range of 70%-85% of that of 1989, while the 1992 GDP of Albania was about 60% of that of 1989. The index of industrial production of those countries in 1992 remained in the range of 50%-75%.[7]
This means two things with regard to the environmental effects of system transition. When a system undergoes a transition because of the failure of the previous system, the new system does not have sufficient financial resources to cleanup and to invest in environment protection. In order to secure funds for the purpose, one has to fight even harder against other societal, economic needs than under the previous regime because the economic crisis accompanying a system collapse makes other purposes even more urgent than they were under the previous regime. The second point is that as the improvement in environmental condition is only the temporary result of a reduction of economic activities, when the industries pick up again, so too will pollution. Without substantial restructuring practices and technologies to reduce pollution used in the production, transportation, and construction, economic growth will increase pollution.
Privatization and Foreign Direct Investment Problem
The essential aspect of the transition from a communist system to a market system is privatization. Once the self-imposed position as a competitor against western capitalist countries or its companies was removed after the anti-communist revolutions, the new market-oriented governments in Eastern Europe aggressively attracted foreign direct investment as a source of necessary capital for economic development. Foreign investors also seek economic benefits of their own when they make investment decisions, i.e. cheap labor, low health, safety, and loose environmental standards for the operation of business. There were also the risks that Western businesses trying to lower costs may transfer environmentally deleterious goods, equipment, or technologies. For example, in Poland, the 1988 Law Governing Economic Activity Involving Participation of Foreign Companies originally provided special tax incentives to foreign investors who contributed to environmental protection and cleanup, but was replaced by the Joint Venture Law in 1991 as material growth became a higher priority.
In addition, foreign investors wanted to avoid the environmental liability from previous business enterprises. They rather chose to build factories on unused land than take over an existing factory on a site with an unknown environmental history. There is the possibility that this foreign capital is more of a risk to the environment of former communist countries in the course of transition.
At the same time, the privatization and the break-up of former large state controlled industrial enterprises into smaller units for sale to private individuals did not have positive effects on the environment. Even under communism, the large enterprises instated measures such as installing filters and basic treatment of waste water before discharge it into rivers. But the new owners of these smaller units prioritized profits over cleanliness. Besides, monitoring pollution activities became much more difficult as the number of small enterprises increased. In the short term, the privatization of the economy threatened environment further.
Automobiles and Consumerism
One of the most visible symptoms of transition was the increased car traffic as a result of the increased used cars imports from the West. Car traffic grew rapidly and so did the air pollution from carbon oxides, nitrogen oxides, lead, and ozone because these used cars were not well equipped with catalytic converters. In Prague for example, the number of cars increased by 72% between 1990 and 1998. Car traffic increased by 102% in the same period. Similarly, between 1990 and 1994, the number of cars increased by 27% in Bulgaria, 24% in the Czech Republic, 17% in Slovakia, and 12% in Hungary. In these countries, the use of the public transit system declined. Free market competition generally favors automobile transport over less-polluting railways.[8]
Western style consumerism introduced in the region after 1989 also brought problems of plastic packaging and increased domestic waste. In Poland, the system of collecting old paper and glass bottles collapsed. As a result, after 1989, municipal waste increased by 20-30% and illegal dumping sites grew rapidly.[9]
This sketch of the transition after the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe provides a useful guide in forecasting the future environmental conditions and potential problems of a unified Korea after the end of communist regime in North Korea, because some of the changes are likely to happen in a similar way in North Korea too.
North Korean Situation
It is difficult to obtain accurate, detailed, data on the North Korean environmental situation. When there is no data available, the best way to approach the North Korean environmental situation is to estimate based on similar cases in former communist countries and the relevant data that are available.
The Parallelism between former East European Communist Countries and North Korea Before the discussion of North Korean environmental condition, a brief review on the similarity between East European countries and North Korea will be helpful in determining how far the environment problems will repeat in North Korea.
Systemic Causes
As mentioned above, the main reason for the environmental degradation in ex-communist countries is the nature of the system. Its heavy industry focus, extensive industrialization based on the mobilization of domestic resources, and closed political system without the participation of civil groups in the political process were not favorable to the environment. Heavy industry consumes high amounts of energy and emits a large quantity of pollutants. These countries pursued industrialization policies for three to four decades after communist regimes were established. In the course of industrialization, these countries did not take advantage of international division of labor and advanced technologies in various parts and purposes of industry. The system did not provide incentives to save energy and to reduce the pollution to political leaders, business managers as well as individual consumers. The result was what shocked the world when they found out after the collapse of communist regimes in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Likewise North Korea has focused on heavy industry-focused industrialization after the establishment of a communist government in 1948. In particular, the North Korean government invested more resources in heavy industry because it had to face stark confrontation with South Korea. North Korea had pursued a policy of so called ‘Self Reliance’ which again means that its major energy supply came from domestically produced coal instead of oil or gas and that it could not have the benefit of advanced pollution reduction technologies. The most closed, one man dominating system never allowed non-governmental voice in any matter. The extremely controlled command economy did not provide any incentives to save energy. As a matter of fact, in the North Korean case, they did not even have energy to save because of economic collapse.
These systemic factors contributed to the current environmental degradation of North Korea. Because of those systemic factors of the North Korean regime, it is probable that the North Korean environmental condition in the future, even until unification, will remain the same.
The Positive and Negative Effects of the Collapse of Economy
The North Korean economy shrank for 9 consecutive years from 1990 through to 1998. The volume of the economy reduced by 30% during this period. The economic decline was directly related to the collapse of communist economies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Starting from 1989, the former communist economies themselves collapsed. North Korea could not import essential capital goods and energy from these countries. When these countries recovered from the economic collapse, however, the friendship prices for goods and energy were no longer available. North Korea had to pay market price in hard currency for these goods.
North Korean people in the collapsed economy suffered from poverty. It is estimated that in the mid 1990s, more than one million people starved to death from famine. The hunger-stricken people destroyed the natural environment for survival. They cut trees for firewood and destroyed the forest to harvest it. They cultivated forests to make them arable for crops. The struggling economy could not afford to divest even a nominal amount of resources towards environmental protection. They did not have sufficient funds for sewer and waste water treatment facilities. They did not have money for filters.
As a result of the shrinkage, heavy industries reduced their operations to about 30% from that of 1990. The reduced economic activities also reduced the pollution and dumping of waste water. As mentioned above, the estimated air pollutants emission reduced by an average of 30%. It is also estimated that the amount of waste water discharged was reduced to the rate.
Although both Eastern European countries and North Korea experienced similar economic decline in the early 1990s, the post-communist countries recovered by the end of 1990s after transitioning into market economies, while North Korea continued to suffer from its devastating collapse. North Korea’s economic collapse reduced environmental degradation in a sense, but only temporarily
Air Pollution
The level of air pollution is determined by the amount of emission and density of pollutants in the air. The bulk of pollution is emitted in the course of consuming energy for activities of various purposes. The four major sources of air pollution are industrial enterprises, the production of electricity, heating, and automobiles. They emit various pollutants while they consume energy in the course of their activities. Since the data of the specific pollutants in North Korea is not available, the only possible way to approach the air condition is to measure the amount of energy used in North Korea and to estimate the amount of pollutant it generates.
The energy supply and consumption in North Korea was in its peak in 1985 and gradually declined thereafter to 70% of the peak in 2006. The following table shows the supply of energy in North Korea.
North Korean Energy Supply
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
Supply
(1000TOE)
21,013
24,940
23,963
17,280
15,687
16,896
17,210
Source: Kwang-Kyu Kang, Nam Buk Energy and Dae Gi Bu Mun Hyup Ruk Hwal Sung Hwa Bang An
(Suggestions for the Revitalization of South and North Korean Cooperation for the Clean Air), in Jang-Min Chu, ed.,
Nam Buk Hwan Kyung Porum (South-North Korea Environmental Forum), Korea Environment Institute (2007)
The North Korean energy supply pattern is consistent with that of the former communist countries: both show a decline in energy supply in the mid 1980s from the gradual increase in energy price and shift from the ‘friendship price’ to the market price of oil in the 1990s. However, the energy supply in North Korea continued to decline after the mid 1990s through 2000 and until present while Eastern European countries recovered from economic recession in the early 1990s.
The following table shows the estimate of the emission of pollutants and the change between 1990 and 2000 based on the consumption of energy.
The Estimate of the Emission of Pollutants (unit: thousand ton)
1990
2000
Change Rate (%)
Particulate Matter (PM)
706
484
Sulfer Dioxide (SO)
550
380
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
77
52
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
18.8
Hydrocarbon (HC)
5
2
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
62
32
Source: Ki Woong Son, Kwang Kyu Kang, Kyung Sool Kim, Nam Buk Hwan Kyung • Ye No Ji Hyup Ryuk Yon Gu (Research on the Sout-North Korea Environment•Energy Cooperation), Korea Institute for National Unification, Korea Environment Institute, Korea Energy Economics Institute (2002), pp. 41-51.
The structure of the North Korean energy supply also has environmental consequences. Until 1990, North Korea followed a path of industrialization similar to that of other communist countries. North Korea’s mining and manufacturing industry took 37.6% of the North Korean economy in 1957, expanded to 63.8% in 1980 to its peak, and declined gradually to 25.4% in 2000 to its lowest. The state sustained this policy line without the benefits of specialization based on the concept of comparative advantage of international trade. When this industrialization policy was combined with Self-Reliance (Juche) ideology and a shortage of hard currency, the result was a heavy dependence on coal to fuel the industry. The energy mix of North Korea has been composed of 70% of coal, 15-20% of hydro power, and a minimal percentage of firewood. After decades of exhausting high-quality coal, the government had no choice but to use low quality brown coal for industry, electricity production, and heating.
North Korean isolation also prevented it from achieving greater energy efficiency. It is estimated that North Korea emits 0.74 tons of carbon dioxide to produce one million won while South Korea emits 0.4 ton of carbon dioxide to produce the same amount of wealth. This issue has some implications for the air pollution of a unified Korea. Low efficiency means that in order to produce the same value, one has to consume more energy. In the case of North Korea, it has to burn more low quality coal which brings more air pollution.[10] If North Korea had been connected to the international economy, it could have had access to energy efficient technologies. The above discussion can be summarized as follows. North Korea’s economy has an energyconsuming, pollution-emitting industrial structure. However, actual air pollution is not as bad as imagined because only 30% of North Korean industry was operating in the 1990s and the 2000s , the result of which is a reduction of pollution by ‘default’. Despite this decline of the economy, North Korea still has problems in major industrial areas because it does not have sufficient equipment or technology. Once the economy recovers and grows, the air pollution will become more serious and wide spread.
Water Pollution
In the water pollution area too, the data are limited. It can only be estimated based on a limited number of published papers and reports. The data illustrates that bodies of water located in densely populated areas, such as big cities or a location supporting a lot of industry are primarily polluted by sewage and waste water. This means that the sources of pollution are not properly equipped with waste water treatment facilities. The following is a table showing the water
Water conditions of major rivers of North Korea
Rivers
Water Conditions
Dae Dong Gang
• About half of sewage and human waste is dumped into the river without treatment.
• Dead fish witnessed frequently
• Residents who drink tap water complained abdominal pain
Sung Chun Gang
• Dye factories, leather factories in Hamheung dump waste water into the river
• The river was in irrecoverable status
Du Man Gang
• Musan mining site, Hoeryung paper factories, Gasantun pulp factory in China dump mining waste water, bleaching chemical, sewer water
• River water was seriously polluted
• Serious impact on river water plants
Ap Rok Gang
• Industrial waste water and sewer from Hyesan, Junggang, Manpo, Shineuju of North Korea, and Jangbak, Namgang,
Jipan, Dandong of China is dumped into the river
• The quality of the water is under three degrees, not drinkable
Source: Hoe-Sung Chung, Buk Han eu Hwan Kyung Mun Je oa Nam Buk Hwan Kyung Hyup Ryok Chu Jin Bang
An (North Korean Environmental Problems and South-North Korean Environmental Cooperation), Environmental Technology Development Institute (1996)
pollution condition in major rivers of North Korea. The data reflect the conditions of the mid1990s. Since the economic situation of North Korea has remained in the same condition, it can be said that the water pollution in these rivers remains around the same level.
More specifically, 70% of the industrial facilities built in the 1960s and 1970s were not properly equipped with industrial waste water treatment facilities. The economic decline afterwards did not allow the North Korean government to invest sufficient resources for such treatment facilities.
Major industrial areas of North Korea
Industrial Area
Major Cities
Type of Industries
Water Resources
Pyungyang
Industrial Area
Pyungyang, Nampo,
Daean, Songrim,
Sariwon
Electricity and
Electronics,
Precision
Machinery, Steel,
Ship Building, Plate
Glass, Textile, Food
Dae Dong Gang
Chungjin Industrial Area
Chungjin, Najin,
Eunduk, Sunbong,
Nanam, Gomusan
Steel, Machinery,
Ship Building,
Chemical, Cement
Du Man Gang, Su Du Su
Hamheung
Industrial Area
Hamheung
Chemical, Fertilizer,
Smelting,
Machinery
Sung Chun Gang
Gimchack Industrial Area
Gimchack,
Danchun, Gilju
Steel, Chemical,
Smelting, Ship
Building,
Refractories, Pulp,
Paper, Plywood
Eo Rang Chun,
Gilju, Nam Dae
Chun
Wonsan Industrial Area
Wonsan, Munchun
Machinery, Ship
Building, Smelting,
Cement
Yong Heung Gang
Shineuju Industrial Area
Shineuju, Yongampo
Chemical Fiber,
Paper, Textile
Machinery, Ship
Building
Ap Rok Gang
Ganggye Industrial Area
Ganggye, Manpo, Hoechun, Junchun
Machine Tools,
Precision
Machinery, Military
Supplies
Ap Rok Gang, Dok Ro Gang
Anju Industrial Area
Anju, Gaechun,
Bakchun, Pihyun,
Bukchang, Sunchun
Oil Refining, Paper
Chung Chun Gang
Haeju Industrial Area
Haeju
Cement, Smelting, Fertilizer
Source: Korea Press Association, North Korea Yearbook, 2002, Chang Hee Lee, Mul Hwan Kyung Bun Ya Nam
Buk Hyup Ryuk Kwa Jae Mit Chu Jin Bang An (South-North Korean Cooperation in Water Environment and Policy Porposal), in Jang Min Chu, ed., Nam Buk Hwan Kyung Po Rum (South-North Environment Forum), Korean Environment Institute, Department of Environment, Department of Unification, 2007.
As a result, it is estimated that the water conditions of the rivers in the areas where the industrial enterprises are located continue to be serious. The table above shows those areas and the industrial facilities.
The estimated water pollution can be indirectly verified by North Korea’s own recognition of the problem. The government’s proposal and request to international organizations for cooperative environmental projects to handle water pollution problem shows that it, too, has concerns over its problems.
North Korea’s proposal of cooperative project list to the UNDP in 2005.
Title of Project
Concerned Government Department
River Water
Quality
Improvement
Project
Danchun Area Water Quality Improvement Project
Department of Environment Protection,
Department of Metal Machine Industry,
Danchun People’s Committee
Ap Rok Gang Area
Environment Management
Project
Department of Environment Protection, Pyunganbuk-Do People’s Committee
Water Quality Improvement
Project
Rasun People’s Committee
Chung Chun Gang Area Management Project
Department of Environment Protection,
Meteorology Bureau, Pyunganbuk-Do
People’s Committee
Major Port Sewer Treatment Capacity Enhancement Project
Department of City Management, Maritime Bureau, Department of Land and Maritime Transportation
Wonsan Area Consolidated
Environment Management
Project
Department of Environment Protection,
Meteorology Bureau, Wonsan People’s Committee
Dae Dong
Gang
Environment
Improvement
Project
Dae Dong Gang Area Management Project
Department of Environment Protection, Pyunganbuk-Do People’s Committee
Nampo Coastal Area
Consolidated Management
Pilot Project
Nampo City People’s Committee,
Department of Environment Protection,
Meteorology Bureau, Department of
Land and Maritime Transportation,
Department of Foreign Affairs
Comprehensive Soil and
Environment Project for the
Eco System of Dae Dong Gang Area
Department of Environment Protection,
Department of City Management,
Department of Land and Maritime
Transportation, Meteorology Bureau
Source: PEMSEA (Partnership in Environmental Management Seas of East Asia), 2005, Sustainable Development
Seas of East Asia. Chang Hee Lee, Mul Hwan Kyung Bun Ya Nam Buk Hyup Ryuk Kwa Jae Mit Chu Jin Bang An
(South-North Korean Cooperation in Water Environment and Policy Porposal), in Jang Min Chu, ed., Nam Buk Hwan Kyung Po Rum (South-North Environment Forum), Korean Environment Institute, Department of Environment, Department of Unification, 2007.
As mentioned earlier, North Korea does not have the resources to install treatment facilities. Although the information about the treatment of water on the national level is not available, it was reported that in Pyongyang, a sewer treatment facility with a daily treatment capacity of 300,000 tons was built in 1992. Yet, more than 50% of sewage is dumped into the river without treatment. Considering that Pyongyang, the capital city of North Korea, is a truly special city in North Korea, the water problem in other areas can only be worse.
As an interim conclusion, the water condition of North Korea can be summarized as follows. First, North Korean water pollution has been serious in big cities and major industrial sites because they do not have waste water and sewer treatment facilities. Second, the current water pollution which has been kept in certain large residential and industrial areas could be spread as the economy recovers and grows. Third, based on these reasons, the future unified Korea’s water pollution issue will be handled in the context of urbanization and industrial restructuring.
Deforestation Problem
North Korea has used firewood for heating since in the late 1940s. In those days, the government promoted reforestation to make up for the loss of forest for firewood. After the collapse of communist regimes and the ensuing extreme economic difficulties, the North Korean government could not assign resources to protect forests while the people destroyed them to survive. The production of coal decreased by 40% and oil imports fell by 60% between 1990 and 1996. The overall energy supply from 1990 to 2000 shrank by 30%. The production of firewood for heating has increased from 300 million m3 to 720 million m3. One record shows that the forest in North Korea shrank by 1.6 million km2 in 1997 from 9.16 million km2 in 1970. Faced with energy shortage, people cut down trees from mountains and burnt them for heating.[11]
The shortage of food also worsened deforestation in North Korea. The government has promoted the cultivation of hills and mountains to increase the production of food, which in the North they call Da Rak Bat. Until 1985, North Korea cultivated 1600 km2 of hills and slopes into arable land for crops and vegetables. In order to cultivate those hills and slopes, the forests of the land were removed.
To respond to the shortage of food, the state also allowed individual households to have their own private vegetable gardens. The products of the garden could either be for personal consumption or sold for money. The gardens expanded from 30-600 m2 per household to 6000 m2 recently. People desire to cultivate these vegetable gardens because they take all they harvest from the garden and sell the leftovers in the market. They cut trees to expand the vegetable gardens.
The deforestation caused severe runoff during 1996 and 1998, when surface soil caused landslides and flooding.
The Environmental Issues of a Unified Korea
In order for a discussion of a unified Korea’s environmental issues, a brief review of unified Germany’s environmental measures in the former East German area will be useful, because unlike other communist countries in the region, West Germany made huge investments for environmental cleanup and improvement in the area. Therefore, if we handle North Korean environmental problems in the unified Korean context, former East Germany’s case will be relevant to our case.
East Germany’s Experience
If the Korean Peninsula is unified, it will be in a similar position with similar environmental tasks which West Germany had in relation to the East German area environmental problems.
Regarding the objectives of resolving the environmental degradation of East Germany, there were two ideas in unified Germany. The first was to improve the environment of the area by injecting West Germany’s technologies and capital to the level of West Germany’s environment. The second idea, a more fundamental approach, was to restructure the area based on the principle of ‘highest priority on the ecological interest’ and to create a model ecological area in Europe. Germany chose the former which was written in the treaty between the two Germanys. The decision was to equalize the environmental condition between two Germanys.
The German government took various measures to cleanup and to improve the environmental condition of the area. They were: the replacement of water supply system to prevent leakage and contamination of water; the replacement and the repair of sewer system; the establishment of waste collection and processing facilities; the replacement of old, polluting machines and equipments with new, advanced, pollution reducing ones; the substitution of brown coal with clean energy such as oil and gas; and the shutdown of most polluting factories and severely contaminated dumping site. Those measures focused on removing existing pollution or reducing emissions. Those provisional, responsive measures incurred more than 200 billion Deutsch Mark for 10 years after unification.
As a result, 5 years after unification, the emission of sulfur dioxide lessened by 65% and particulate matter by 90%. The over-ten thousand waste sites were reduced to 300. The water quality of most of the rivers improved to first or second degree after 10 years of investment. Between 1991 and 1997, 153 large water treatment systems were established to remove the risk of drinking contaminated water.
The German government’s efforts improved the environmental condition substantially. Those measures, however, have some limitations. First, it was designed to address the cleanup of pollution and contamination of water and air pollution by removing the sources of contamination and pollution, by establishing water treatment facilities, and by closing contaminating facilities and waste sites. Germany only addressed the issues immediate to the people such as water, air, soil, and so forth, to comply with the stated policy goal of equalizing the environmental condition between two Germanys.
The second problem is the other side of the first problem. The German government did not use the opportunity to thoroughly restructure the Eastern part of its land when it could. When East Germany collapsed and West Germany took it over, the West had the freedom to rebuild the East. This type of opportunity does not come often. Instead of laying the ecological foundation in the East, West Germany focused only on removing contamination and pollution from the air, water, and soil. If the government had introduced ecological concepts in its industry, energy, and transportation policies while rebuilding the Eastern part, its over 200 billion mark investment for the environment could have had bigger, long-lasting effects.
The third point was that the German government was so busy removing pollution and contamination in East Germany that it neglected East Germany’s environmental assets. Former East Germany’s low level of urbanization, energy saving public transportation system, and recycling system could have been utilized as a social and industrial policy with positive environmental effects. Unified Germany failed to save East Germany’s assets in policy-making.
Unified Korea’s Environmental Issues
Although accurate prediction of the environmental situation of a unified Korea is not possible, a rough description of what is likely happen in the unified Korea may be possible based on the combination of what happened in former communist countries and the environmental situation in North Korea, both past and present. Having reviewed North Korean and other former communist countries’ environmental problems, it is pretty certain that a unified Korea will have some environmental problems which will require an immediate response. The unified Korea’s policy responses could be divided into two categories based on how to approach this matter.
The first category is Korea’s measures geared to removing or stopping of existing pollution and contamination. This is similar to Germany’s policy in regards to East Germany. In the area of air pollution, a basic, immediate, responsive measure is to close pollution emitting facilities or install pollution-reducing equipment in those facilities. When unified Germany provided those technologies, equipments, and new machines, it reduced the air pollution substantially. The reducing of air pollution will be the first and basic component of the unified Korea’s policy to North Korea’s environmental problem.
One of the most important causes of North Korean air pollution is its dependence on coal and other pollution emitting energy sources. If Korea supplies cleaner energy such as oil and gas and closes coal burning power plants, it will contribute greatly to the air quality of the northern half. These two measures, however, will incur huge costs to unified Korea. Therefore, it should be considered as a part of a comprehensive, restructuring plan for the North Korean economy.
In terms of energy supply in the North, the lack of sufficient energy may be a more pressing issue than the supply of cleaner energy. In North Korea, the energy supply has been reduced by more than 30% from its peak in the late 1980s. Since a decline in energy consumption contributed to a slight improvement of air quality, an increase in energy consumption will restore pollution to the previous levels.
Considering the expenses involved in supplying cleaner energy, it may be inevitable for the time being to continue to use the current polluting energy mix, more or less. In addition, the replacement of existing facilities or equipment, or the installation of emission reduction equipment will also require the disbursing of a large amount of expenses. Therefore, these fundamental measures should be considered in the context of North Korean economic restructuring. This will be revisited in the second category.
The management of water resources requires policy measures in several areas. The first measure is to keep water sources clean. Unified Korea must preserve rivers, lakes, and reservoirs from contamination. It must survey water sources and manage the potential polluters. In addition, a close monitoring of the quality of water is necessary. The second policy measure is the treatment of sewer and industrial waste water. Particularly, waste water treatment facilities in the industrial sites and large population areas are necessary to keep the water sources clean. A third measure is to replace existing water supply systems to supply cleaner drinking water. More than two thirds of the supplied water in North Korea leaks into the ground before it reaches the consumer.
The restoration of forests is another matter that belongs to this category. It will be discussed under the second category together with the preservation of the natural environment.
The second category is to reorganize the entire North Korean economy and society along the lines of sustainable development or environment protection principles in the long-term perspective. This idea is consistent with the second position of unified Germany’s policy option.
The first issue is restructuring North Korean industry. North Korea’s extensive industrialization based on Self Reliance (Juche) ideology has been the source of air and water pollution in North Korean industrial areas. However, only about 30% of North Korean industry has been operating since the collapse of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. This poses several challenges for a unified Korea. If these industrial facilities stay abandoned for the next several years, they will become industrial waste which is another big cleanup job.
One must also consider the extent to which existing industrial facilities will be used during the transition period or thereafter. One of the biggest issues of the transition will be how to maintain employment in North Korea. The easiest way is to utilize the existing industrial facilities. Utilizing current facilities will bring serious environmental consequences.
Another related matter is the industrial consolidation of South Korea and North Korea. Once the two Koreas become one country, their economy should become one. When one considers the consolidation of the industry of North Korea with the industry of South Korea, he will naturally view it in terms of the industrial division of labor between South Korea and North Korea. When an ordinary policy-maker, without any environment protection ideas, draws a plan of the industrial restructuring of North Korea, he is very likely to transfer South Korea’s low level, environmental hazardous industry to North Korea under the concept of comparative advantage, specialization, or hierarchical division of labor. If this happens without balancing environmental measures, it is certain to bring negative consequences to the environment.
The second issue is the planning for urbanization. In North Korean, a rapid urbanization could take place once the current strict restrictions on residency are removed. Every individual and household is organized and controlled by the Labor Party and the government. The most important element of this organization and control is the strict restriction of residency. They divide the Pyongyang residents and those of other areas and rule with a different benefit dispersion system. When the current North Korean government or regime is removed, it is likely for the people in North Korea to have strong incentives to move to other areas for better benefits or opportunities. In addition, once the economic recovery is underway, the major industrial areas which were identified above will have strong incentives to absorb people. As the populace migrates toward the metropolises, urbanization will advance very rapidly. The explosion of suppressed consumption of basic necessities will create waste and sewer problems, which will in turn contaminate water and soil.
The third issue will be transportation. As we have seen in former East European communist countries, after the collapse of communism, the number of automobiles increased while public transportation and railway systems declined. A market system tends to favor cars over railways because of their ability to serve the individual needs of each consumer. Those consumers exhibited a tendency to import cheaper cars without catalytic converters which emit more pollutants.
The fourth issue will be energy. When the current North Korean regime ends and economic recovery is underway with the current energy mix, it will be an environmental disaster. 70% low quality coal plus 5% firewood emits enormous measures of carbon and other pollutants. Once the economic recovery is started, economic activities will easily double and triple with pollutants increasing at the same rate. Coal burning power plants should be shut down or renovated. Providing clean energy such as oil and gas is another matter which requires prior planning.
The fifth issue will be restoration of the forests. This issue is closely related to the energy and food issues. Unless these issues are addressed properly, restoring the lost forest will be much more difficult. Kangwon-Do and numerous civilian organizations and groups have been providing assistance to restore forests in North Korea. The preservation and development of natural environmental protection areas is another specific issue. North Korea has numerous beautiful natural environmental protection areas such as Keumgang-San (Keunmgang Mountain) and Baekdu-San Baekdu Mountain) as well as the DMZ area. Once the communist North Korean regime is removed, however, an irresistible pressure to develop these areas for commercial tourism will mount. The development of these natural environmental sites for commercial tourism without ecological planning will only destroy these valuable assets. The concepts of ecotourism, which never takes more tourists than it can accommodate, and in which the profits must be returned for preservation, must be the guiding principles.
Conclusion
The above five issues are substantive issues for each area of environmental protection. As a conclusion, the following two suggestions could be put forth on ‘how to’ address North Korean environmental issues as a supplement to the above-provided substantive issues.The first is related to the nature of an environmental issue which does not have a strong constituency in a society. Traditional values such as economy, defense, and education are always assumed preeminent. No one in a society disputes that these traditional values are important, and while the environmental issue may be important, it is not as urgent as other matters. The result is that an environmentalist or a policy-maker has to always fight against other traditional values for limited funds and attention.
After unification, providing food, jobs, shelter, and education for the North Koreans may take higher priority than nature. Therefore, if the above-mentioned issues are addressed separately and individually by individual departments or policy-makers, it might be difficult to restore, protect, or preserve the environment in North Korea. This is particularly so because the second category issues, the sustainable development concepts or environmentally sound economic structures, could receive only lip service and rhetorical support while subordinated to other values. One way to overcome this problem is to draw up a master plan for restructuring North Korea in an ecological way or according to sustainable development concepts. The master plan itself must be an ecological plan with environmental considerations as an integral part.
Secondly, in this sense, it is worth trying to draw up a master plan based on the current South Korean government’s ‘Green Growth Policy’ which President Lee proposed two years ago. Some might regard it as just a political slogan. However, the concept can also be taken as a serious approach to the restructuring of North Korea. Simply speaking, as an industrial policy, it focuses on economically profitable and environmentally sound industry. For example, if a unified Korea focuses on the waste water treatment facilities as its industrial policy, it could help to resolve North Korean water pollution problems and it could export its facilities and technologies to other countries which have similar problems during its industrialization.
If the Korean peninsula is unified, it will give us a rare opportunity to build an almost-new society in the northern half of Korea. If we successfully build a new society based on sound environmental principles, it will become a source of dynamism that will lead the entire Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia into an era of eco-friendly common prosperity. However, this is not guaranteed simply because in order to secure resources for investment for the environment, one has to compete against other social purposes which have much stronger constituencies in the same society.
[1] Stanley J. Kabala, “The Environmental Morass in Eastern Europe,” Current History, Nov. 1991, 90-559, p. 384. 2 Ronald A. Taylor, “Eastern Europe: The World’s Greatest Polluter,” Europe, October 1990, No. 300, p. 18.
[2] Gordon Hughes, “Cleaning Up Eastern Europe,” Finance & Development, Sep. 1992, 29-3, p.17 graph.
[3] Mi-Hwa Kang, Gu Dong Dok u Hwan Kyung Mun Je ua Tong Il I Hu u Byun Hwa, (Environmental Problem of former East Germany and its Changes after the Unification), p. 20.
[4] Gordon Hughes, “Cleaning Up Eastern Europe,” Finance & Development, Sep. 1992, 29-3, p.17 graph.
[5] Stanley J. Kabala, “The Environmental Morass in Eastern Europe,” Current History, Nov. 1991, 90-559, p. 386.
[6] Petr Pavlinek and John Pickles, Environmental Transitions: Transformation and Ecological Defence in Central and Eastern Europe, Routledge (London & New York, 2000), pp, 245.
[7] Petr Pavlinek and John Pickles, Environmental Transitions: Transformation and Ecological Defence in Central and Eastern Europe, Routledge (London & New York, 2000), pp, 245-246.
[8] Petr Pavlinek and John Pickles, Environmental Transitions: Transformation and Ecological Defence in Central and Eastern Europe, Routledge (London & New York, 2000), pp, 250.
[9] Petr Pavlinek and John Pickles, Environmental Transitions: Transformation and Ecological Defence in Central and Eastern Europe, Routledge (London & New York, 2000), pp, 253.
[10] Ki Woong Son, Kwang Kyu Kang, Kyung Sool Kim, Nam Buk Hwan Kyung • “Ye No Ji Hyup Ryuk Yon Gu (Research on the Sout-North Korea Environment•Energy Cooperation),” Korea Institute for National Unification, Korea Environment Institute, Korea Energy Economics Institute (2002), p. 56.
[11] Dong Kyun Park, “Buk Han eu San Rim Dong Hyang Gua Kuk Nae Oe Ji Won Sil Tae Mit Hyup Ryuk Bank An
(Current North Korean forest condition, South Korea and International Assistance and Proposal for South-North Cooperation)” in Jang Min Chu, ed., Nam Buk Hwan Kyung Po Rum (South-North Environment Forum), Korean Environment Institute, Department of Environment, Department of Unification, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment