Associated Press

Although it remains one of the world’s most implacably closed societies, North Korea has become more open to gingerly discussing its environmental problems in recent years in the hope of finding solutions.

The country’s current environmental crisis began in the 1950s during the Korean War, when forest fires swept through the country. Although reforestation efforts were made afterward, widespread famine in the 1990s led people to harvest recovering forests for fuel and food. This denuding of the landscape has led to desertification, soil erosion, nutrient depletion and epidemics of pests that further contribute to the country’s food insecurity.

This month North Korea invited 14 scientists from eight countries to take part in an unprecedented conference in Pyongyang, the capital, to assess the state of the country’s environment and to share strategies on restoration and improving food security. About 75 North Korean scientists and officials also took part in the gathering, which was sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in collaboration with the Pyongyang International Information Center for New Technology and the Environmental Education Media Project in China.

Presentations focused on agroforestry, reforestation, soil rehabilitation and climate change mitigation. After the conference, the visitors were taken on a tour of the capital and then to various farms in the south.

We spoke this week with Margaret Palmer, executive director of the Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center at the University of Maryland, one of three delegates who traveled to North Korea from the United States. Dr. Palmer, who specializes in waterway restoration, described the barriers that she and other scientists faced in trying to question North Korean scientists, and field trips on which she witnessed relatively primitive agricultural practices. Following are excerpts from the interview, edited for brevity and clarity.

Q.

Q. What is the state of the environment in North Korea, and what are the current efforts to address the issues?

SeCynC

A.

It’s hard to know exactly. One of the most obvious problems, though, is the massive deforestation that happened during the height of the ongoing famine, back in the 1990s. Pretty much everything was cut down for firewood or food — people resorted to eating bark. It’s a depressing landscape, especially this time of year. Everything is just mud and everything is being farmed, or attempted to be farmed. But their ability to produce food is being dramatically compromised by a cascade of effects caused by deforestation.

There’s massive soil erosion, and the organic and mineral content of the soil has been dramatically reduced, as has the water-holding capacity of the soil, leading to drought conditions. Consequently there is a national reforestation program that mandates that every citizen spend one month every year planting trees. But that is pretty much the extent of the sophistication of restoration efforts — just trying to get trees in the ground.



Q.

How did the conference differ from one that might be held in the United States or Europe?

A.

I think one of the biggest differences was that we weren’t allowed to talk informally with the scientists. We were escorted to separate rooms during coffee breaks and there was no time to casually chat and ask questions. Also, at the beginning of every North Korean presentation, the scientist would start by paying a tribute to the great leader, saying that this research was being done because he had identified the importance of environmental health.

The presentations also lacked a lot of data and graphics; it was mostly just words projected on the screen and a lot of qualitative information. The presentations were almost exclusively about how to promote agriculture. Some of the scientists threw around catch phrases like carbon sequestration, but when you would ask them more about it, they would respond with a comment that had nothing to do with the question. It felt like they had a sense of the direction of the scientific community in the rest of the world but that they lacked the technology and understanding to implement any of it.

Q.

What was the most interesting presentation?

A.

I was most interested by a very frank and sophisticated presentation on climate change that showed how extensive deforestation has exacerbated the problem. The data indicated that the average temperature in North Korea had increased by almost 2 degrees Celsius, while globally the average increase over the same period was only about 0.7 degrees. The problem was also clearly worse in the north, where deforestation has been the most severe.

Q.

I understand that after the conference you spent several days on field trips around the country. What did you see?

A.

Well, the field trips weren’t quite what we expected, either. None of the North Korean scientists came with us, and most of the sites we were taken to had nothing to do with the environment. We spent hours at a museum dedicated to the president, being shown gifts that had been given to him.

“When I asked about the condition of the waterways, I was told that there was no pollution in North Korea.” — Margaret Palmer,

director, National

Socio-Environmental

Synthesis Center

We were taken to two sites that were somewhat relevant. One was a tree nursery where they were growing little trees for propagation. The manager of the nursery who showed us around spent most of his time talking about when and how many times the great leader or the general had visited. Basically it looked like any tree nursery you would see anywhere.

The other site was a model farm. But again, we spent most of the visit being shown around a small museum documenting all the times the great leader or general had visited. There were pictures of him holding handfuls of grain and other pictures showing beautiful landscapes, but when you went outside and looked around, we all just thought it was quite a sad little farm.

After that visit we were driven to a tower where you could look out across the farmland. It was just a lot of flat mud. And everything was done by hand. I counted three tractors during the entire time I was there, and most of them looked like they were from the 1950’s. There were a few oxen pulling carts, but mostly it was just people squatting in the fields digging by hand. There were also people in the zero-degree weather wading out into the rivers to scoop out the mineral-rich sediments to use as fertilizers on their fields.

I noticed that the fields also reached right down to the edge of the rivers, but when I asked about the condition of the waterways, I was told that there was no pollution in North Korea. The other thing that really stood out to me was the complete lack of wildlife. Whenever someone saw a bird, we’d point it out to each other excitedly. They were that rare.

Q.

What are the prospects for ecological restoration in North Korea in the future?

A.

After seeing how aquatic issues were being overlooked, I was very excited to organize a conference on watershed restoration and on understanding watersheds as a unit. I have the funding through the University of Maryland to support travel for the North Korean scientists; I made formal invitations and essentially learned that there was interest in such a conference — but really only if it was held in Europe, not the U.S., which would be tricky: “Yes, we want the U.S. funding, but could we do it in Europe?”

I’m still working on it, but it’s frustrating. Science should be a place of common ground, somewhere where we all talk the same language — that is, when we’re allowed to talk.