Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Trend and Affecting Factors of Ecological Deficit in North Korea

북한의 생태적자 추이 및 영향요인 분석

  • Yeo, Min Ju (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Kim, Yong Pyo (Department of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science, Ewha Womans University)
  • 여민주 (이화여자대학교 환경공학과) ;
  • 김용표 (이화여자대학교 화학신소재공학과)
  • Received : 2017.11.07
  • Accepted : 2017.12.22
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

North Korea has been in ecologically deficit state since 1966, despite of lack of energy and food resources. Trends of the Biocapacity (BC), the Ecological Footprint (EF), and the Ecological Deficit (ED) of North Korea were shown and five factors influencing on the Overshoot Rate (OSR) which is the ratio of the BC and the EF in North Korea was analyzed in this study. The five factors consist of two factors affecting to the EF and three factors affecting to the BC in North Korea. Two of the five factors are affecting to the EF those are population, the EF per capita (EFPC) which indicates the individual environmental consumption intensity, and three are affecting to the BC those are the land area, the yield factor, and the value multiplying the equivalence factor and the intertemporal yield factor. The EF has contributed more than the BC to the OSR. From 1966 to mid-1990s, the EFPC was the most contributing factor at about 60%, and after mid-1990s, population at about 40~60%. Contribution ratio of land area and the yield factor have increased after mid-1990s up to 15% and 18%, respectively. The BC of cropland which has decreased due to a decrease in productivity. In order to reduce the ED of North Korea, improvement of productivity of cropland and restoration of forest. Forest area has decreased significantly since 1990 in NK. And ways to solve the food shortage problem which influences on decrease of both productivity of cropland and forest area.

북한은 환경자원 소비가 충분하지 못함에도 불구하고 생태발자국이 생태수용력보다 큰 생태적자 상태이다. 본 연구에서는 북한의 생태수용력과 생태발자국, 생태적자 추이를 살펴보고, 생태발자국과 생태수용력의 비를 의미하는 오버슈트 비율에 영향을 준 5개 요인의 기여도를 살펴보았다. 5개 요인은 생태발자국을 구성하는 인구와 개인의 환경자원 소비강도를 의미하는 일인당 생태발자국, 생태수용력을 구성하는 토지면적, 생산성인자, 그리고 토지면적과 생산성인자를 제외하고 생태수용력에 영향을 주는 요인(등가인자와 연간생산성인자 변화율의 곱)이다. 북한의 생태적자는 생태수용력보다 생태발자국을 구성하는 요인에 의한 기여가 높았다. 생태적자는 1966년에 시작되었는데, 이 시점부터 1990년대 중반까지는 일인당 생태발자국 값이 오버슈트 비율에 기여하는 비율이 60% 전후로 가장 높았고, 1990년대 중반 이후에는 인구에 의한 기여도가 40~60%로 가장 높았다. 토지면적과 생산성인자에 의한 기여도도 1990년대 중반 이후 높아져서 토지면적은 최대 15%, 생산성인자는 최대 18%까지 증가하였다. 생태수용력과 생태발자국 모두에서 높은 비중을 차지한 경작지 부문의 경우, 면적이 증가했음에도 불구하고 생산성이 줄어들어 생태수용력이 감소하였다. 북한의 생태적자를 줄이기 위해서는 1990년 이후 눈에 띄게 줄어들고 있는 산림면적을 이전 수준으로 복구하고, 경작지의 생산성을 높이기 위한 방안을 마련해야 할 것이다. 또한 근본적으로 북한 주민의 빈곤을 해결할 수 있는 식량 지원 방안, 자연재해에 대한 취약성을 극복할 수 있는 방안도 함께 마련되어야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. BOK (Bank Of Korea). 2014. Understanding the North Korean economy through statistics. Seoul. [Korean Literature]
  2. BOK (Bank Of Korea). 2017. Estimation of North Korean Economic Growth Rate in 2016. Seoul. [Korean Literature]
  3. Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K, Larson L, Lazarous E, Morales JC, Wackernagel M, Galli A. 2013. Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts' underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24: 518-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
  4. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2014. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 country report: Dem People's Rep of Korea. Rome.
  5. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2017. Low-Income Food- Deficit Countries (LIFDC) - List for 2016. [cited 2017 November 01]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc/en/.
  6. GFN (Global Footprint Network). 2016a. Working guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts: 2016. Oakland.
  7. GFN (Global Footprint Network). 2016b. National Footprint Accounts: Korea, Democratic People's Republic of, 2016 Edition. Oakland.
  8. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2016. World: Indicators for 2014 - TPES/population. [cited 2016 March 11]. Available from: http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearc h/report/?country=WORLD&product=ind icators&year=2014.
  9. KEEI (Korea Energy Economics Institute). 2013. Study on the energy consumption behaviors of the household, commerce, and public sectors in North Korea. Gyeonggi. [Korean Literature]
  10. KEI (Korea Environment Institute). 2007. Comparison of environmental legal systems in South and North Korea. Seoul. [Korean Literature]
  11. KIEP (Korea Institute for International Economic Policy). 2012. Environmental problem of North Korea and the international support measures. KIEP Regional Economic Focus. 6(38). [Korean Literature]
  12. Kim KM. 2017. Deforestation change detection in North Korea between 1999 and 2008 using multi temporal satellite image. [GC21B- 0950] presented at 2017 Fall Meeting. AGU. New Orleans. LA. 11-15 Dec.
  13. Kim YH. 2013. Foucault and the Political Economy of the North Korean Body Dwarfishness. Ingan Sarang Publishing. Seoul, 19-22 pp. [Korean Literature]
  14. Kim IS, Lee JY, Kim YP. 2013. Impact of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions from North Korea to the Air Quality in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea. Atmospheric Environment. 70: 159-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.12.040
  15. Kim NK, Kim YP, Morino Y, Kurokawa JI, Ohara T. 2014. Verification of NOx emission inventory over North Korea. Environmental Pollution. 195: 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.06.034
  16. KINU (Korea Institute for National Unification). 2011. Quality of life of North Korean people: Status and recognition. Seoul. [Korean Literature]
  17. KMOE (Korea Ministry of Environment). 1999. 1999 White paper of environment. Seoul. [Korean Literature]
  18. KOSTAT (Statistics Korea). 2016a. Total primary energy supply and total primary energy supply by sector: South Korea and North Korea. [cited 2016 February 23]. Available from: http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1ZGA72&conn_ path=I3. [Korean Literature]
  19. KOSTAT (Statistics Korea). 2016b. Population estimate and projection (1993-2055): North Korea. [cited 2016 March 11]. Available from: http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_IZGA01_001& conn_path=I3. [Korean Literature]
  20. KREI (Korea Rural Economic Institute). 2006. North Korea's fertilizer supply trend and implications. Seoul. [Korean Literature]
  21. KREI (Korea Rural Economic Institute). 2013. Status and policy of forest in North Korea. Quarterly Agricultural Trends in North Korea, 15(3) Focus. Seoul. [Korean Literature]
  22. KREI (Korea Rural Economic Institute). 2014. The Strategy of the Restoration and Conservation of Deforested and Degraded Mountainous Areas in North Korea. Seoul. [Korean Literature]
  23. NCCE (National Coordinating Committee for Environment). 2012. DPR Korea's Second National Communication on Climate Change. Pyongyang.
  24. NIER (National Institute of Environmental Research), NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2017. KORUSAQ rapid science synthesis report. Seoul.
  25. Radio Free Asia (RFA). 2010. [Lancoff column] Forest farmland and land reform. [cited 2017 December 12]. http://www.rfa.org/ korean/commentary/lankov/cu-al-12232010095145.html. [Korean Literature]
  26. STEPI (Science and Technology Policy Institute). 2014a. A Study on the current state of environment technology in North Korea for S&T cooperation methods between South-North Korea. Sejong. [Korean Literature]
  27. STEPI (Science and Technology Policy Institute). 2014b. Cooperation in environmental science and technology between South Korea and North Korea for unification. STEPI Insight, 144, Sejong. [Korean Literature]
  28. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2003. DPR Korea: State of the Environment 2003. Thailand.
  29. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2012. Democratic People's Republic of Korea Environment and Climate Change Outlook - Project Proposals. Pyongyang.
  30. Yeo MJ, Kim YP. 2014. Trend and prediction of the ecological footprint in Korea. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment. 23(5): 364-378. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2014.23.5.364
  31. Yeo MJ, Kim YP. 2016. Trend and Prediction of Environmental Resources Consumption in the Korean Peninsula. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment. 25(4): 261-279. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2016.25.4.261
  32. Yeo MJ, Kim YP. 2018. Electricity supply trend and operating statuses of coal-fired power plants in North Korea, using the facility specific data produced by North Korea: Characterization and recommendation. Submitted.
  33. Watts N, Amann M, Ayeb-Karlsson S et al. 2017. The Lancet countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health. The Lancet. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32464-9.
  34. WHO (World Health Organization). 2017. World health statistics 2017: monitoring health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva, Switzerland.
  35. World Bank. 2017. World Bank Analytical Classifications. [cited 2017 November 01]. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/378834-how-does-the-world-bank-classifycountries.