Analysis of North Korean Agricultural Conditions (2025) and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Assessing Progress Towards SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

This report provides an assessment of North Korea’s 2025 crop conditions based on satellite remote sensing data. The analysis focuses on the implications for food security and the nation’s progress towards achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger), which aims to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The findings highlight challenges related to agricultural productivity, climate resilience (SDG 13), and sustainable land management (SDG 15).

Methodology and Data Sources

H3: Remote Sensing Data for Agricultural Monitoring

The analysis utilized Global Vegetation Index (Global NDVI) satellite imagery to monitor agricultural health. This method provides a quantitative basis for evaluating crop conditions, which is crucial for tracking progress on SDG 2 targets related to agricultural productivity.

• Primary Data Source: eVIIRS NDVI data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) JPSS satellite, with a 375-meter resolution.
• Data Processing: A “Maximum Value Composite” technique was applied to data from August 1-31, 2025, to mitigate interference from cloud cover and shadows, ensuring an accurate representation of peak vegetation health.
• Analysis Period: The assessment compares vegetation indices from August 2024 to August 2025, as mid-August typically represents the peak of the growing season.

H3: Land Use Classification and SDG 15 (Life on Land)

Accurate identification of agricultural land is fundamental for sustainable resource management, a key component of SDG 15. This study employed high-resolution land use data to isolate farmland for analysis.

1. Land Use Data: The 2024 Global Land Use dataset from ESRI, derived from 10-meter resolution Sentinel-2 satellite data, was used to identify approximately 2.08 million hectares of cultivated land.
2. Data Refinement: A discrepancy was noted with official statistics (1.93 million hectares). The analysis revealed that salt fields, which are industrial facilities, were initially misclassified as agricultural land due to their visual similarity to rice paddies in satellite imagery. This highlights the importance of precise land classification for effective agricultural and environmental policy aligned with SDG 15.

Findings and Analysis

H3: Comparative Vegetation Index Analysis (2024 vs. 2025)

A direct comparison of the average vegetation index for North Korean farmland reveals a slight decline in overall crop health, posing a challenge to the goal of increasing agricultural productivity under SDG 2.

• 2024 Average Vegetation Index: 0.834
• 2025 Average Vegetation Index: 0.813
• Net Change: A decrease of 0.021. While minimal, this negative trend indicates a stagnation or slight regression in crop vitality.

H3: Crop Growth Categorization and Impact on SDG 2

Farmland was categorized into three levels of growth (good, average, poor) to assess the distribution of agricultural productivity. The results show a shift from higher to lower productivity classifications, directly impacting food availability and security (SDG 2).

• Good Growth (Index > 0.6): The area in this category decreased by 5,031 hectares compared to the previous year.
• Average Growth (Index 0.3-0.6): The area in this category increased by 4,491 hectares.
• Poor Growth (Index The area in this category increased by 540 hectares.

This shift, though small relative to the total cultivated area of 2.08 million hectares, signifies a marginal weakening in the nation’s agricultural base, which could exacerbate food shortages and hinder progress toward eliminating hunger.

Projections and Contributing Factors

H3: 2025 Harvest Outlook and Food Security

Based on the slight decrease in the vegetation index and the shift in growth categories, the 2025 harvest is projected to be similar to or marginally lower than the 2024 yield. A significant improvement in agricultural output is not anticipated, suggesting persistent challenges in ensuring national food security as outlined in SDG 2.

H3: Environmental and Systemic Challenges (SDG 13 & SDG 2)

The modest decline in crop conditions is attributed to several factors that underscore the vulnerability of North Korea’s agricultural sector to climate change (SDG 13) and systemic inefficiencies, which impede the development of sustainable agriculture (SDG 2).

1. Climate-Related Stressors: The growing season was negatively affected by low spring temperatures and insufficient rainfall, leading to drought conditions that reduced reservoir water levels. This highlights the urgent need for climate adaptation strategies as per SDG 13.
2. Operational Delays: Rice planting was reportedly delayed by approximately 20 days, disrupting the optimal cultivation cycle.
3. Resource Constraints: Inadequate supply of essential inputs like fertilizer and pesticides during the growing season limited crop potential, pointing to a need for more sustainable and resilient agricultural practices.
4. Future Climate Risks: The potential for autumn typhoons remains a significant variable that could further damage crops and negatively impact the final harvest.

Conclusion and Limitations

H3: Summary of Implications for Sustainable Development

The analysis indicates that North Korea faces ongoing difficulties in advancing SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). The slight decline in crop vitality, driven by climate-related challenges (SDG 13) and resource limitations, suggests that food security remains precarious. Achieving sustainable agricultural productivity will require addressing these interconnected issues, including improving land management practices (SDG 15) and building resilience to climate change.

H3: Limitations of the Study

This report is a preliminary assessment based on vegetation index analysis. A comprehensive evaluation of agricultural output and food security requires a multi-faceted approach incorporating additional data sources.

• Soil conditions and health
• Detailed meteorological data
• Statistics on fertilizer and pesticide application
• National and international trade statistics

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on North Korea’s crop conditions connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by focusing on agriculture, food security, the use of technology, and the impact of environmental factors.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: This is the most central SDG. The entire article is an assessment of crop conditions and a prediction of the upcoming harvest, which are fundamental components of food security and the goal to end hunger. The analysis of the “farmland vegetation index” and the conclusion that the “2025 harvest will be similar to last year’s or decrease by a small amount” directly address the availability of food.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: The article heavily relies on advanced technology and scientific research to conduct its analysis. It details the use of “Global Vegetation Index (eVIIRS NDVI) imagery,” “Sentinel-2 satellite data,” and specific analytical techniques like “Maximum Value Composite.” This showcases the application of innovation for monitoring critical sectors like agriculture.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article explicitly mentions several climate-related factors that impact crop outlook, such as “low spring temperatures, insufficient rainfall,” “spring drought,” and the potential threat of “autumn typhoons.” This highlights the vulnerability of agricultural systems to climate-related hazards and the need for resilience, which is a core theme of SDG 13.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The analysis involves the detailed mapping and measurement of terrestrial ecosystems, specifically “farmland.” The article quantifies North Korea’s cultivated land at “approximately 2.08 million hectares” and discusses the importance of accurate land use classification, such as distinguishing farmland from salt fields. This relates to the sustainable management of land resources.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 2 (Zero Hunger):
   • Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access to sufficient food. The article’s forecast of a potentially decreased harvest directly relates to the challenge of ensuring a sufficient food supply for the population of North Korea.
   • Target 2.4: Ensure sustainable food production systems and resilient agricultural practices. The article highlights vulnerabilities in the food production system by mentioning negative factors like “poor fertilizer and pesticide supply,” “spring cold,” and “drought.” The mention of “autumn typhoons” underscores the need for agricultural practices that are resilient to natural disasters.
2. Under SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure):
   • Target 9.5: Enhance scientific research and upgrade technological capabilities. The methodology described in the article is a direct application of this target. It uses sophisticated satellite technology (“eVIIRS NDVI,” “Sentinel-2”) and data analysis to perform a scientific assessment of agricultural productivity, demonstrating an advanced technological capability.
3. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards. The article identifies specific climate hazards affecting North Korean agriculture, including “drought,” “low spring temperatures,” and “typhoons.” Analyzing their impact on crops is a first step toward building resilience and adaptive strategies.
4. Under SDG 15 (Life on Land):
   • Target 15.3: Combat land degradation. The use of the vegetation index to classify crop growth into “good, average, and poor” categories is a method for monitoring the health and productivity of agricultural land, which is essential for identifying and combating land degradation.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress, even if they are not the official SDG indicators.

• Global Vegetation Index (NDVI): This is the primary quantitative indicator used throughout the article. The specific values, such as the decrease in the average index from 0.834 in 2024 to 0.813 in 2025, serve as a direct proxy indicator for agricultural productivity and land health (relevant to Targets 2.4 and 15.3).
• Area of Cultivated Land by Growth Condition: The article provides a table that breaks down the total farmland into categories of “good,” “average,” and “poor” growth. The change in these areas (e.g., “areas with good growth decreased by 5,031 hectares”) is a specific indicator of shifts in agricultural land productivity (relevant to Target 15.3).
• Total Cultivated Land Area: The figure of “approximately 2.08 million hectares of cultivated land” is a baseline indicator for the country’s agricultural capacity (relevant to SDG 2).
• Application of Advanced Technology: The mention of specific technologies like “eVIIRS NDVI imagery with 375-meter resolution” and “Sentinel-2 satellite data” with “10-meter resolution” serves as a qualitative indicator of the use of scientific innovation for monitoring agriculture (relevant to Target 9.5).
• Incidence of Climate-Related Hazards: The article’s list of adverse conditions—”low spring temperatures, insufficient rainfall, spring drought, autumn typhoons”—acts as a set of qualitative indicators for the climate-related risks facing the agricultural sector (relevant to Target 13.1).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: dailynk.com