|
The Newsletter of
the
Socio-Ecological Union
A Center for Coordination
and Information
|
Moscow, Russia,
March 15, 2005
IN THIS ISSUE:
BELOVEZHSKAYA PUSHCHA FOREST NEEDS HELP!
SAVE THE DANUBE RESERVE CAMPAIGN:
UKRAINE HAS VIOLATED AARHUS CONVENTION
INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF NGOs ASK PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN TO INFLUENCE
RUSSIAN GOVERNEMENT TO RECONSIDER SIBERIA-FAR EAST OIL PIPE ROUTE
EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTS WITH THE
PUBLIC TO DEVELOP A NEW ENERGY POLICY
BELOVEZHSKAYA PUSHCHA FOREST NEEDS HELP!
Belovezhskaya Pushcha, Belarusian Bialowieza Forest, is a beautiful
place of wildlife, the Europe's last remnant of primeval forests.
Today, it is the National Park, the UNESCO World Heritage Site and the
Biosphere Reserve that was awarded the European Council Diploma, which
is the highest recognition of Belovezhskaya Pushcha's importance and
uniqueness on the planet Earth.
Belovezhskaya Pushcha lies at the border of Poland and Belarus. It has
been protected since 14th century. Its area now makes 87,000 hectares.
The average age of its trees is over 100 years, going up to 250-350
years in some places. Pushcha also counts over a thousand of 300-600
year-old giant trees. The flora of the unique area is represented by
over 2,000 species, the fauna - by over 11,000 species. Living
creatures that have disappeared in most of Europe find here their
home. More than 150 rare species are listed in the Belarusian Red Data
Book, including such valuable ones as the Bison, Lynx, Badger,
White-tailed eagle, Shorttoed Eagle, Black stork, Grey crane, Great
grey owl, Eagle owl, Three-toed Woodpecker, Aquatic Warbler, Silver
fir, durmast, Lilium martagon, Astrantia major, etc. Belovezhskaya
Pushcha provides a habitat for one of the largest bison populations in
the world (about 300 animals).
In 1994, the Property Management Department of the Belarusian
President (PPMD) took control over the unique area. The new
administration of the National Park had nothing to do with
conservation work and wildlife science in the famous forest. It rather
considered its economical value, unleashing an intensive
commercialization there. The profit was gained by various means - by
raring cattle, enlarging farming fields, starting trade, putting up a
production of birch juice, mushrooms, berries and herbs, and
increasing a quota for commercial hunting. But the drastic step in the
development of the National Park was made at the end of the 90s by
building up sawmills. The biggest mill, which could process a much
higher volume of wood than the forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha could
supply, appeared in the village of Kamenyuki, the administrative
centre of the National Park. High-performance wood-processing
equipment for it was purchased in Germany for over $1.5 million.
Generations of local people took care to save the primeval forest of
Belovezhskaya Pushcha that is valuable for abundance of ancient
organisms. The organisms can be saved only if the felling of the
forest is limited and the rules of forest conservation are observed.
All this is a thing of the past now.
The National Park faced economical hardships to call in a credit for
the costly wood-processing equipment, and, as a solution to all that,
a new director of the National Park, an expert in wood-processing, was
appointed in 2001. This led to a large-scale felling in the forest,
with ecological problems such as bark beetle infestation often used as
a cover-up for it. The felling rather deteriorated the problems than
helped do away with them.
The felling, timber processing and wood sale reached huge scales at
present. Sawmill are equipped by new machines, additional benches for
wood processing are purchased. Up to 250,000 cubic metres of wood a
year (nearly 800 hectares of the forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha) is
harvested at present, which is an impressive figure comparing with
70,000 cubic metres of wood in the past. The scope of the harvesting
tells that it is commercialized and the sanitary issue, even though
Pushcha has recently seen Bark beetle infestations, is not what is
behind it. The very build-up of pro sanitary felling that followed the
erection of the sawmills seems to be telling that this is the case.
The sanitary issue is just a convenient excuse for the massive
commercial felling that the present administration of the National
Park has virtually been using to make money out of the unique forest
of Belovezhskaya Pushcha.
The felling as well as other commercial-driven activities, which often
infringe national and international law and conventions ratified by
Belarus, prove the indifference the present administration of the
National Park has as regards the faith of Belovezhskaya Pushcha. To
protect the unique forest and bring an end to the illegal and secret
felling, an international campaign was launched in 2003. It helped
stop a large scale felling of living forest.
However, all in all, the situation in Belovezhskaya Pushcha did not
improve for the better. The massive 'sanitary' felling went on. The
sawmill in the village of Kamenyuki works almost round the clock.
Moreover, another disturbing development has been seen since 2003 -
that is man-made forest plantations. Every year the area of the
plantations grows larger, which means that the area of the primeval
primary forest dwindles correspondently. It means the wild reserved
forest is replaced by man-made one which is less valuable. The
administration does not listen to ecologists, ecological and
conservation methods are ignored. As a result, the wilderness of
Belovezhskaya Pushcha disappears.
Numerous violations of law and ecological science are still topical
for the National Park. The public cannot monitor the economic
activities there. Many violations are covered up by a higher
authority. Workers of the Park are sacked if they protest against it.
The National Park itself has become a place for recreation and
entertainment of authorities' officials and their kin (the government
residence is known to be there). As if the wool over people's eyes,
the residence of Santa Claus was built in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. It is
the residence rather than the primeval forest and unique wildlife that
is advertised for tourists today.
THE CONCERNS ARE THAT THE ANCIENT AND UNIQUE FOREST OF BELOVEZHSKAYA
PUSHCHA IS GRADUALLY TRANSFORMED INTO ONE OF THOUSANDS OF COMMONLY
FOUND IN EUROPE COMMERCIAL FORESTRIES. The transformation is
irreversible... Felled areas and man-made forest plantations will not
be able to substitute the wilderness, uniqueness and originality of
the protected wood. The Belovezhskaya Pushcha Forest becomes an
ordinary 'forest' area. But the latest figures show that the volume of
felling in 2005 is going to be two times higher....
Over the course of several years, Belarusian public organizations and
activists have been trying to convince the authorities to stop the
destruction and environmental degradation of the Europe's last
primeval forest. The Park's administration reacted to this by
virtually making its activity secret. Public activists and independent
ecologists can hardly access the area of the National Park. The
Ministry of Natural Resources and the PPMD shut their eyes on it and
do not react positively to allow the public control. The only way to
find out information on the state of affairs in the Park is through
reconnaissance. Watchdogs on conservation that arrive to Belovezhskaya
Pushcha look all like 'orchestrated'. They seem to overlook the facts
of ecological problems. Even the last year's enlargement of the
strictly reserved zone of the forest was rather prompted by the work
of the UNESCO, and was more for diverting the public's attention from
problems of the National Park rather than a noble act to conserve the
wilderness area.
Alongside this, there is also pressure on reporters, scientists and
nature protection activists who try to be independent in their
coverage of the situation in the National Park. State-run newspapers
tend to present only one side of the story, which focuses on
ideologically-weighed (dis)information on real and surreal
achievements of the administration of the Park, while the publishing
true-fact articles are impossible.
THIS WHY WE ARE LAUNCHING AN INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT THE
BELARUSIAN PART OF BELOVEZHSKAYA PUSHCHA.WE CALL TO HELP THE
BELARUSIANS SAVE THE FOREST OF BELOVEZHSKAYA PUSHCHA FROM BARBARIC
EXPLOITATION BY SENDING YOUR LETTERS AND FAXES TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF BELARUS, ALEXANDER GRIGORIEVICH LUKASHENKO. If you do not
have a fax, you can send you letter to his email address. It would be
good to send a copy of your letter to the Minister of Natural
Resources and Environment Protection, Khoruzhyk Leonty.
**************
DRAFT letter (You can also send your own):
The President of the Republic of Belarus, Lukashenko A.G., copy: the
Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the
Republic of Belarus, Khoruzhyk L.I.
Dear Alexander Grigorievich!
The wildlife of the National Park 'Belovezhskaya Pushcha' is an
integral part of both the people of Belarus and the world heritage.
The forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha is the Europe's last remnant of
primeval forests. It is of great value to the planet Earth.
As I have learned, the intensive economic activity continues to be
conducted in the National Park which contradicts the aims of nature
protection and conservation of the unique primeval forest of
Belovezhskaya Pushcha. The wildlife of the National Park is threatened
with massive felling. Man-made forest plantations leave no trace of
the forest wilderness, which irreversibly changes the look of the
primeval forest. The area of that forest constantly decreases. The
National Park is transformed into one of the forms of commercial
timber enterprises where the methods of forestry, typical for timber
enterprises, replace ecological techniques of conservation of
biological diversity.
The administration of the National Park turns a deaf ear to
suggestions of ecologists on conservation, while the ecological and
wildlife since is ignored. Commercial-driven activities in the forest
of Belovezhskaya Pushcha often infringe national and international
law, and conventions ratified by Belarus. The public cannot monitor
the activities of the administration of the National Park that seems
to cover up many violations. Watchdogs on conservation that arrive to
Belovezhskaya Pushcha look all like 'orchestrated'. Therefore the
government is not getting by true information and facts that create
the simulation of 'wellbeing' in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. The present
state of affairs discredits the conservation work in Belarus and puts
in doubt the fairness of the policy for conservation pursued by the
government of the Republic of Belarus.
As a result, the unique forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha is gradually
transformed into one of thousands of commonly found in Europe
forestries. If the felling of the primeval forest and other danger
activities carries on, we may lose this beloved wilderness area called
Belovezhskaya Pushcha.
In this regard, we ask you, as the guarantor of the Constitution of
the Republic of Belarus, to take the following measures for protection
of the National Park 'Belovezhskaya Pushcha':
1. To stop the management in the National Park which leads to
destruction of the unique reserved forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha,
first of all, to stop planned massive wood harvesting and creation of
artificial, man-made plantations which destroy the primary structure
of the primeval forest. To adapt ecological-friendly methods and
techniques which conserve biological diversity, instead of methods
applied in commercial timber enterprises.
2. To take actions to institute criminal proceedings against those who
are responsible for violations of law on ecology .
3. To conduct all commercial activities in the area of the National
Park, the forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha, in conformity with the
Belarusian law on nature and modern ecological and conservation
principles.
4. To make public all activity of the administration of the National
Park 'Belovezhskaya Pushcha', allow independent experts to inspect the
area of the National Park and create for the National Park a watchdog
that will consist of independent experts and public activists.
Respectfully and with hope that the forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha
will be saved, Signatures
*****
ADDRESSEES:
POST mail:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS, LUKASHENKO A.G.,
The Administration of the President of the Republic of Belarus, 38
Karl Marx Street, Minsk, 200016, Belarus;
Fax: 8-10-375-17-226-06-10 (the international codes are for Ukraine);
Email: contact@president.gov.by.
POST mail: THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS, KHORUZHYK L.I.,
10 Collectornaya Street, Minsk, 220048, Belarus;
Fax: 8-10-375-17-220-55-83;
Email: minproos@mail.belpak.by.
********
If you can, please let know mass media and your colleagues
about this information. Also, please we do ask you to forward e-copies
of your letters to the ecological group 'Pechenegi' at
pecheneg@ic.kharkov.ua.
You can find out more about the campaign to protect the forest of
Belovezhskaya Pushcha at the Web site of the International
Socio-Ecological Union at http://www.seu.ru/projects/belovezha/, or by
writing to the initiators of the campaign. Detailed information on the
situation in the National Park 'Belovezhskaya Pushcha' can be found at
the Web site 'Belovezhskaya Pushcha - 21st Century' at
http://bp21.org.by/ru/ff/.
We hope that, if we stand together, we can protect and save the forest
of Belovezhskaya Pushcha.
UKRAINIAN COALITION 'FOR WILDLIFE', THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL
UNION:
Sergey Shaparenko, the Ecological group 'Pechenegi' -
pecheneg@ic.kharkov.ua
Vladimir Boreyko, the Kiev ecological and cultural centre -
kekz@carrier.kiev.ua, borey@alfacom.net
Olga Zakharova, the International Socio-Ecological Union -
seupress@seu.ru
SAVE THE DANUBE RESERVE CAMPAIGN:
UKRAINE HAS VIOLATED AARHUS CONVENTION
The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee found Ukraine in violation
of its obligations under the Aarhus Convention during the construction
of the Danube - Black Sea canal.
On May 5, 2004, Ecopravo-Lviv (EPL) submitted a communication to the
Committee alleging non-compliance by Ukraine with its obligations
under Aarhus Convention. The communication concerned a proposal to
construct a navigation canal in the Danube Delta passing through an
internationally recognized wetlands area.
On February 18, 2005, the Committee found that by failing to provide
for public participation required by article 6 of the Aarhus
Convention, Ukraine was not in compliance with article 6. The
Committee also found that by failing to ensure that information was
provided by the responsible public authorities upon request, Ukraine
was not in compliance with article 4 of the Convention.
In addition, the Committee found that lack of clarity with regard to
public participation requirements in environmental impact assessment
and environmental decision-making procedure on projects indicate the
absence of a clear, transparent and consistent framework for
implementation of the Convention and constitute non-compliance with
general obligation provided by article 3 of the Convention.
The Committee adopted several recommendations. These recommendations
request Ukraine to bring its legislation and practice into compliance
with the provisions of the Convention. In addition, Ukraine is
requested to submit a strategy (including time-schedule) for
transposing the Convention's provisions into the national law and
developing practical mechanisms and implementing legislation that sets
out clear procedures for implementation of various requirements under
the Convention. The recommendations will be considered by the Meeting
of the Parties to the Convention in Almaty (Kazakhstan) in May, 2005.
The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights and imposes on Parties
and public authorities obligations regarding access to information and
public participation and access to justice. The subject of the Aarhus
Convention goes to the heart of the relationship between people and
governments. The Convention is not only an environmental agreement, it
is also a Convention about government accountability, transparency and
responsiveness. See: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/
Information by Ecopravo-Lviv
More about EPL: http://www.epl.org.ua/eng/
More about Danube canal case: http://epl.org.ua/a_cases_Danube_C.htm
More about Save the Danube reserve campaign
http://www.seu.ru/projects/eng/dunay
INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF NGOs ASK PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN TO INFLUENCE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT TO RECONSIDER SIBERIA-FAR EAST OIL PIPE ROUTE
An international group of NGOs, including Socio-ecological Union
International, WWF-Russia, Greenpeace-Russia, Pacific Environment, The
Living Sea Coalition, IFAW-Russia, ISAR - Far East, Baikal
Environmental Wave, "Dauria" Ecological Center, Phoenix Fund, Green
Cross, Far Eastern Branch, addressed Prime-minister of Japan Junichiro
Koizumi on the controversial oil pipe constriction project, which, in
its present state, will affect Lake Baikal and the habitat of Far-East
leopard.
The letter reads:
Your Excellency:
We, the undersigned organizations, respectfully request that you, the
Prime Minister of Japan, and your Cabinet urge the Russian Federation
and the Russian oil transport company Transneft to reconsider their
plan to build an oil pipeline through the seismically active
Severomuisky Range near Lake Baikal to the pristine Perevoznaya Bay on
the Amur Bay in Southwest Primorsky Krai. We do not all necessarily
oppose construction of a pipeline to the Sea of Japan; however, we do
all strongly oppose its route through fragile ecosystems in the Lake
Baikal basin and in Southwest Primorsky Krai as well as its terminal
in Perevoznaya Bay.
The proposed terminal site in Perevoznaya Bay, within the greater Amur
Bay, is the worst possible place in the Russian Far East to locate an
oil terminal and refinery for many reasons.
Perevoznaya Bay is an extremely open bay, and in the event of an oil
spill, water currents will carry oil over a wide area. In Perevoznaya,
the high volume of tanker traffic between the area's many islands
during the windy storm season greatly increases the probability of a
major oil spill. The water near Perevoznaya is shallow, and oil
tankers traveling to and from Perevoznaya will have to navigate past a
string of small islands at the mouth of the Amur Bay to reach it. The
Khasansky area, where the Perevoznaya Bay is situated, is also a
critical economic zone for recreation, aquaculture, and fisheries. The
local population is reliant on those economies and so is strongly
opposed to the construction of an oil terminal nearby, as evidenced in
recent public hearings. Oil spills in the Amur Bay would threaten to
pollute:
· The most popular beaches and tourist resorts in Primorsky Krai,
visited by tens of thousands of tourists annually;
· The coasts of the city of Vladivostok, located directly opposite
Perevoznaya in the Amur Bay;
· Primorsky Krai's main commercial aquaculture farms and important
fish spawning grounds, on which local Russian fishermen are
economically dependent; and
· The Far East Marine Biosphere Reserve: the only protected marine
area in Russia and home to large populations of marine mammals and
seabirds. The Far Eastern Marine Reserve is home to vast amounts of
marine biodiversity and provides spawning grounds for species
including sea cucumbers and pollock that migrate throughout the Sea of
Japan. Oil spilled en route to Perevoznaya could potentially reach the
Marine Reserve within a matter of hours.
The Transneft pipeline, if routed to Perevoznaya, would run along or
through two protected land areas in southwest Primorsky Krai: Barsovy
Wildlife Refuge and Kedrovaya Pad Nature Preserve. Kedrovaya Pad is
Russia's oldest preserve and was recently awarded the status of a
UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Southwest Primorsky Krai is one of Russia's
richest regions in terms of biodiversity: it is home to thirty percent
of Russia's endangered "Red List" species, including the Amur tiger
and the Amur leopard, which has been recognized by the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) as critically endangered. With a remaining
population of around thirty, the Amur leopard is one of the rarest
cats on earth. Negative impacts from an oil pipeline connecting to a
terminal in southwest Primorsky Krai through the leopard's only
habitat may well lead to its extinction.
There are viable alternatives to the current planned route which would
mitigate a number of the pipeline's dangers. These alternatives are
superior to Perevoznaya both economically and from an environmental
perspective.
An alternative site for the pipeline terminal is Nakhodka Bay, an
active industrial port with existing oil terminals. Were the terminal
to be located in Nakhodka Bay, no protected areas would be threatened,
and because Nakhodka Bay is more enclosed than Perevoznaya, there
would be significantly less danger of oil spills spreading via ocean
currents. Locating the pipeline terminal in the already-developed port
of Nakhodka would also be more cost-effective than building a new
terminal in Perevoznaya. An important benefit of locating the terminal
in Nakhodka is improved safety for oil transportation in the Sea of
Japan. Nakhodka's port does not yet meet best international standards
for oil transportation safety. The people of Japan suffered from this
when the vessel "Nakhodka" spilled oil near western Japan in 1997. A
port with best international safety practices would not have allowed
such a decrepit ship to load and transport oil. Nakhodka's port is an
accident waiting to happen. The Transneft pipeline will create
significant investment for the Nakhodka port that would dramatically
improve shipping safety throughout the Sea of Japan.
We are also concerned about the current plan to route the pipeline
through an extremely seismic area north of Siberia's Lake Baikal. In
its proposed route through the Severomuisky Range, the pipeline could
be ruptured in earthquakes, landslides, mudflows, and other geological
events which would cause both considerable economic losses and
irreversible pollution of the Lake Baikal watershed. It is paramount
that the Prime Minister only support a pipeline route that does not
unnecessarily threaten people's livelihoods and fragile natural areas.
The Japanese government has the ability and responsibility to ensure
that the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline is built according to
best international environmental standards, does not cause unnecessary
environmental harm, and improves oil transportation safety in the Sea
of Japan. Since Japan will be a primary investor in the pipeline, we
believe that you should act now to make certain the project is
compliant with best practices.
We ask you to advise Russia publicly that Japan will support the
pipeline if it is built to Nakhodka instead of Perevoznaya, and if the
pipeline is built in a less seismically active area outside of the
Lake Baikal watershed. The increased safety will translate into
greater financial security for the pipeline's financiers, which will
include the Japanese government and Japanese banks.
The pipeline's planned path through Severomuisky Range and terminal in
Perevoznaya Bay would needlessly threaten fragile ecosystems as well
as rare and endangered species, including the nearly extinct Amur
leopard. We, the undersigned, call upon you and your cabinet to act
immediately to make the Transneft pipeline a safer project for the
environment and for Northeast Asia as a whole.
EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTS WITH THE
PUBLIC TO DEVELOP A NEW ENERGY POLICY
On 26 January the public consultation workshop was held in Moscow by
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) for
supporting the development of a new EBRD Energy Policy. The workshop
participants were representatives of the most active environmental and
human rights NGOs from Russia and NIS countries working on climate
change, energy efficiency, renewables, nuclear energy, and human
rights.
The EBRD is currently preparing a new Energy Policy which will replace
two existing policies: the Natural Resources Operations Policy of
March 1999, and the Energy Operations Policy of May 2000. For this
purpose, the EBRD holds a series of regional consultation workshops in
London, Moscow and Sofia in line with the EBRD Public Information
Policy.
The speakers at the meeting emphasized the need to refuse from the
policy of investing in the projects of extraction and transportation
of fossil fuels; to decrease gradually investments in the projects
connected with non-renewable energy sources. The EBRD Energy Policy
has to be oriented on increasing the support of the projects focused
on renewables and energy efficiency. Support to small projects, in
particular, in the sphere of energy saving and renewables, is
especially important. The NGO representatives made a clear statement
that no nuclear projects should be financially supported, with
exception for projects of decommissioning.
The meeting participants unanimously underlined that the projects
affecting valuable nature areas should not be finances. The EBRD
strategy on increasing oil extraction at the Caspian Sea is an example
of the reasons of biodiversity reduction in this ecosystem. Also,
impermissible are projects that damage cultural and historical
objects. As an example of such project, construction of the
Baku-Jeikhan oil pipeline was mentioned, where highly valuable
archaeological monuments were destroyed forever.
The project planning in the regions of residence of small indigenous
peoples should be carried out with special care and with obligatory
consideration for the opinion of the locals. NGO representatives
severely criticized the project of oil extraction on Sakhalin with in
huge violations of the rights of the indigenous population. This
resulted in mass protests that started on 21 January, 2005.
The meeting participants paid special attention to the necessity of
transparency in the EBRD activities, and adherence to international,
European and national standards on public informing and public
participation in decision-making. The need was stressed in
intersectoral consultations and public participation at all stages of
the projects credited by the EBRD - from preliminary discussions to
monitoring of social and ecological consequences during the project
implementation.
Olga Senova, Children of the Baltic, Olga.Senova@spb.org.ru. Alexander
Fedorov, Centre for Environment Initiatives,
Alexander.Fedorov@spb.org.ru The text of the NGOs letter to EBRD is
also available at www.cei.ru.
Back to SEU Times home page
SEU Times issued by: Olga Zakharova seupress@seu.ru
ISEU Information Service
|
