|
The Newsletter of
the
Socio-Ecological Union
A Center for Coordination
and Information
|
Moscow, Russia -- Issue 5(14),
June-July, 2000
IN THIS ISSUE:
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENDUM IN RUSSIA IS HOPEFULLY ON ITS WAY
RADIATION DANGER ON THE ROAD BETWEEN TWO OF RUSSIA'S BIGGEST CITIES
NORTH-WEST CAUCASUS CELEBRATES A GREEN VICTORY
NO INTERNET IN TURKMENISTAN
ECOHOUSE IN KAZAN
BELORUSSIAN "STRAW-BALE" HOUSES GAIN INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION
INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION TO TRANSNATIONAL GM-CORPORATIONS
PESTICIDES PLANT PROTESTS
THE FIVE YEAR MARCH FOR PARKS
WHERE THE CIS GREENS COME FROM THRANSLATED BY NATALIE WEIS
DOP IN THE PROVINCES KAZAN DOP CELEBRATES 35 YEARS
SPACE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENDUM IN RUSSIA IS HOPEFULLY ON ITS WAY
On the June 29 Moscow Municipal Commission started the registration-process of the initiative group for the national nature protection referendum.
Questions of the referendum will be the following:
1. Do you agree that import of radioactive waste for storage, disposal and processing should be banned?
2. Do you agree that Russia should have an institution responsible for environmental protection separate from institutions responsible for nature use and management?
3. Do you agree that Russia should have a legally independent Forest Service?
In order for the initiative group to be registered, two million signatures should be collected during three months, which according to the Russian legislation is needed for referendum to take place.
All these activities are undertaken as new Russian President Vladimir Putin has eliminated the existing environment protection system of the country. The Decree he issued on the 17th of May (http://www.forest.ru/eng/problems/control/decree867.html) eliminated the Environmental Protection Committee and Federal Forest Service, passing their functions to the different ministries, mainly to the Ministry of Natural Resources. Joining the functions of environmental resource use and control over this use will lead to no good. It is almost the same as letting the fox guard the hen house.
No one denies that the environment protection system that existed in Russia needed improvement. But the very fact of the Decree shows the tendencies of the new Government. And these tendencies are not inspiring. The developments show that the Government's course is based on increased resource and environmental exploitation, mega-industry and project oriented. All this, together with attacks on independent media (on May 11, around 500 masked Federal Security Service people attacked and searched the building of the Media-Most group. Its NTV channel is critical of the regime and attempts to restrict information flow, promises hard times for the environmental movement and civil society in general in Russia. Russian ecologists do not support the restoration the former of the State Environment Committee. It didn't work really well all the time. They suggest a new federal body to be introduced in Russia, which will be responsible for the control of nature use, providing of ecological assessments, monitoring the environment situation and for work at national nature protection areas (nature reserves, national parks and refuges) .
According to greens, a new institution should have the control and protection functions of the ormer Forest Service, Fishery Service, Department for Protection and Rational Use of Hunting Resources of The Ministry of Agriculture and some others.
The referendum is initiated by the Russian branch of WWF, Greenpeace Russia, Biodiversity Conservation Center of SEU, Baikal Ecowave, Save Pechora Committee, Khabarovsk Fund for Wild Life Protection, EcoCenter "Dront" (Nizhniy Novgorod) , Altai XXI, Altai NGO "Katun", Sakhalin Ecological Watch and other Russian NGOs. Contacts: referendum_ru@hotmail.com
On June 13 Russian NGOs called a National Emergency Nature Protection Conference dedicated to the abolishing of the State Environmental Committee and the Forest Service. At the conference, Russian NGOs expressed their protest against the anti-ecological policy of President Putin and adopted The Appeal to President Putin on him to revise his decisions. The Conference also addressed domestic and international business structures, and called for Russian people to support the efforts of the ecologists.
Some representatives of the official institutions were invited to speak at the conference to make the positions clear from both sides of the conflict.
The Head of the Ministry of Nature Use, Boris Yatskevich (who at the same time, is the former supervisor of President Putin's dissertation dedicated to resource use problems) talked to the participants and said that his Ministry had good environmental specialists and there was no need to have a special committee for it. According to Yatskevich, his Ministry will soon be renamed the Ministry of Nature Use and Environment Protection. He also said that state environment assessment should be a responsibility of an independent body and not of the ecological committee as it used to be, he suggested to give this responsibility to the government itself: After the conference, President Putin gave the assignment to Prime-Minister Michael Kasyanov to review the question of the abolishment of the Environment Committee. The final decision is to be made by the end of July. In this message to Kasyanov, Putin said nothing about the Forest Service.
Recent events of the campaign to restore Russian independent environmental agency:
http: //www.forest.ru/eng/problems/contro
For more information:
E-mail: referendum_ru@hotmail.com
RADIATION DANGER ON THE ROAD BETWEEN TWO OF RUSSIA'S BIGGEST CITIES
Scientists discovered undeclared highly contaminated spots close to plutonium facility
Scientific group headed by the Novosibirsk University' specialists discovered high levels of radiation by the road where thousands of cars running every day between two large cities of Russia - Chelyabinsk and Ekaterinburg. Chelyabinsk with its over million population is the closest big city to famous "Mayak" plu-tonium producing and reprocessing facility where the USSR' largest nuclear accident happened in 1957. Ekaterinburg is the 3th largest city of Russia and the capital of Ural region. On July 28, scientific group based in the Anti-nuclear camp near "Mayak" facility inspected the area of Toskino village, in 60 km to the west from Chelyabinsk, by the bridge over Techa river. Group took ground and water samples for detailed analisys.
Anti-nuclear camp made a statement today on discovered levels of radiation near Toskino. According to the camp spokesperson, "there is no dount that high level of radiation caused by "Mayak" facility. Radio-active contamination on the bridge over Techa river is 10 times higher compared to the background level (200 mkR/h) . 10 meters far of the bridge there is a little marsh formed by the river with radioactive con-tamination up to 3000 mkR/h. In spite of the extreme dangerous for people radioactive level at the bridge and near the river and thousands autos passing the road every day there are not warning signs there. The radioactive level in the reed growth near the river is 1500 mkR/h. Anti-nuclear camp notifies that radioac-tive level in a case of fire in the reed grows able to grow quickly and cause extremely dangerous situation in the nearest regions. It was also discovered that near Toskino village many inhabitants and passing the road drivers often use the river water for drinking."
Activists of the anti-nuclear camp installed warning signs at the bridge: "Attention! Higher radioactive level: 3000 mkR/h" and "Techa the most radioactive river in the world". The signs of radioactive dan-ger were installed on hard surface and bridge railings. The cause of so grave radioactive pollution of the river and of its banks is "Mayak" plant radioactive release. About 2, 76 million Ci of liquid radioactive wastes were released into the opened water system of Techa-Iset-Tobol rivers during 1949-1951 and yet unknown amount of waste in the next 50 years. After that the mostly contaminated localities were reset-tled to relatively safe parts around Chelyabinsk. Still, several villages are situated near the river.and the inhabitants of the region pick up mushrooms and berries at that radioac-tive area and use water of Techa river for their household needs. There are not warning signs anywhere in the region.
Anti-nuclear camp near "Mayak" was established on July 23 in 3 km from the "Mayak" site and Karachay lake which for over 50 years serves as dump site for nuclear waste of facility. More then 60 representatives if environmental, scientific and human rights organizations from Russia, Latvia, Slovakia, Austria, Germany, USA are working in the camp. The camp makes its set as educational and agitation work among the inhabitants, mainly about the health' consequences of radioactive contamination. The camp demands from local authorities improve the social protection of inhabitants - victims of radioactive contamination - and to reject the plan Campers were warmly welcommed by the authorities of several villages around the camp site, while Chelyabinsk regional government and "Mayak" facility' press-service blamed activists for lack of cooperation with nuclear industry.
For more information:
Vladimir Sliviyak,
SEU Antinuclear campaign
E-mail: ecodefense@glasnet.ru
or ecodefense@ecodefense.kaliningrad.ru
or to watch camp chronicles at:
http: //www.ecoline.ru/antinuclear
NORTH-WEST CAUCASUS CELEBRATES A GREEN VICTORY
The illegal construction of a road through the protected areas of Caucasus Has been stopped. The highway project that could have become the major obstacle for the area to be included into the World Heritage will not go through. One more road connecting two Caucasus regions of Russia (Krasnodarskiy kray and Adygeya) will be built but not in a nature reserve.
The Lagonaky - Dagomys Road which was planned by the Adygeya Republic authorities was supposed to go through the territory of The Caucasian Biosphere Nature Reserve and irreparably damage unique nature system protected in the Caucasian Reserve. The road was planned over the Lagonaki plateau and Caucasian Biosphere Reserve highland area - this meant a heavy use of explosives to make the road across the mountains, not to mention "regular" construction related works and traffic of the construction machinery.
SEU of North - West Caucasus strongly supported by the local population, have been campaigning against the project for almost two years. Thousands of local signatures were gathered protesting the project, numerous actions were held, dozens of publications appeared in the media.
The people's outrage with the project, together with thedesire to protect their natural heritage, also had a legal basis - the road construction in nature reserve is illegal according to different Russian laws. Local government insisted on highway construction hoping to attract traffic flow through the republic. In officials' opinion, benefits from the traffic outweigh the benefits of having an internationally protected nature area. Untill now the major attraction for people has been the unique nature of the region. It is highly questionable if any tourist would be happy to see gas stations and fast-food services instead of wildlife. After two years of debates, local government realized that it would benefit from wild nature more than from one more road.
For more information:
Andrey Rudomakha,
North-West Caucasus SEU branch
E-mail: ies@mail.ru
NO INTERNET IN TURKMENISTAN
Socio-Ecological Union, Catena Ecological Club, and Law and Environment Eurasia Partnership
In late May the Turkmenistan Ministry of Communication unexpectedly revoked the licenses of all private Internet providers.
The official reason given for the revocation of licenses was that providers had falsified information in mandatory reports to the ministry about the technical and structural details of their services. In reality, the ministry did not conduct any sort of verification or investigation of these reports, and the revocation is merely an arbitrary action by a state agency intended to destroy overly successful competitors to the lagging state Internet provider. Moreover, the Ministry of Communication appears to have no regard for the personal and business losses incurred by the now-closed private Internet providers and their clients, which include foreign embassies, the Central Bank, information agencies, NGOs, and trade representatives.
The majority of Internet providers obediently suspended service to their clients and are now calculating their losses. However, the largest provider, Ariana, Ltd., is still struggling for justice. Ariana decided not only not to abandon its clients, but also announced free Internet service until a final decision on its license is made. Yet, Ariana could not continue indefinitely to pursue such a policy, and it had to stop its operations in Turkmenistan in mid-June.
Ariana is more than the largest and most dynamic Internet company in Turkmenistan. It arose out of a 1995 project to provide e-mail to Turkmenistan NGOs; the project was a joint effort of the local Catena Ecological Club and the American NGO Sacred Earth Network, funded by USAID. Thanks to this project, any environmental group with access to a telephone received free e-mail. What's more, Ariana remained true to the spirit of its founding. While a commercial company, Ariana retained a deep commitment to social justice and building civil society in Turkmenistan; it provided free e-mail and Internet access to NGOs.
For more information:
seupress@mtu-net.ru
usleep@ecostan.org
ECOHOUSE IN KAZAN
Workgroup on developing and introducing of ecohouses was created in Tatarstan. It includes members from different institutions, such as Institute of Ecology, there are specialists in developng wind and solar power stations also. They plan to join to "Ecohouse" (Ecodom) association in nearest future. Among immediate tasks are creating of database on environmental technologies acceptable for this region and building of new ecovillage "Nadezhda" (Hope) for with the help of international invalid patronating society.
For more information:
Igor Ogorodnikov,
"Ecodom" Association
E-mail: igoro@mail.nsk.ru
BELORUSSIAN "STRAW-BALE" HOUSES GAIN INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION
Belorussian branch of International Ecological Academy win the second prize of World premium in energy conservation and sustainable energetics. This NGO s technology help to decrease power consumption in 200 times for sq.meter during construction, and in 3-10 times during maintenance, it is developing a conception of zero-consumption. This NGO direct and took part in several projects in cooperation in Ministry of architecture and Energysaving Committee of the Republic of Byelorussia such as: Building of ecohouses from renewable natural materials, "straw-bale" technology, development and introduction of cheap solar collectors, each one can save 500 kg of oil per year, development of ecohouses with zero-energy consumption, analysis of wind power potential of north-west of the Republic and preparing of construction of wind power station.
For more information:
Eugene Shirokov,
Belorussian branch of
International Environmental Academy
iae@user.unibel.by
INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION TO TRANSNATIONAL GM-CORPORATIONS
While transnational corporation are trying to push GM-products on Russia's market, exUSSR NGOs are working to create an opposition against this attemps. This cooperation originates from Warsaw ecological conference on GM-products, where it was decided to create an opposition network. It was planned to carry out additional seminar for NGOs that became interested in this problem in autumn in Ukraine. One of the preparatory meeting was hold in McArthurs fund in Moscow, organized by SEU CCI, attended by Green Dossier (Ukraine) , No Corporations (Voronezh) , Tashauz Ecological Club (Turkmenistan) , IUCN Russian office reprentatives and journalists. This meeting was one of the preparotory steps for wider campaigner gathereing plenned for October in Ukraine.
For more information:
seupress@mtu-net.ru
PESTICIDES PLANT PROTESTS
On the environment day, June, 5 people of Denezhnikovo with help of Ryazan's and Kasimov's greens (environmentalists) hold a meeting to prevent launching of pesticides plant. This plant is supposed to mix and pack very toxic and dangerous components like Roundup. As usual local authorities stand for this plant, though there is lack of important documents like sanitary inspector's approval.
For more information:
German Artyomkin,
Ryazan SEU branch
greenbeam@ryazaneco.ryazan.ru
THE FIVE YEAR MARCH FOR PARKS
Interview with Irina Chebakova, the March-for-Parks coordinator, translated by Natalie Weis
It is year 2000, a new millennium has begun. At such a significant turning point, one can't help but be a little philosophical. One feels the need to stop, look back and ponder, to draw conclusions from the last centuries and millennia. In this vein I too would like to reflect on what the "March for Parks" has meant for the conservation movement, for us, and describe how it came to Russia.
It all started in 1995 at the Biodiversity Conservation Centre. At that time I was working on the first phase of the Global Environmental Facility "Biodiversity Conservation" project with Margaret Williams and we were outlining the main problems faced by conservation reserves: lack of funding, pressure on natural resources and - especially significant - the failure of local populations to understand why nature reserves / national parks are needed at all. It was clear that without the support of society we could not go about solving these problems or preventing the creation of new ones. Without the support of society we could not persuade the Government to up nature reserve / national park funding from 30% to 100%. Society had to be involved in the solution of these problems. But how could this be achieved?
Margaret, having just returned from her Christmas break in the US came up with the idea of trying to implement a similar action in Russia to that which had been organised by Americas NPCA (National Parks Conservation Association) . The NPCA's project was called "March for Parks" and it had been taking place annually on World Earth Day since 1990. Margaret arranged for the NPCA to send us all their materials, which we set about adapting for use here in Russia. We brainstormed ideas- what exactly did we want the action to achieve in Russia? How should we go about explaining it to nature reserve and national park staff?
We thought up a whole series of events that they could organise and started to rally together friends in ecological organisations as well as in the parks and reserves with whom we had close ties. We started to send out information, attended conferences for national park/nature reserve directors and within two months had managed to somehow cobble together the first march.
We encouraged parks and reserves to hold festivals, concerts, parades and conservation film showings; to publish articles in newspapers and to get involved in radio and television broadcasts. It all looked rather like a feast during a famine though. The year was 1995 and the papers were full of doom and gloom stories about teachers and miners who received no wages, panic, complete economic collapsemany nature reserves were financially unsustainable and were on the brink of closure.
Nevertheless, 20 local marches did take place, held by national parks and nature reserves and several NGOs. Around five thousand people took part in the countrywide events. After this first year, the march idea really took off. In 1999, 250 local marches took place with more than one million people participating in the connected events.
In 1996 sponsor money started to come in and by 1999 amounted to around $750 thousand, almost hitting the million mark in 2000. In general this money comes from Russian entrepreneurs, businessmen and companies.
"March for Parks" is a public movement uniting all layers of society (business, media, state organs, local residents) around the idea of supporting protected territories. The aim of the March is to drum up public support for nature reserves and national parks. But how does "March for Parks" benefit the ordinary Russian citizen? First and foremost it gives everyone the opportunity to find out as much as possible about protected territories and national heritage of Russia and allows people to contribute personally to safeguarding them for the future- either by donating money, taking part in events or doing voluntary work.
Therefore we started to compile documents and work out ways of attracting the interest of all layers of society to the problem of protecting nature. To facilitate organisation of the March we devised an effective and logical framework, which works as follows:
The Biodiversity Conservation Centre is the main organiser / co-ordinator and it liaises with organisers of local marches in the regions (for the most part the contacts are in nature reserves / national parks, although some are representatives of local NGOs) . Their task is to find as many partner organisations as possible and the latter, in their turn, involve even more people in preparing for the marches. Therefore, to use an apt metaphor, a many-branched tree has sprouted. Another advantage of this framework is that nature reserves and national parks end up being the key organisers of the local marches.
In 1996 a logo for the action was created and its main aims laid out. The first point is that it is voluntary- anyone can take part. The BCC is there to explain the March's advantages, what results it is possible to achieve and to point out examples of successful marches / problems the action has helped to solve, but we force no one to take part. The second principle is that the action is not bound by restrictions- any organisation can arrange a march and anyone can take part, hold any event they feel appropriate. All we do is work out recommendations and suggestions. Organisers can consult us but are not obliged to listen. This freedom is important as no one knows better than the staff of a nature reserve what type of events could realistically be held on its territory. It is curious that even today we are reproached for allowing this freedom and it is considered a negative aspect of our work. We are convinced, to the contrary, that the freedom is a big plus and we have no plans to start limiting it. It acts as the font of literally, hundreds of ideas from our colleagues in reserves and parks. They have started to come up with the most amazing proposals and brilliant actions and use their creative potential to the full.
Summary: the Biodiversity Conservation Centre's role in the organisation of the March:
* Formulation of the general ideology and strategy of the action
* Support for local organisers in terms of printed methodological materials
* Collection and publicising of information about local marches
* Publicising information about the March via mass media (supported by SEU's press centre)
* Create ways of encouraging participants in the March (for example, this year we held a competition for the best logo for the action)
* Organising the Moscow March (which has become a major PR event)
Methodological materials
Every year BCC begins its work for the March by sending out information materials (including a questionnaire for the local co-ordinator, a questionnaire about the March, announcements about competitions, list of local organisers of the previous year's March, list of planned events, survey of sponsors) . When forms confirming participation and an outline of planned events is received from local co-ordinators, a database is created. BCC then sends out materials for the organisers to use during the March.
The standard promotion packs include badges, stickers and posters and in addition, if resources allow, we also send out balloons, T-shirts and caps on which the March logo is printed. Since 1996 the BCC has been producing a brochure for every March in which we advise on how best to go about organising a March, finding local partners and how to arrange the workload. In the latest publications we relate in more detail about how to work with sponsors and journalists etc and have started to include original materials that we received from organisers of local marches.
By the third year of the March, out nature reserve / national park partners had already turned into PR professionals, producing diplomas, certificates, awards and professionally conducting affairs with local administrations, issuing invitations to roundtables etc. They started to produce a huge quantity of their own promotional materials without any guidance or help from our side.
Correspondingly, the nature of our work changed and we started to publish materials with which they provided us. Our task was now to demonstrate how nature reserves / national parks could work independently. With this in mind we published the collection of materials entitled "Three years of the March", which contained copies of locally produced diplomas, certificates and appeals for sponsorship. After than we issued a collection of texts in which Nature Reserves and National Parks described their Marches. The booklet was extremely informative and this year we plan to publish an analogous brochure summarising the last two years of the March.
Our methodological support included: "Material for Schools". At first it was published as an article but the next year we issued it as a booklet and have been improving it ever since. We send booklets round to schools where they get photocopied and handed on still further and the popularity of this booklet led us to publish a second, entitled: "How to work with volunteers". This could be said to be the key to the March's success. Once the March itself has taken place, we await reports from the regions and then we publicise this information (never as quickly as we would like! !) . We then finalise all the winners of our competitions, prepare PR materials, send out prizes, diplomas, certificates and general information- although by then it is almost time to get organising the next March!
Target Groups
As 'March for Parks' is intended to unite all sections of society around a single goal, the centre has formulated strategies for involving one or another group of people.
Firstly, journalists: During the first March we held a competition for the best media coverage of the event, but by the second (1996) a whole lot of articles had already started to appear in the local media, for the most part thanks to nature reserves / parks who had begun providing articles on their own initiative and inviting journalists to attend events. After that articles simply started flooding in and TV and radio programmes about the March also proliferated. Now entire pages even supplements are often devoted to the event- e.g. there is now a constant link with journalists and publications. Last year alone about 600 periodicals printed articles about the March and the action was featured on over 300 radio and television stations.
In Moscow we work with the media and SEU's press centre: every year we hold press conferences, issue press releases and lists of participating regions and the organisers' addresses. The Moscow 'March for Parks' is mainly oriented towards journalists of central media and, to a certain extent, events are created and adapted to catch their attention. For the TV networks we attempt to arrange events that would come across well on a TV screen e.g. parades of school children with bright banners naming national parks/nature reserves. A great success in this area was the theatre production which acted out the history of our rulers' attitudes to nature and national parks, from Tsar Nikolai to Yeltsin. This whipped up huge interest and TV stations were wildly enthusiastic about it. Another such example took place in Sokolniki park, whereby volunteers hung bird boxes and cleaned up the park. Our main sponsors participated in this event, working alongside everyone else, which was a real treat for the cameramen! Another event that aroused great interest in the media took place last year in the Darwin Museum. Here we arranged for a conference between Directors of National Parks and journalists and almost all the central TV channels were present.
Work with Sponsors
It should be noted that getting Russian business involved in donating to the conservation cause is one of the main tasks of 'March for Parks'. As mentioned, in 2000 the total sum of sponsor aid for 5 years had reached almost US$1 million.
We have formulated recommendations about how to win the support of sponsors, and experience has shown that nothing is more effective than good old-fashioned flattery. To this end we created a book of our 'esteemed sponsors' and awarded sponsors with personalised certificates. These play a surprisingly significant role. Sponsors are really very proud of them, mounting them under glass and putting them on display in their offices.
Regional administrators form another target group: e.g. governors, presidents of republics etc. Last year we arranged a special action addressing people of that level. Seventy appeals were sent to heads of regions where nature reserves and national parks are situated. In these we drew attention to the state of the reserves in the regions and emphasised their importance and value and appealed for the governors to support 'March for Parks'. This letter was signed by BCC and various representatives of the State Committee for the Environment. The governors usually responded by issuing an appeal to the local community via the press.
A good example of the effectiveness of this campaign is the Pechoro-Ilychskii reserve which, when preparing for the March, received an outright refusal to a request for financial support from the Komi Environment Committee. Undeterred, the reserve staff improvised as best they could and kept preparations underway and then, to everyone's surprise, they one day received a telegram with the following message: 'Urgent. Come to collect money for the "March for Parks" action'. Bemused, they gratefully accepted the cash. The mystery was only cleared up a few days later when they received a copy of BCC's appeal to the governor.
Co-operating with legislative bodies
Work with the State Duma began in 1996. In 1997, the 80th anniversary of the first nature reserve in Russia was due to be celebrated and in connection with this import landmark in the history of conservation in Russia, we appealed to the Duma to announce 1997 'Year of nature reserves'. The Duma looked upon this idea favourably and passed the appropriate resolution. Simultaneously we pushed for an increase in nature reserve funding and eventually managed to secure this as well. After the recent Duma elections, our task now is to co-operate with the new deputies. As a first step we arranged a children's drawings exhibition entitled 'The World of Nature' and also sent along some materials from 'March for Parks 2000'. Interestingly enough, we were offered money to show the paintings to MPs, but having carefully considered the proposal we decided to arrange the exhibition for free. It proved a big hit and we received positive feedback from our elected representatives. One of the pictures was presented to the State Committee on Ecology as a gift.
The Geography of the March
Organising the 1995 March we were in touch with all of the parks of the former USSR, sent out materials, attended conferences, used every opportunity we had for promoting our cause. We appealed to Conservation Ministries and Committees for support.
Our CIS colleagues also actively set to work and today the March takes place in the Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and all the Central Asian republics. We wanted every republic to have their own national March co-ordinator and adapted our materials to suit the needs of each country. In some places the March enjoyed more success than in othersnotably the Ukraine, Armenia and Belarus, all of whom already have their own logos. Having crossed the border into the former Soviet republics the March continued on into other countries and now many events transcend borders entirely.
The international aspect of the March all started with the Kostomukshsky Nature Reserve which organised a joint March with Finns, closely followed by Belovezhskaya Pushche National Park which straddles Belarus and Poland. These ground-breaking events encouraged us to formulate similar proposals for other parks situated on borderlands and we provided them with materials in English. This process of expanding the March accelerated quickly and we soon decided it was time for us to share our experience with Western Europe. We started to give presentations at international conferences and invited partners to work with us.
But in this area our high hopes perhaps weren't quite justified. At a conference in Krakow we were given a slot to talk about the March. The European Federation of National Parks listened carefully, praised our results, but nothing concrete was agreed about arranging a March or similar action. A year later however, we were surprised to learn that European National Park Day was announced, without so much as a word to us. Nevertheless, at least our attempts to make the March an international event did meet with success in that the 'March for Parks' was recognised by the Pan European Strategy commission at the Council of Europe as an example of: "successful organisation of public support". In this way, since 1997, the March has been included in the Pan European Ecological Network Strategy Programme. In addition, the March for Parks received 2 international awards.
Current Problems and Trends
At the moment we are extremely worried by bureaucratic attempts to institutionalise the 'March for Parks'. A few years ago the Board in charge of nature reserves started to issue directions forcing all reserves to hold events connected with the March. Nature reserves and organisers of local marches were rather disappointed- those who took part voluntarily needed no command, and for those who for one reason or another did not want to get involved, the directorate was clearly less than welcome. This had a negative impact on the quality of the March. Under such pressure, events start to become more formal because afterwards everything has to be accounted for- formal reports must be written. As a result, those who are forced to participate begrudge the March as an unwelcome addition to their workload and admit to writing fictitious reports.
Another type of negative result is illustrated by a tale that emerged from the park "Samarskaya Luka", to the effect that this national park alone is the official co-ordinator of the March and that events held by other organisations bear no relationship to the 'March for Parks'. This kind of thing is always a danger if orders start floating down from above. Attempts to bureaucratise a spontaneous movement give dim careerists the opportunity to pander to decrees in an effort to make themselves appear significant. The BCC would like to reiterate that the voluntary nature of the event is the key to its success and that anybody who would like to get involved certainly CAN do so.
Other general trends
We feel the need to point out why it is very important that the March takes place during certain days of the year. We need to prime the media and have a reason to appeal to the authorities, to co-ordinate and concentrate our actions. During these days we need to work like fingers curled into a tight fist! In the regions local marches have started to drag on over months and in one reserve a year round programme called 'March for Parks' has appeared, anything that relates to public support for reserves has come to be called 'March for Parks'- i.e. the March has become a public movement!
On the one hand this is really important and should be commended, but on the other we consider it essential that the March remains an action, not an organisation. We need an event to which sponsors and the authorities react. We have a new government with new structures with whom we need to start to work all over again. It would be unforgivable to lose the clout of that fist, which is essential for working with regional as well as with central authorities.
Another important trend: the 'March for Parks' is gradually turning into the 'March for the parks'. The participation of NGOs in this action is growing. The Director of Kerzhensky reserve E. N. Korshunova reports: "During the last year reserves have not been holding this event. The NGOs of Nizhny Novgorod have been arranging it and we have just been guests". This is what we have been striving for from the start- that reserves and parks should be guests at this celebration of their work.
Where we started from:
When the March was born to BCC it was the first positive conservation action in Russia- an event that was 'for' and not 'anti'. Until that time NGOs only had experience of campaigning 'against' and were armed with a whole cash of weapons to achieve that end. Working on the March we learnt from experience and worked out approaches and methods and today, following the March's example, many other positive actions have started to appear, and that's absolutely great.
During this time we have started to work with enormous regions and they, in their turn, have started to produce great success stories. It started from a PR action in the Darwin museum, where we received the seal of approval from top PR agencies and were even hired by them. We started to survey at long last. And we even had to learn how correctly to formulate all sorts of official papers to accompany the march. One action gave rise to another and we felt our way along, learning with every step.
And for me personally
For me the March for Parks 1995 - 2000 has been a time of worry and happiness and great dialogue with nature reserves. Where is the action marching on to now? Well, it's definitely best foot forward. Every year new problems appear and today's changes in our restless state- the re-structuring of the conservation services and the new government's environmental policy has given us a bad shake-up. The foreseeable difficulties simply force us not to relax our efforts, but to concentrate on solving new problems and finding a common language with the new Government and its structures.
For the purpose of legth we publish only excerpts.
The full version of the article will be on www.igc.org/gadfly
For more information:
Biodiversity Conservation Center
march@bcc.seu.ru
WHERE THE CIS GREENS COME FROM THRANSLATED BY NATALIE WEIS
The Nature Protection Squad Movement of Yesterday and Today Through the eyes of the current generation
This year the Nature Protection Squad or Druzhina Okhrani Prirodi (DOP) celebrates its fortieth anniversary. For those who have been working in conservation for some time, I hardly need to explain what this organisation does or the significance it bears to the conservation movement in Russia and CIS countries as a whole. Suffice to say that ex-DOP members were the ones who founded the Socio-Ecological Union and that most conservation organisations have more than a sprinkling of DOP veterans on their staff and nearly all are at least in some way or another, connected with this movement. However, describing DOP's role in the development of Russia's ecological movement is not the purpose of this article. Rather, it is my intention to try and throw some light on the DOP of today and how by constant re-invention of itself it has discovered the secret of eternal youth...
DOP has remained essentially a youth group uniting undergraduates, research students and sometimes school children in the higher grades, as well as teachers of ecology and the environment. DOP campaigns against poaching, runs projects to protect nature reserves, conducts research on biodiversity, runs ecological education projects, holds events and actions etc. It actively recruits new members every year (for the most part first year undergraduates) to replace those who have completed their university education and move on (although some do stay after graduating).
During the last two years there has been an increase in organisations and individuals in the movement for a variety of reasons, but essentially due to the rallying of existing DOP branches and veterans (particularly effective is a combination of the two). Many DOP graduates start working as teachers or in governmental / non-governmental organisations in the sphere of protecting the environment, although some have careers not connected to conservation at all. Unfortunately, all too often the demands of the world of work mean that DOP veterans do not have the chance to return to the organisation and pass on their experience to new members.
This void created by old members leaving without handing over vital knowledge and experience gained or passing on DOP ideology to the new generation has posed a problem to DOP right from the very start. To ensure these important processes took place, the DOP Fresher School was founded and the Methodological Co-ordination Council set up. Despite these attempts there were still periods when such a serious decrease in active DOP members / branches was recorded, that doubts were raised about the network's very survival.
The most serious drop off in membership occurred at the end of the 80s / start of 90s, in conjunction with the socio-economic changes taking place in the country at the time. A combination of reasons led to the ebb in membership: firstly a larger variety of opportunities were available to young people and secondly many established members, the spiritual and intellectual backbone of DOP, were able to do something that previously would not have been permissible: They found other independent environmental organisations. Nevertheless DOP survived this tough period by managing to regenerate itself from just a few cells.
DOP's membership crisis could be said to have ended with the adoption of its new manifesto at the 1994 Nizhny Novgorod conference (proof in itself that DOP's spiritual and intellectual potential was not extinct) . This conference also marked the renaissance of the Nizhny branch of DOP. Other events such as the 1996 Petersburg DOP conference and the opening of the Kazan School for DOP Freshers in 1995 confirmed this positive trend. However, despite the admirable efforts of DOP's member organisations at that time, it would still have been difficult to call all these eco-clubs and school reps a co-ordinated network. The main reason for this is that during the first half of the 90's there was no real sense in all these scattered clubs of being part of a unified whole.
This is not to be little the great and valuable work carried out at this time, but the only operation that could really be considered a team effort carried out by multiple branches of DOP was "First Bloom". Co-operation of DOP branches en route from Crimea to Moscow was essential for this project which brought specimens of Crimean wild flowers to the capital. However, the project only involved a few branches (Moscow, Simferpol, Kharkov, Belgorod) , the others remained on the periphery and only felt a part of DOP at conferences, and DOP Fresher School. The association had little in common with the brotherhood battling to save the environment that was founded 40 years ago.
The situation started to alter at the DOP 1996 conference when the movement decided to create PADOP: The Povolzhe Nature Protection Squad Association of which the Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Arzamas branches became members. The idea of creating a sub-association was intended to facilitate information exchange and the co-hosting of conservation events; preventing pointless duplication of work and efforts. In 1997 the new Chuvash republic DOP branch became a member of PADOP and between 1998-2000 the Ioshkar-Oly, Vladimir, Ulyanovsk and Kirov organisations all joined. Their geographical proximity allows these branches of DOP to work more effectively together, particularly in monitoring Middle Volga nature reserves and in operation "Spruce" and others campaigns. In 1998 a similar geographic grouping of members formed in Western Siberia- Novosibirsk, Tomsk, Barnaul (the South Siberian triangle) and these started to work to attract new members and found new organisations.
From 1998, the exchange of personnel between DOP branches started to take place ever more frequently. In addition to the aforementioned projects in Povolzhe, large inter-DOP events took place in Tomsk (School for Youth Conservationists), in the Altai Reserve (1999 Seminar on Nature Reserves) and in Barnaul (1998-99 Seminar on Ecological Education). In Polvozhe, these inter-DOP events were essential not just in that they encouraged DOP branches to work more closely together, but in that they offered practical support to its youth organisation members. Individually, each DOP organisation does not necessarily have the professionalism or experience required to hold big events, but working together they can pool resources and be completely capable of doing so.
At the 1998 Cheboksarsk conference the talks turned to the conflict which had been plaguing the movement for a few years. In 1996 the DOP Council was elected in such a way that almost half of its members were based in Moscow, linked to the MGU branch of DOP. The geographically uneven distribution of DOP leaders was logically reasoned. Firstly, it was felt that provincial DOP branches were not ready for such responsibility at that time. Secondly Moscow was still undeniably the principle source of information in 1996. Few resources and opportunities were accessible from the regions (electronic links, information about funding, projects etc). The flip side of the coin was that the presence in a single town of several key members of the Council meant that responsibility for fund-raising and decision-making was taken out of the hands of provincial DOP branches. These 'noble' intentions of the Council thus backfired, giving rise to resentmentthe regions felt cut off, neglected and even snubbed having little to do with the co-ordination of the movement (save the work of the main co-ordinator himself). Changes to the structure should have been implemented sooner- by 1998 the regional branches were already operating on a much more professional level and several members capable of co-ordinating the movement as a whole had appeared.
Therefore, when at the 1998 Cheboksarsk Conference it seemed that the situation would continue unchanged, the conflict threatened to split the movement entirely. Fortunately, the Council did not allow things to go so far. DOP's current Council is made up of 5 people: the co-ordinator of DOP, the co-ordinator of the "First Bloom" action, the co-ordinator of the inter-DOP "Nature Reserve" squad, the eco-education co-ordinator, the western co-ordinator (anything west of Moscow and NW Russia), the Povolzhe organisations co-ordinator, the Siberian co-ordinator).
Following the precedent of Polvolzhe and the South Siberian triangle, other DOP associations have appeared in Vladivostok, Blagoveshensk. There is even a DOP in Dushanbe. In the West, working closely with DOP MGU and MNEPU there is a DOP Belgorod and a group from Kharkov university. In Petrozavodsk the youth organisation Conservation Karelia is based. We regret that this information is incomplete- we unfortunately do not have a full list of regions in which DOP / other youth organisations are active. This article is based on the list of participants at the last conference / organisations that actively work with DOP and those who have been mentioned in the media.
We would like to emphasise the following points:
1. Youth conservation organisations have started to appear spontaneously and not having heard of DOP try to find their own niche in the field of conservation. Sometimes these organisations by their structure and actions are actually similar to DOP
2. DOP works with representatives of potential member organisations whose aims overlap with its own. Communication takes place via correspondence or at conferences and talks. DOP veterans who have founded / work in other environmental organisations help to forge links for DOP, either out of nostalgia or increasingly for practical reasons (to train much needed project assistants etc).
3. A whole series of DOP branches, in particular the Kazan association and the Youth Ecological Druzhina CP, run programmes (even for the youngest schoolchildren) preparing new members for work with DOP. This can been seen in the whole host of associations uniting schools and youth organisations around the environmental cause, particularly by means of such actions as: 'Help the river', 'March for Parks' and 'the Ecology Science / Research Induction Programme' etc. We can only hope that some of these school children will, as a result, join DOP or other environmental organisations.
In May this year we tried to reinstate the tradition of holding a school for junior DOP leaders, where we intended to find out what goals young DOP members had set themselves and whether they differed in any way from the official aims outlined in the DOP manifesto. There was no single clear answer, but most of the group leaders were concerned to work out a general, higher purpose for the movement as a whole, rather than to formulate a string of short-term goals. We did manage to work out a purpose with them, in addition to the one of conserving living nature, as expressed in DOP's manifesto. The young members were keen to incorporate a new (or a forgotten old) aspect: educating the new young generation of citizens who champion the cause of a healthy environment.
During the discussion about what DOP is and what we gain from its existence, the following points were noted: DOP is an organisation:
- that formulates concrete conservation tasks
- that helps develop skills, abilities and knowledge and prepares one for a future career in conservation
- that is sincere about its work
- that promotes teamwork
- that provides one with tools to solve environmental problems
- that helps one communicate with and meet interesting people
- that is strong, authoritative and independent
- that has a romantic element- striving to do something fantastic
It will no doubt be interesting for the old generation of DOP members to read the above, many of whom work for SEU and read Vesti. Perhaps you will find you have a lot in common with them or on the other hand, perhaps the above comments will seem blasphemous. It would be interesting to receive your comments...
The forty year anniversary is just around the corner and this and the future generation of DOP members need to know the views of senior DOP members about the movement's history, if mistakes aren't to be repeated. Unfortunately we received very few comments about the possibility of printing a history of DOP to celebrate its 40th anniversary, the draft of which Mukhachev prepared a year ago. If you haven't received it, do get in touch.
For more information:
Evgenii Osmelkin,
Co-ordinator of the Nature Protection Guard Movement
E-mail: osmelkin@chuvsu.ru
The full version of the article will be on
www.igc.org/gadfly
DOP IN THE PROVINCES KAZAN DOP CELEBRATES 35 YEARS
The Creative Ecological Circle, Kazan Chemi-Technical Institute, founded in 1965, was the direct predecessor of DOP Kazan. The goal of the club was ecological self-study and the conservation of nature. As it was essential in those days to have an official sponsor, the organisation chosen for this role was the All Russian Nature Conservation Society. This was actually a wise choice as some modest funds were available which, over a period of time, allowed a small library to be collected.
DOP itself was entirely controlled by the authorities. One day, the Kazan Soviet Regional Executive Committee received a directorate to explain what campaigns / events they hold to protect the natural environment in their region. The request was passed on to the trade union committee who, in turn, were relieved to be able to pass the buck to the nature enthusiasts, who were packed off to attend the DOP seminar in Moscow, in September 1972.
The definitive decision to become part of DOP was taken at the circle's meeting in November 1972 in response to news that the Irkutsk DOP member Victor Moiseenko was murdered by poachers. Kazan was the first DOP branch to be founded at a technical institute.
The first campaign was the pine tree project in December 1972, carried out with the assistance of Kazan university nature protection service. Unfortunately DOP leaders didn't take much notice of this unique campaign, let alone offer any assistance or support. The general attitude to us as technicians trying to conserve nature was rather derisive. In actual fact though, DOP Kazan had a huge effect on the general outlook of the technical institute's members. Biologists, DOP members or not, will always learn to love or at least respect nature as part and parcel of their studies. They were not trained to consider nature as a hindrance, a phenomenon to be subordinated, as we technicians were. Technical students were taught to idealise technology. Our job was to implement the great plan for technical and industrial progress, whatever the cost to the environment. DOP was particularly important for our institute as the one organisation capable of questioning this outlook.
DOP Kazan was also unique in that it was the first to set up a training centre for conservation officers. At the start of 1975 a nature conservation unit was created in the Faculty of Social Professions (now the Faculty of Supplementary Education) . Over the years, the centre trained up 60 conservation officers, 11 health inspectors and 14 SSSI inspectors. Concrete results were achieved: those who had attended the unit's courses detained a total of 4000 poachers and transgressors of nature reserve laws. Others went on to run summer schools for young nature enthusiasts and field trips for school children. Many helped to organise the 30 international, national and regional seminars and conferences held in Kazan or took part in 18 nature conservation expeditions or other actions / campaigns.
As a result the technocrats of Kazan stopped treating nature as an obstacle to progress or a supplier of raw materials for industrial development. They were the ones to formulate the ethical principles which form the basis of the Nature Reserve Brigade's work. Although these principles weren't officially adopted by DOP, in reality they became its slogan and motto. Last but not least, it was the Kazan technocrats who, in 1985, came up with the idea of forming a communication network to facilitate the work of DOP veterans. It was this initiative that provided the basis for the founding of today's Socio-Ecological Union. In addition, in 1996 DOP Kazan completed the legal formalities required for setting up the Youth Ecological Movement in Tatarstan.
Of course, DOP Kazan could only play such a key role in the formation of the ecological movement thanks to certain people: Faya Mukhamadeeva, the only lady in the whole of the CIS to lead an Anti-Poaching Brigade, Sergei Mukachev who, despite difficulties sometimes faced, did not allow the organisation to disintegrate. Last but not least Fanzat Yasmagilov must be thanked for organising the training centre and Vladimir Shushkov who headed up the first student brigade "Nature Reserves 81". Many others played a hugely important role in our organisation, but unfortunately cannot all be named here. It is important that their efforts are now directed towards finding methods of mutual co-operation with school groups to prepare children for future work with environmental associations and to perpetuate the flow of young nature enthusiasts into DOP. This in turn will ensure DOP continues to carry out its valuable work for many years to come.
For contact:
Sergei Germanovich Mukhachev
E-mail: odopart@mi.ru
SPACE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE
The International Socio-Ecological Union has inititated the Program "For Environmental Safety of Rocket and Space Activity"
Program Goal
Reduction of environmental threats of RSA for humans, society and nature.
Program Mission
Coordination of efforts of organizations and individual citizens, concerned with resolution of the problems of environmental safety of RSA.
Enforcement of rights of the citizens for trustworthy information about RSA.
Contributing to growing awareness of wide public, of representatives of executive and legislative bodies as well as of professionals and other sectors of socially of the problem of environmental safety of RSA.
Protection of human rights, primarily rights for life and health, of the people who suffered from RSA.
Development of basic principles of national and international policy related to RSA.
Positive interaction with official bodies, federal agencies of Russian Federation and other states as well as with international organizations; cooperation with rocket and space corporations and other enterprises engaged in RSA with the aim of open discussion and solution of the problems with participation of independent experts and wide public.
Organization of public oversight and establishment of environmental limitations for RSA and human expansion into outer space by social and ecological criteria.
Participating organizations: Center for Russian Environmental Policy (CREP), Center for Independent Environmental Programs (CIEP) (Moscow) , Altai Territory charity foundation "Altai - 21st Century" (Barnaul) and other organizations of the International Socio-Ecological Union (ISEU).
Geographical Scope: 1) Russia (Altai Territory; Republics of Altai, Komi, Yakutia (Sakha) ; Archangel, Amur, Astrakhan, Novosibirsk, Tyumen, Tomsk regions, and others, in total over 20 subjects of the Russian Federation; 2) Kazakhstan; 3) Ukraine; 4) the USA and other states.
Rocket and space activity (RSA) - is the activity directly related to exploration and practical use of the Earth's atmosphere and outer space. This activity is implemented with the use of rocket and space technology, which comprises ground segment, space assets and technologies within their complete life cycle, including development, production, operation, elimination and utilization.
Apart from playing an important role in technological and socio-economic development as a promising area of the progress of civilization and a means of solution of global problems of the Humankind contemporary RSA is one of the most wasteful, risky and environmentally dangerous areas of human activity.
The confrontation of the two antagonistic world systems in the 20th century allowed the policy of the leading space powers to be openly ecologically irresponsible.
Despite considerable positive contributions to the progress of the Humankind RSA, both in Russian Federation and in the world as a whole, is accompanied by growing dangers and damage for humans and the natural environment as well as by mass violations of ecological rights of the citizens.
Since mid-fifties of the 20th century (within 40-45 years) intense RSA inflicted considerable damage in the vicinity of space launching sites, rocket ranges as well as in the areas where the fragments of launcher rockets fall on the ground; similar damage has been inflicted to circumterrestrial space. Participants of human spaceflights are subjected to extremely high ecological risk.
Because of rapid development of rocket and space technology, inadequately slow growth of awareness by professionals and the society at large of the dangers rooted in RSA and absence of counteraction to these dangers, environmental threat of RSA turned in the end of the 20th century into a new global problem.
The major causes of environmental threats of RSA are: its military origins; inherent environmental irrationality of rocket and space technology, fuels and engineering methods, which have been developed largely on the "pre-ecological" stages of development of science and technology; high risk of accidents (up to 5% of the total number of launches) ; secrecy; weak environmental legislation; lack of independent environmental impact assessment; domination of departmental, corporate and monopolistic motives among the participants of RSA; absence of information transparency in the course of oversight of RSA by society.
The gravest consequences of RSA on the territory of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) manifest themselves in the areas of its highest intensity (areas of space launching sites Baikonur, Plesetsk, Kapustin Yar and appropriate areas of falling on the ground of stages of rocket launchers on the territory of Kazakhstan, Archangel region, Altai Territory, Republics of Altai, Tuva, Khakassia, Sakha (Yakutia) , etc) .
For example, for more than 30 years the territory of Republic of Altai has been used as a place of location of areas where stages of rocket launchers fall on the ground. In violation of ethical and environmental norms and the standing legislation rocket and space monopolies and other organizations of the rocket and space branch of industry under the leadership of Russian Aerospace Agency and the Ministry of Defense pursue barbaric ecocide in the unique region of Russia and the planet Earth - the Altai reserve, which is a center of biodiversity of this region. Irreparable damage to life and health of the population as well as to biosphere of Earth has been inflicted and continues to be inflicted. The territory of Altai is in fact used as a testing ground for ecologically irrational rocket and space technology; it became a dump area of fragments of rocket launchers and of residues of toxic rocket fuel (heptyle, etc) . In such situation the developed states (for example, the USA) resort to launching their satellites by means of Russian heptyle-fuelled rocket "Proton" from Baikonur space launching site, thus successfully resolving their environmental problems at the expense of the territories of Russian Federation and Kazakhstan, where, appropriately, fall the first and the second stages of "Proton" launcher rockets with toxic residues of fuel.
Russian Aerospace Agency receives from its foreign customers over 50 million dollars per such launch, the State Khrunichev Center (Moscow) - producer of "Proton" rockets gets its share of foreign currency and new orders, the city of Moscow has tax returns, whereas Republic of Altai receives as reimbursement a negligible fraction of the total payment for launches and at the same time has to suffer full share of the environmental consequences and negative impacts. Within the last several years the number of annual launches into space grows rapidly. Such situation in Altai area is intolerable, radical measures should be taken to stop this rocket and space limitless abuse of elementary norms and human rights.
Within the coming 10-20 years there is a real threat of irreversible environmental consequences of RSA, primarily for circumterrestrial space and some territories of the surface of the Earth.
Two major aspects of environmental threat of RSA are known:
1) pollution of circumterrestrial outer space, its irreversible dangerous degradation due to changes of its physical and chemical as well as energy properties, disruption of solar-terrestrial connections.
2) pollution of the surface of the Earth and of the near-Earth atmosphere with wastes, generated by RSA.
In the course of such pollution superpowerful peak impacts, salvo eruptions of heat energy as well as pollution of the environment with rocket and spacecraft debris and toxic rocket fuel, both liquid and solid, take place. Such consequences are peculiar not only of the areas of space launching sites and of the areas of falling down of jettisoned elements of the rocket launchers, but also of the territories along the flight trajectories of rocket launchers because of generation of toxic aerosols, as well as of the operations connected with production, transportation, storage and utilization of appropriate elements of rocket fuel.
Since all the elements of life cycle of RSA are environmentally dangerous, environmental threat becomes a problem of a very wide (actually global) scope. Because of this millions of people in Russia and in a number of other states (e.g. Kazakhstan, China, French Guiana, USA, etc.) are deeply interested in solution of this problem.
By the magnitude of negative impact on the health of the population of the Russian Federation RSA may be ranked among the most polluted branches of industrial production.
Military medics are well aware of clinical aspects of poisoning humans with liquid rocket fuel - heptyle, including impacts of low-dose poisoning on human organism. Among other symptoms of such poisoning they point out affection of liver, development of cardio-vascular diseases, stomach and bowels disorders, anaemia, leucopenia, hypofunction and hyperplasia of thyroid gland. Similar symptoms take place as a result of chronic poisoning with rocket fuel of humans residing in the vicinity of space launching cites, close to flight trajectories of rocket launchers and to the areas of falling down of jettisoned elements of rocket launchers. Ever more serious consequences are caused by heavy poisoning with rocket fuel. Heptyle poisoning causes especially grave sufferings to children, it is extremely dangerous for human foetus.
However, until present the military deny evident causal connections of disease of the population in the areas of RSA with effects of toxic components of rocket fuel and demand to prove in course of expert investigations presence of traces of rocket fuel in human organism. Due to some reasons such demand is unrealistic, and, what is especially important, such demand is not adequate for cases of low-dose poisoning. Because of use of different kinds of fuel in rocket launchers of different design, as well as because of combined effects of various toxic agents, which are transformable, drawing an adequate picture of disease of population in areas of RSA becomes a complicated problem. For example, it has been proved that burning of solid rocked fuel produces super toxic agents - dioxins, which are qualified as persistent organic pollutants (POP) . We face a most complicated problem of health protection of population in the areas of RSA, which requires serious expert investigations with obligatory participation of representatives of wide public.
On the threshold between the 20th and the 21st century takes place a transition to thorough commercialization of space activity accompanied by large-scale international cooperation. Expansion of RSA and beginning of space industrialization, however, are far ahead of the development and implementation of measures aimed to ensure ecological safety.
In conditions of low environmental and legal culture in Russian Federation rocket and space monopolies, states, groups of people and associations immediately interested in RSA, guided by their pragmatic interests, qualify actual and potential dangers of RSA as not urgent, conceal from wide public and professionals trustworthy and comprehensive environmental information.
In Russia as well as in the world there are no independent organizations and mass media working on professional investigation of the problems of environmental danger and safety of RSA, of its negative consequences. There is a radical lag in realization and solution of the problem of human rights in the framework of ecological threats of RSA. Public oversight of this sphere of activity is extremely weak. Appropriate projects and programs are implemented without social and environmental expert impact assessment. Aerospace agencies, rocket and space transnational corporations (TNC) are initiating a new round of rocket and space race using for the purpose commercialization and powerful lobbying among political circles.
Rocket and space projects, primarily manned space projects, are extremely expensive: the cost of the project of the International Space Station, implementation of which have been started, is estimated in 100 billion doll., the project of manned expedition to Mars will cost around 500-1000 billion doll.
Thus, the problem of social and environmental oversight for RSA is urgent and highly important. Many local groups affiliated to the Socio-Ecological Union (SEU) (only in Russian Federation they operate in more than 20 subjects of federation affected by negative impacts of RSA; similar groups operate in Kasakhstan) are interested in solution of this problem. However, their activities are dispersed, their efforts are not properly coordinated, and the efficiency of the work should be improved.
The emerging situation requires establishment of efficient oversight of RSA by society, which makes necessary coordination of efforts of local groups of SEU operating in Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and other countries. SEU has at its disposal the necessary resources.
Actually, practical measures to implement this Program have been taken in the framework of SEU since long time ago. The Program has been initiated in 1992 in CIEP when doctor of medicine V. M. Lupandin undertook first investigations of the problem of so-called yellow children in Altai Territory and linked their birth with consequences of RSA. Since then V. M. Lupandin has done his investigations in Republics of Altai and Komi, in Archangel, Astrakhan, Vladimir, Ivanovo and other regions of Russian Federation, and in Kazakhstan. He published in mass media dozens of articles on the problem of impact of RSA on human health. It is important to make note that everywhere he enjoyed support of wide public, including the support of the organizations affiliated to SEU.
Very active in its efforts to resolve the problem is Altai branch of SEU. They organized several conferences and expeditions, radio and TV broadcasts (TV and radio company "Katun") .
In 1997 under aegis of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy a research project on the subject "Environmental threats of space activity: analytical review" has been implemented.
In February 1998 founding assembly of Inter-regional publicr movement "For Environmental Safety of Rocket and Space Activity" was held. Among its participants were representatives of Moscow, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) and Tomsk region.
On May 26, 1998 a working meeting on the subject "Socio-ecological problems of rocket and space activity" was held in A. D. Sakharov Public center by initiative of CIEP.
In June 1998 at the Scientific conference "Altai-Space-Microspace" special session "Space activity: social and environmental aspects" was organized. The conference adopted and published a Resolution "Environmental threat of contemporary space activity", which entrusted CIEP with coordination of activities related to the problem, S. V. Krichevsky was appointed coordinator of these activities. The economic crisis in Russian Federation, however, was the reason of lack of visible results in this area. Theses of reports at the Conference were published in April 1999.
On March 23, 1999 a press-conference on the problem of environmental safety of RSA with presentation of the book by M. N. Vlasov and S. V. Krichevsky was held in Russian-American Press Center (it was organized by CREP and SEU) . The book has been circulated among the subjects of Russian Federation affected by impacts of RSA as well as among appropriate federal ministries and agencies, environmental organizations and libraries of Russian Federation and some other countries.
Within several last years a number of events on the problem has been organized on the federal level and appropriate documents had been adopted. For retrospective list of these events and documents see Appendix 1.
Since mid-1980s hundreds of publications on this problem appeared in scientific magazines and general mass media (for the most comprehensive list of such publications see monograph: Vlasov M. N., Krichevsky S. V. "Environmental threats of space activity: analytical review" - Moscow, "Nauka" Publishers, Center for Russian Environmental Policy, 1999) . Absolute "champion" by the number of publications in Russian mass media is Lupandin V. M. He authors over 20 articles on the problem, which were published in "Trud" newspaper. For these publications Lupandin V. M. was awarded First degree Diploma at the Second All-Russian Competition of journalists "Ecology of Russia-97".
For contacts:
Sergei Krichevsky,
Program coordinator
E-mail: sergei.krichevsky@starcity.ru
(095) 118686 (CIEP)
Maria Cherkasova,
Program participant
E-mail: cnep@glasnet.ru
Contact telephones:
(095) 9522423, 9523007 (CEPR) ; 1247934 (SEU)
The full version of the article will be on www.igc.org/gadfly
Back to SEU Times home page
|
