In July 2000, a choreographed campaign to save the wetlands.
Widespread protests led to the cancellation of a dam project on the Dong River in
2000.
|
Choi
Yul: Nerves of Steel
His colleagues
call him “a man of steel,” an apt description for a 51-year-old activist who has
gone through many a battle for his ideals. During his university days, Choi Yul strongly
opposed the military regime and was eventually thrown into prison, where he suffered
repeated torture and beatings. Even after his release, he was kept under house arrest
and all his activities were closely monitored. “In fact, the government did not allow
me to travel abroad to participate in any environmental conference until 1987,” recalls
Yul.
Yul’s talent lies in convincing his countrymen to join the struggle against pollution.
In 1993 his movement merged with seven other similar organizations from different
parts of the country to form the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM),
which has grown into one of Asia’s largest environmental organizations, with 47 regional
branches and 85,000 individual memberships. Yul is one of the most decorated environmentalists
in the region. He was the 1994 laureate of UNEP’s Global Environmental Award and
of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Award the following year. Despite his many
breakthroughs, Yul’s mission is far from accomplished. “Since Koreans have been addicted
to economic prosperity for years, creating an environmental consciousness still remains
a major challenge for activists,” says Yul, described by the Korean media as one
of the country’s most influential opinion-makers. If this is the case, then a change
of mind may well be in the making.
|
Environment
could be a cornerstone for beginning negotiations between the two Koreas
Totem poles to protect coastal tidal flats. |
Choi
Yul spent his prison years strengthening his grasp of environmental problems. Today,
the country’s leading green activist is rallying the South Korean people against
polluting industries. Together, they have scored victories against both national
and foreign governments
South Korea has witnessed
impressive industrial and economic growth in the last two decades. What impact has
this had on the environment?
There is no doubt that the economic boom turned South Korea into one of Asia’s
fastest-growing economies, bringing people prosperity. But little attention was paid
to the damaging effects of rapid industrialization on the environment because people
were desperate to fill their stomachs. Today, the country is paying a heavy price
for this.
Harmful emissions from industries have created high air pollution levels, resulting
in acid rain in our industrial zones. Our major water reservoirs have become acidified,
making them unfit for human consumption. The government has been taking measures1
to control industrial pollution but automobile emissions have become another major
source of contamination. For example, in the capital Seoul, 60 percent of air pollutants
come from motor vehicle emissions.
Then there is the issue of nuclear power: to meet the industry’s growing energy demands,
the government plans to build more nuclear power plants in the coming years. This
is a major concern because we already have 16 nuclear reactors generating over 40
percent of the country’s electricity, and some of them have a very poor safety record.
Any mishap could spell a disaster not only for South Korea but for the whole region.
Are Koreans ready for a more environmentally friendly lifestyle?
There has definitely been a shift. Twenty years ago, people were not aware of
environmental problems. Raising the subject of pollution in public was considered
as an anti-government, anti-development attitude. The military regime of the time
suppressed all forms of civil society activities. However, after the success of the
1987 June democracy struggle, the influence of environmental groups has increased
significantly.
We should be clear about what kind of prosperity we want–a healthy lifestyle with
modest resources or polluted surroundings with more wealth. Our current way of life
is influenced by western culture with its wasteful habits. I am confident that if
people realize the damages they are causing to their environment, they will be willing
to change their attitude and the government will follow
suit.
Also, if South Korea does not meet global environmental regulations, it will lose
its economic competitiveness. Foreign investors will shy away if the country gets
increasingly polluted. If the present trend continues, the government will be forced
to pump in billions of dollars to clean up the environmental mess. Korea has gone
beyond the stage when it could achieve growth only by sacrificing environmental quality.
Protecting the environment is the most economically efficient way of achieving social
well-being, far more than building more polluting industries to generate wealth.
How did you get involved in environmental activism and what kinds of difficulties
have you run into?
In the 1970s, we were living under a repressive military government and I was
organizing democratic movements with other students in my university. I was imprisoned
in 1975 for my activism and spent a total of six years in prison (see box). While
in solitary confinement, I asked Amnesty International and other civic groups to
send me environmental books from overseas because such texts were not viewed as “political”
by prison authorities. I ended up reading more than 250 books on global environmental
issues and I realized that South Korea’s rapid industrialization process would soon
lead the country towards an ecological disaster.
After my release, with support from several youth and pro-democracy activists, I
founded the country’s first environmental NGO, the Korean Research Institute of Environmental
Problems, in 1982. The government regarded it as an illegal entity and demanded that
the association be disbanded. But I was not deterred. We fought against the government’s
attempts to construct nuclear waste storage sites, the dust contamination from coal
briquette plants, the spoiling of mountains to make golf courses, and the reclamation
of coastal tidal-flats.
One of our first campaigns was to highlight environmental hazards in the Onsan industrial
complex, known for its non-ferrous metals industry, in 1984. Our investigations revealed
that levels of heavy metals like copper, zinc and cadmium in water and other living
beings were between 10 and 100 times higher than in other areas. Nearly 10 percent
of the local people had severe pollution-related health problems like sore limbs,
sore eyes and serious skin diseases. But when we launched the campaign, it was very
hard to convince people about the problems while local doctors and biochemists rejected
my requests to scientifically prove them. I then invited the Japanese doctor Harada
Masazumi–who had previously identified industrial pollution as the cause of Minamata
disease2–to visit Onsan. He described the disease in the region as a complicated
pollution-related illness far worse than Minamata. His findings were given wide media
coverage in South Korea, turning the subject into a major social issue. The government
belatedly organized an investigation team and implemented measures, including moving
residents of the area to safer regions.
The Korean Federation for Environmental Movement, which you lead, also campaigns
against nuclear power plants. Why?
When nuclear power plants started spreading in the 1950s, the nuclear industry
argued that they were safe and clean. I also believed this propaganda. After looking
at the disastrous accidents in Chernobyl, it is clear that there is no remedy for
nuclear radiation. Scientists say people will continue to be affected for generations.
Then there is the problem of safe disposal of nuclear waste for which South Korea,
like other countries, is struggling to find a solution. There is currently no plan
for long-term storage or reprocessing of the spent nuclear fuel.
Also, the risk of a nuclear fallout is greater in a country where there is a repressive
or authoritarian government in power. If you look at global trends, more and more
nuclear reactors are cropping up in developing countries with authoritarian regimes.
I am worried that the possibility of a catastrophe is greater in these nations.
In South Korea, we are more concerned about nuclear-related problems because all
our neighbours–China, North Korea, Taiwan and Japan–operate nuclear power plants.
If an accident happens in any of these countries, all of them will face the consequences.
Furthermore, Russia has been using its Far Eastern coast to dump its radioactive
material. So the threat of a nuclear mishap is much higher in the Far East than in
other regions. The 1999 nuclear accident in the Tokaimura plant in Japan, which killed
two workers and exposed hundreds of local residents, is a stark reminder that even
rich countries cannot vouch for the safety of their nuclear reactors.
What is the situation of nuclear power plants in South Korea?
The safety system is not satisfactory. Though there are no reports of major accidents,
almost all 16 of them have faced technical problems leading to radioactive leakage,
which the nuclear industry tried to cover up. Some of the power stations operate
the old model CANDU reactors. In October 1999, there was a heavy water leakage in
the Wolsong nuclear plant: it was reported that 22 workers were exposed to radiation
when 12 gallons of radioactive water leaked from a reactor. Some of the workers involved
in salvage operations were also exposed to radiation.
KFEM organized a team to investigate this affair. When we entered the nuclear plant,
officials gave us protective clothing before going near the accident site. When we
came out of the area, detection equipment showed that we had received radiation.
Though it was not life-threatening, the fact is that even an outside inspection team
was given faulty protective gear. This allows you to imagine the condition of workers
inside the plant.
While developed countries show a trend towards reduced dependence on nuclear energy,
South Korea is taking the opposite course. The government plans to increase the number
of nuclear plants to 35 by the year 2030. It has no major plans to develop renewable
energy, which accounts for less than one percent of energy produced in the country.
South Korea cannot shut down all its nuclear reactors immediately. But KFEM is firmly
against building new reactors and we insist on stringent safety measures for the
existing stations. At the same time, the key to phasing out nuclear power plants
is to change our industrial structure towards less energy consuming industries. It
also means making people aware that alternatives exist. KFEM, for example, recently
showed off a housing model using solar and wind energy, and received positive public
feedback. I am confident that once people become convinced of the potential of alternative
energy sources, they will agree to the idea of closing down nuclear power plants.
KFEM’s successful campaigns against proposals to build a nuclear waste dump on Gulup
Island in South Korea and Taiwan’s plans to transport nuclear waste to North Korea
hit international headlines a few years ago.
The campaign against the construction of a nuclear waste dump on Gulup Island
began in 1994, after it was disclosed that the government had secretly started work
on it. During the demonstrations, one resident died and many activists were arrested.
Once the campaign grew into a national protest and the geological instability of
the area became widely publicized, the government cancelled the construction plan.
This campaign is remembered as a landmark in Korea’s anti-nuclear movement.
Regarding Taiwan, plans to export nuclear waste to North Korea were made public in
January 1997. We were determined to stop this because we were sure that ultimately,
the North Korean people would suffer, as the regime there would never disclose the
details of this contract to its citizens. Secondly, North Korea does not have the
resources or the technology to safely store this nuclear waste forever. KFEM organized
for a team of activists and congress members to visit the nuclear depository site
in Taiwan. We told the authorities that if North Korea is starving, you should send
food, not nuclear waste.
We received support from environmental NGOs around the world, sent petitions to the
UN and worked closely with dozens of other civic groups. The project was finally
cancelled in December 1997. It was a great morale booster for environmental movements
in South Korea and throughout the region.
In a historic meeting last year, leaders from the two Koreas revived hopes of reunification.
What role could the environment play in this process?
Without a doubt, environment could be a cornerstone for beginning negotiations
between the two Koreas. Protecting the environment and biodiversity is a prerequisite
for sustainable development. Though we have no first hand knowledge of existing environmental
conditions in North Korea, some residents there have told us that industrial pollution
across the border is not as bad as in the South. But the country faces problems of
famine as well as flooding and soil erosion. President Kim Dae-Jung made a good start
by discussing environmental problems in the Korean peninsula during the summit meeting
in June 2000. I hope the momentum continues in future talks.
Since North Korea’s energy consumption is lower than the South’s, launching an alternative
energy programme would be easier and perhaps more effective there. Reforestation
programmes in the North could be another joint project. Both sides could also explore
the possibility of co-management of water resources, ecosystems and wildlife preservation
in the sensitive demilitarized zone at the border between the two countries. We learnt
that North Koreans are also favourable to the idea of keeping this zone. Since South
Korea has a stronger economy, it should financially support North Korea in solving
its environmental problems. But we have to be cautious not to allow an onslaught
by polluting industries from the South in the name of economic co-operation and assistance.
As a pioneering environmental movement, what kind of co-operation do you have with
other groups and what are some of your plans for the future?
KFEM was accredited to the United Nations Economic and Social Council with Special
Consultative status in June 1998. This recognition allows us to carry out environmental
protection activities through various UN programmes. Though we can highlight environmental
problems within South Korea, we need support from like-minded groups to take these
issues onto the global stage. We have also developed various programmes to share
the experience of Korean environmental movements with other Asian nations.
Among other activities, we started an Environmental Education Centre in 1999 to develop
programmes for students, leaders and field activists, and to encourage citizens to
participate in environmental campaigns. We can no longer work effectively by just
raising awareness. We need to bring people to the sites where the damage is being
done.
KFEM is also involved in the Korean Eco-centre in Seoul, which will be an education
space for citizens and a home for the environmental movement. The government and
other donor agencies are helping with this project. We are also working with 60 experts
from various fields to prepare a blueprint for an environmentally friendly society,
partly subsidized by the government and donor agencies. We will be working out how
to build a society that is geared toward using less energy and water, fewer automobiles,
and generating greater tax dividends for the environment.
1. South Korea
is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which sets limits on greenhouse
gas emissions. Since 1990, however, the government has passed several environmental
regulations to limit harmful emissions by industries. Also, in February 2000, environment
ministers from Japan, China and South Korea agreed to conduct a joint study on acid
rain and air pollution, and to establish an environmental data centre to promote
regional co-operation in tackling pollution issues.
2. A neurological disorder caused by water contaminated with industrial waste. |
