🚀 go-pugleaf

East-West-Newsletter BUND, part 1
Rundbrief Osteuropa BUND, Teil 1

Bund f�r Umwelt- und Naturschutz Deutschland
11. Rundbrief des Arbeitskreises Osteuropa, 15. Juni 1996
Redaktion: Erdmuthe Arnold, Valentin Thurn, David Oberhuber.


SITZUNG DES ARBEITSKREISES OSTEUROPA
am 3.Februar 1996 in Koeln von 11 bis 17 Uhr

Wie angekuendigt veroeffentlichen wir im Folgenden die Referate
der letzten Sitzung des BUND-Arbeitskreises Osteuropa in Koeln,
die aus Platzgruenden in Rundbrief Nr. 10 noch nicht erschienen
sind. Im letzten Rundbrief erschienen bereits die Referate von
Astrid Sahm ueber die neuen staatlichen Tschernobyl-Programme
von Belarus, Russland und der Ukraine (S.10), von Manfred Sapper
zu den internationalen Aktivitaeten der russischen Atomindustrie
(S. 28), von Karl Kerschgens ueber humanitaere Massnahmen nach
Tschernobyl aus Deutschland (S. 13), von Valentin Thurn ueber
eine PR-Reise der Atomwirtschaft nach Tschernobyl (S. 4).

Hier nun die Zusammenfassung des Referats von Mara Silina ueber
die Taetigkeit des Bruesseler Bueros von "Friends of the Earth
International" und des Vortrags von Michael Meyer ueber die
Taetigkeit von ECEAT, das "European Center for Eco Agro
Tourism", in Osteuropa. Die schriftliche Fassung des Berichts
von HEIKE DRILLISCH UND JOHANNES ROHR ueber die AUSWIRKUNGEN DER
OEL- UND GASFOERDERUNG IN SIBIRIEN AUF DIE IN DIESER REGION
LEBENDEN INDIGENEN VOELKER befindet sich im Russland-Teil dieses
Rundbriefs auf Seite 20.

Mara Silina: Friends Of the Earth Europe East-West Programme:

Plans 1996 (draft version for discussions during the FOEE Annual
Meeting in Ohrid, FYRo Macedonia and emended for the BUND
working groups's meeting in Cologne)

Introduction

In 1988 Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) started a
special programme on Central and Eastern Europe (CCE). Its
purpose was to give support to and cooperate with the newly
emerging independent CEE environmental movements. The programme
was initiated by FOE-Italy, but since 1990 the coordination is
done by FOE-Europe (FOEE). Since then FOEE had a staff for this
purpose of two persons, one (John Hontelez) working from the
Brussels office, the other (Mara Silina) was working from an
office in Bratislava (Slovakia), specially set up for this
programme. Following the decision of FOEE Annual General Meeting
(AGM) in FRankfurt 1993 we have closed FOE East office in
Bratislava since June 1994 and Mara Silina is now working from
FOEE office in Brussels. Furthermore, John Hontelez has become a
policy coordinator of FOEE since August 1st, 1994, and has
stopped working for the East-West Programme.

FOEE has ten members in the following CEE and New Independent
States (NIS) (fruehere Sowjetunion) countries:

Bulgaria				National Movement of Ecoglasnost;

Czech Republic			Hnuti Duha / Rainbow Movement;

Estonia				Estonian Green Movement;

Georgia				Green Movement of Georgia;

Hungary				National Society of Conservationists;

Latvia				VAK / Environmental Protection Club of Latvia;

Lithuania				Lithuanian Green Movement;

Macedonia, Former Yug. Rep. of	DEM / Ecological Movement of
Macedonia;

Poland				PKE / Polish Ecological Club;

Ukraine				Zelenyi Svit / Green World.

The objectives of the programme are as follows:

General Support and strengthening of the environmental movement
in CEE;

Stimulation and development of East-East and East-West
cooperation especially leading to campaigns;

Liaison - political lobbying on the European level with special
emphasis on CEE environment;

Financial clearinghouse to identify potential funding for
projects and campaigns.

This programme should be seen as evolving plan on necessities
and opportunities elements may be changed, added, deleted
throughout the year in close cooperation with FOE groups in the
region. 

Programme 1996: (Final version will be produced after the
workshop on the programme in Ohrid)

1.A.	General Support and strengthening of the environmental
movement:

1.A.1	PHARE/TACIS Democracy Projects (in progress):

Phare and Tacis are the programmes of the European Union (EU) to
support the CEE and NIS countries. Two projects in the frame of
Phare Democracy Projects will go on till July 1996 for Lithuania
and till September 1996 for Poland. FOEE is the EU partner for
both of them which means that we have a role to advise our
groups on the implementation of projects and organise a
western-groups' participation where needed as well as to
communicate with EU about these projects. Until March 1996 FOEE
is involved in the Tacis Democracy Programme for Green Movement
in Georgia.

1.A.2	PHARE/TACIS Democracy Projects (new ones):

During the year there will be another opportunity (ies) to
introduce projects for Phare/Tacis Democracy Projects (the first
deadline will be April 30th) and therefore the first ideas from
the groups have been collected and wherever possible will be
discussed during the Annual meeting. For developing these
projects I can think about two different things at the same time:

follow up proposals for the groups involved in the past. This
could include expanding the existing programme or choosing a
special campaigns focus, like the introduction of principles of
"Sustainable Europe" Programme.

similar projects as before for our members which didn't manage
to be involved in the previous ones.

Phare/Tacis Democracy Programme is only one programme we have
used so far. But there certainly will be an opportunity to
participate in Phare Partnership Programme (deadline 29th,
1996), LIEN (deadline April 30th, 1996), RTD (Research and
Technological Development - deadline February29th, 1996)
programme and may be some more. More information will be
provided. Groups which have expressed their interest to develop
projects in the frame of Phare/Tacis Democracy and Phare
Partnership Programmes are FOE Hungary, FOE Bulgaria, FOE
Macedonia and FOE Ukraine.

1.B.	Information / Education:

"New items for East and Central Europe":

New Items II will be finished by the end of March 1996. But as I
have an indication that the project has been and is very useful
I am allready thinking about the new series of similar
publications. This means work on two things: issues for the next
publications and fundraising for these issues. Issues, which
have been mentioned by some of our groups include: WB activities
in CEE; Enlargement of the EU towards CEE and the consequences
of this integration; Environmental Action Plan for CEE (EAP) and
NEAP's and how to use these things in environmental policy
making; Sustainable Europe - experience from CEE; Sustainable
agriculture; Western assistance to the environment of CEE;
Environmental consumerism; Hazardous waste; Sustainable
transport; Sustainable use of water; Sustainable energy.

Like the first series of "New Items", the booklets would be
practical and instrumental for further reading as well as
campaining and will be published in seven languages. This might
change depending from funding. So far we have had six issues in
one Year's time (or close to that). What I feel while manageing
the project is that it's too much of a burden to you and me and
we may be can reduce it to four issues a year. Concerning
fundraising - we might get some money from the EC, Charity Know
How or someone else and I can start doing this part of the work
as soon as we agree on the issues.

2.	Stimulation and development of East-East and East-West
cooperation:

I am just listing some things which are ongoing (agriculture,
sustainable Europe), some where we have done something but did
not go further with our joint activities (Black Sea). Some
things have been mentioned during our meetings (Baltic Sea) and
somewhere we have to define FOEE's role more precisely (MDB).

2.1 Agriculture: For two years we are working together with
Georgian Greens on a sustinable agriculture project supported by
the European Commission (Phare). The projects are focussed on
the promotion and practical implementation on ecological
agriculture and raising of awareness of the public about the
advantages of its products. (The project descriptions, for which
at least 20% of the funds need to come from other sources than
the EC, are available.)

2.2 Baltic Sea: Needs further discussions with FOEI Ocean
Foundation and FOE groups concerned.

2.3 Black Sea: We will build upon our inititiatives and the
contacts developed with UNDP and TACIS for the following
activities:

Regular distribution of relevant information to NGOs around the
Black Sea and in the Danube River Basin;

possible reviving the Black sea coalition we initiated in 1992
(if needed);

application with the Black Sea Convention Secretariat in
Istanbul for observer status with the convention after agreement
with the relevant FOEI-groups;

Assisting in monitoring and influencing the GEF programme on the
Black Sea, the implementation of the Black sea Convention and
Economical Cooperation of Black sea countries, raising funds for
this purpose with UNDP and TACIS;

Stimulating cooperation, public awareness and clean up campaigns
around the Blaclk Sea, again with funds of UNDP and TACIS.

2.4 Sustainable Europe in CEE: Needs to be dicussed with the
groups as they should start campaigning in their own countries.

2.5 MDB campaign / network in CEE: The initiative to start
campaign on MDBs in CEE has been brought up by several FOE
groups in the region which had their meeting in Brno,
mid-December 1994. A proposal for regular netwokring and
fundraising is under preperation. FOEE East-west programme is
prepared to assist.

2.6 Chernobyl Ten Years Anniversary.

2.7 Balkan Cooperation.

3.	Liaison - political lobbying on the European level:

3.1 EAP for Central and Eastern Europe: (see a seperate document
by Mara silina and John hontelez "the Sofia Conference and
beyond"). This is an issue where FOEE (joint project with
Milieukontakt Oost-Europa) has been involved as an international
organisation and had its political role play. And we also have
tried to involve our memebr-groups more actively. We will have a
half-day workshop in Ohrid just before FOEE AGM where we can
discuss all major issues in this respect. Briefly, the Sofia
follow-up activities will include:

Implementation of the EAP and development of NEAP's;

Focus on policy reforms and integration of environmental
concerns into economic / social policies;

Environmental financing - further work on mechanisms to be used
in CEEC;

Negotiations with NGOs/EAP TF/PPC on project development(s);

Quality of the assistance programmes (could be linked with the
New Items booklet);

Our Sustainable Europe to be linked with the integrated policies
and post Sofia;

New Items booklet on these issues.

3.2 Enlargement of the EU: This will become an issue very soon
in all associate countries, therefore we should be prepared for
broader debates. Just a few things to be mentioned to start
working with:

Working with the documents from the EU and provoking debates in
the countries. Introducing these agreements to environmental
organisations (debates in countries, workshop(s), New Items
booklet, international workshop etc.);

May be to organise a workshop in Brussels for CEE
environmentalists on the enlargement;

Comments on the documents - issue by issue on the main areas -
environment, transport, agriculture, energy etc.

Setting up a project and raising funbds collectively for itto
have a research unit for White Paper for CEEC environment;

Working closely with the Technical Assistance Information
Exchange office in the Commission.

Concerning the last objective for East-West programme about the
fundraising clearinghouse - some small things have happened but
not on regular basis and not much outside the EU. So, there is
still a space to improve and I would like to spend some time on
that.

Annex: Concrete activities from 1990:

Support to Greenway, the CEE environmental activists network;

Visit to Brussels (Nov 1990): a nine day seminar in Brussels
about the European Community for CEE activists;

EBRD-seminars and discussions with the management of the
European Bank for Reconstr. and Develop. (EBRD) (Nov 1990 -
March 1992): to influence the general character of the
operations of this new Multilateral Bank.

Activities to influence the policy of EBRD by disseminating
information and initiating campaigns for concrete (changes of)
desicions by the EBRD (ongoin): This work is mainly done by FOE
England/Wales/Northern Ireland;

A conference about Nuclear Energy and Energy conservation (June
1991), followed by a vast document with the speeches in six
languages.

Waste Workhop (June 1991) and follow up activities, concentrated
on protecting and improving existing systems of re-use and
re-cycling in CEE.

Substantial input in the debate about "Guiding Principles On The
Environment, Industry and Investment Decisions in Central and
Eastern Europe" coordinated by the European Commission.

West Goes East (January 1992): A major conference about western
investments and how to prevent possible negative environmental
effects in CEE. This project included eleven CEE country reports
about western investments.

Stimulating the involvement of CEE-groups in the EC-oriented
campaign for a good Packaging-Directive (ongoin): This is mainly
done by FOE Netherlands.

Initiatives to coordinate and stimulate activities to protect
and clean up the Black Sea (ongoing).

New Items (ongoing): publications of booklets about new,
relevant items for environmentalists in CEE in their own
languages.

The co-production of "Russisn Roulette" (1992-1993):a document
to protect against the western investments in the continuation
of the nuclear option in CEE and to present energy conservation
alernatives.

Co-organisation of the Vienna conference on the Ecological
Reconstruction of CEE (Nov 1992).

Coordination of a project to stregthen the local groups
structure of five of our CEE-members in cooperation with five of
our Westeuropean members in the Framework of the Phare Democracy
Programme (1993-1994).

Active involvement in the NGOactivities in the preperations of
the Environmental Action Plan for CEE, adopted at the
Pan-European Environmental Ministers Conference in Luzern,
Switzerland, Apr. 1993.

Organisation and preperation in governmental and NGO activities
towards the next Pan-European Environmental ministers Conference
in Sofia, 1995.

Preperation and organisation (together with Milieukontakt
Oost-Europa) of the NGO consultation "NGO Involvement in
Environmental Policy Making in CEE" in Leszno (Poland), June
1994.

Preperation and organization (together with Milieukontakt
Oosteuropa) of the meeting of resource persons/experts for Sofia
'95 preperations, May 1995.

Preperation and organization of the NGO Strategy meeting in
Groznjan (Croatia) June 1995.

Preperation and organization (together with Milieukontakt
Oosteuropa) of the meeting on financial instruments in Brussels,
July 1995.

Active involvement and participation in organisation of the NGO
Parallel Conference and participation in Ministerial Conference
in Sofia, October 1995.

Friends of the Earth Coordination Group Europe (FOE Europe),
Mara Silina, Min. Elandstraat 27, NL-6523 CS Nijmegen, T
0031-80/236512, F 0031-80/604361, e-mail: mkontakt@gn.apc.org

Michael Meyer, ECEAT - das European Center for Eco Agro Tourism.

Das nachstehend becshrieben Projekt ist besser bekannt unter dem
Namen STEF-Projekt (Sustainable Tourism on Ecological Farms).
Mit dieser Initiative soll eine lanfristige Unterstuetzung der
oekologisch wirtschaftenden Landwirte durch nachhaltigen
Tourismus gewaehrleistet werden. Die Ziele des Projekts sind:

Foerderung des oekologischen Landbaus durch nachhaltigen
Tourismus;

Aktiver Umwelt- und Naturschutz in Europa;

Oeko-Sensibilisierung der Landwirte sowie der Touristen;

Schaffung eines europaeischen Netzwerks;

Training der involvierten Landwirte und der nationalen
ECEAT-Vertreter;

Entwicklung von entsprechenden Marketingstrategien.

Das Instrument zur erreichung der Ziele liegt im praktischen
Ansatz. Durch die Foerderung von Eigeninitiativen der Landwirte
und deren Erfolg in ihrer Region wird ein Schneeballeffekt
erzielt. Die Existenzsicherung durch den Nebenerwerb mit
Tourismus ist zwar nicht in allen Faellen erfolgversprechend,
aber falls doch finden sich in der Region viele Nachahmer. Die
Arbeitsschritte sind zumindest in den osteuropaeischen Laendern
gleich:

Aufbau einer unabhaenigen nationalen Koordinierungsstelle;

Training der meist ehrenamtlichen Nationalkoordinatoren;

Aufbau von regionalen Kontaktbueros;

Unterstuetzung der Landwirte durch Information, Training und der
Beschaffung von oeffentlichen Mitteln zum Ausbau der Hoefe;

Entwicklung eines Marketingkonzepts fuer die Region und
europaweit;

Ergebnissicherung, Erfolgskontrolle und Korrektur.

In den weteuropaeischen Laendern bestehen meist schon relativ
starke Initiativen, auch wenn sie nicht oekologisch ausgerichtet
sind. In diesem Falle gilt es erst recht, eine positive Politik
zu betreiben, die Existenz der Oeko-Landwirte zu sichern und die
entsprechende Lobbyarbeit zu ermoeglichen. Das Projekt begann
vor vier Jahren in Polen mit ein paar Hoefen, mittlerweile haben
sich in 15 Laendern Europas ueber 600 Biohoefe zu dieser
Initiative ziusammengechlossen. Fuer jedes Land wird in den
Niderlanden eine Broschuere mit einer Beschreibung des Landes,
der Gegebenheiten und der einzelnen Hoefe gedruckt. Im Jahr 1994
wurden 5.000 dieser Broschueren verkauft und etwa 4.000
Touristen besuchten die Hoefe mit 10.000 Uebernachtungen. Fuer
1996 wird eine Kooperation mit Reiseveranstaltern angestrebt, da
mittlerweile ganze Doerfer in den Broschueren anbieten. fuer die
Zukunft wird in Erwaegung gezogen, die Projektidee auf den
gesamten Bereich der laendlichen Region auszuweiten, die dann
unter anderem kleinere Hotels, Angebote von Naturschutzgebieten
und oeffentlichen Einrichtungen, wie Jugendherbergen umfasst.
Die Vorbedingungen ist bei allen jedoch die oekologische
Ausrichtung. Deshalb arbeitet die ECEAT seit diesem Jahr an
Umweltqualitaetskriterien fuer ein nachhaltiges Tourismusangebot.

ECEAT - European Centre for Eco Agro Tourism, Deutschland;
Michael Meyer, Nationaler Koordinator, Kochstrasse 15a, 50354
Huerth.

ARMENIEN

Die Union der Gruenen Armeniens wird in ihrer Arbeit behindert.

von Sylvia Gressier, Februar 1996 - Infolge der widrigen
Lebensbedingungen (kein Strom, kein Wasser und keine Heizung),
mit denen die Armenier zur Zeit zu kaempfen haben, ist das Thema
Umweltschutz bei der Bevoelkerung natuerlich kleingeschrieben.
Die Nachricht von der Reparatur und dem Wiederanschluss des
Blocks Nr. 11 im Atomkraftwerk Medzamor unweit von Jerewan im
Herbst vergangenen Jahres wurde von grossen Teilen der
Bevoelkerung in Armenien mit der Hoffnung auf Strom und damit
auf die Normalisierung der Lebenssituation nach fast acht Jahren
ohne bzw. nur mit stundenweiser Elektrizitaetsversorgung
verbunden.

Die schwierige oekonomische Situation, in der das Land steckt,
tut das Seinige, die Bevoelkerung fuer Fragen des Umweltschutzes
voellig unsensibel zu machen. Die einzige NGO, die sich zur Zeit
diesem Thema widmet, firmiert unter der Bezeichnung Union der
Gruenen Armeniens. Sie existiert bereits seit 1930 als Bewegung
einiger Einzelpersonen, die auf die Austrocknung des Sewan-Sees
aufgrund eines Wasserkraftwerkes hinwiesen. In der Zeit der
Glasnost fanden sich mehrere aktive Gruppierungen, die im
Bereich Umweltschutz in Armenien aktiv waren und auf die
Freveltaten des sowjetischen Regimes aufmerksam machten.
Armeniens Wirtschaft bestand hauptsaechlich aus verarbeitender
Industrie. Chemiewerke und vor allem ein riesiges Kautschukwerk
in Jerewan verschmutzten die Luft in der Stadt stark, bevor die
Energieblockade einsetzte. Die armenischen Umweltschuetzer
schlossen sich 1989 zur Union der Gruenen Armeniens zusammen.

In einem Interview im Oktober 1995 berichtete der Praesident
dieser NGO, Hakop A. Sanarsajan, dass man sich zur Zeit vor
allem mit der Ausarbeitung eines Lebensmittelkontrollgesetzes
beschaeftige. Diese Arbeit sei jedoch ins Stocken geraten, da
das Geld fuer die Entlohnung der Fachleute, die an dem
Gesetzesentwurf gearbeitet haetten, ausgegangen sei. Auch fuer
den Bereich Abwasser und Abgase wolle die armenische Regierung
ein entsprechendes Gesetz einfuehren. Bei der Untersuchung
vergleichbarer Gesetze europaeischer Staaten sei die schwedische
Variante als Vorbild fuer Armenien als die geeigneteste erkannt
worden.

Ein Projekt, das von den USA mit 30.000 USD finanziert wird, ist
der Aufbau einer Biogasfabrik. Die Union der Gruenen Armeniens
hat sich u.a. der Verteilung von Informationsmaterial in Form
von Broschueren ueber diese Art der Energiegewinnung mit einer
Auflagenhoehe von 4.000 Exemplare angenommen.

Das Thema Nr. 1 der Umweltschuetzer Armeniens sei jedoch immer
noch der Kampf gegen den Wiederanschluss des Atomkraftwerkes
Medzamor, sagte Hakop Sanarsajan Diese Arbeit wird durch
offizielle Stellen behindert. So haetten im Radio keine
Stellungnahmen gegen die Wiederherstellung des AKWs in Armenien
gesendet werden duerfen.

In diesem Zusammenhang beklagte sich der Leiter dieser NGO auch
allgemein ueber die Methoden der Regierung, die Arbeit der
Gruenen in der oeffentlichkeit Armeniens zu diskreditieren. In
den Zeitungen seien Artikel von Journalisten erschienen, denen
er zwar ein Interview gegeben haette, deren Inhalt aber
keineswegs mit dem Inhalt der Publikationen uebereinstimmte. In
ihnen beschuldige die Regierung die Gruenen, dass sie den Anlass
fuer die Schliessung von Fabriken gegeben haetten. Die Fabriken
stuenden jedoch in Wirklichkeit wegen der Energieblockade, dem
Mangel an Rohmaterial und aufgrund der allgemeinen
Wirtschaftskrise im Land still. Die Umweltschutz-NGO habe keine
Moeglichkeit, sich gegen diese Art von Anschuldigungen zur Wehr
zu setzen. Die Bevoelkerung wuerde so jedoch gegen die Arbeit
die Gruenen aufgehetzt.

Diese unguenstige Einstellung gegenueber Umweltschuetzern in der
armenischen Bevoelkerung gepaart mit chronischem Geldmangel
lassen die Arbeit der Union der Gruenen Armeniens zu einem kaum
spuerbaren Element in der oeffentlichkeit dieses
Transkaukasus-Staates schrumpfen.

Uebrigens arbeitet zwar seit Dezember 1995 der Block Nr. 11 des
Atomkraftwerks Medzemor mit voller Kapazitaet, doch die
Situation in bezug auf die Stromversorgung in Jerewan hat sich
keinesfalls verbessert. Nach wie vor werden die Wohnungen der
Stadt nur nachts und das auch nicht durchgaengig und
regelmaessig mit Strom versorgt. Es kursieren Geruechte, dass
der armenische Staat die in Medzamor gewonnene Elektroenergie an
Georgien verkauft.

Kontakt: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung FES Armenien; Tumanjan Str.
38, Whg. 47; 375002 Jerewan; Republik Armenien; Tel. und Fax:
3742 - 532895; root@feaarm.arminco.com - Vertreterin der FES
Armenien: Naira Geworkjan

Water Level In Sevan Getting Stabilized

YEREVAN - The level of water in lake Sevan decreased by 6 cm
this year. Head of the Water resources department of the
Ministry of Environment Protection O.Kirakosian believes this is
a significant progress which shows that the level of water in
the lake is getting stabilized. The level has dropped by over
100 cm during the last two years. Stabilization of water level
is a result of virtually six times decrease of water drainage
from the lake this year. Mr. Kirakosian hoped that with full
operation of ANPP in 1996, drainage of water for power
production will completely stop. A corresponding decision has
been accepted by the government, and affirmed by the National
Council. Head of Water Resources department believes that the
level of water will gradually increase. It will probably grow by
150-200 cm when hydrotechnical constructions are built on the
river of Vorotan, to connect it with Arpa. Mr. Kirakosian added
that the World Bank allocated $ 485 thousands for the
development of ecological project for the lake.

Aragil Electronic News, Editor in Chief: V.Ganapetyan, tel:
+374-2-221296, E-mail: VAHE@ARMINCO.COM; VAHE@ARAGIL.ARMINCO.COM

BALTIKUM

New Road Through Baltic States

A 1,000-kilometre road linking Helsinki to Warsaw via the Baltic
states' capitals will be improved through a $180 million
project, the Nordic Investment Bank said on Monday. "The
Governments of the countries concerner are backing a $180
million investment programme, which in turn is closely connected
with the European Commission's commitment to faster and smoother
border crossing," the Nordic Investment Bank said. The
investments will allow the road link, called the Via Baltica, to
be upgraded over a five-year period into a smooth inyternational
link from its current status as separate national roads within
the five countries it crosses. Travellers in Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania - which only emerged as independent states five years
ago - say roads linking the countries are dangerous and
unreliable. "For the first time, it's being treated as a
continuous transport route, with a single, intercountry
development programme", Nordic Investment Bank said in a
statement. A working party comprised of Estonian, Latvian,
Lithuanian, Finnish and Polish governments, the European
Commission, the World Bank, The European Investment Bank and the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development set up the
programme. Money will be used to widen and upgrade 445
kilometres of the road and its bridges, improve city links and
place international road signs along the route. Border crossing
times will be greatly reduced, the bank said. Roadside services
such as hotels and restaurants will improve, mainly due to
private investments, the Bank said. Some 5,000 cars per day use
the road in the four adjacent countries, according to 1995
estimates, the working group said. The countries are linked to
Finland across the Gulf of Finland by a ferry link.

"ECODEFENSE!" Moskovsky prospekt 120-34 236006
Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg Russia telephone/fax +7 0112 437286
E-mail: ecodefense@glas.apc.org

One small step for eastern Europe

By Martin Wright - Eastern Europe is widely seen as an
environmental basket case; its pollution problems vast and
hopelessly complex, costing trillions of dollars to clean up,
with little prospect of any return on investment. It ain't
necessarily so. The right combination of political decisiveness
and an eye for economic opportunity long-term, can move
mountains - even turn them into molehills. On the Estonian
island of Dago sits a (very) concrete case in point. Dago was a
closed military area until 1990, a forward outpost of the Soviet
empire. Its isolation was something of an environmental plus:
Dago and its coastal waters are home to a host of animals and
plants which are rare elsewhere in the Baltic. The whole island,
with a population of just 12,000, has been designated a
biosphere reserve. 

Until this year, however, there was one major problem. Raw
sewage from the island's main industrial area at Korgessaare
poured virtually untreated straight into the sea. It was killing
off the coastal fisheries which were the lifeblood of the town's
canning factory. The town's Soviet-era plant, installed in the
early '80s, had never worked properly and was now in a state of
terminal disrepair. The cash-strapped local municipality lacked
the resources either to repair or replace it and work such as
this was too small-scale to qualify for World Bank assistance.
But it proved to be perfect for an initiative launched by
Stockholm Water Action (SWA). The Swedish capital prides itself
on having some of the cleanest urban water in the world: It is
safe to swim or fish from waterfronts in the heart of town. It's
an achievement celebrated in the city's annual water festival
and symposium, run by the Stockholm Water Foundation. By the end
of 1993, the foundation had decided that some of this
achievement should be exported to its former Eastern-bloc
neighbors across the Baltic, and Stockholm Water Action was
born. 

SWA asked the various Baltic governments to come up with water
treatment problems. Estonia was the swiftest to respond and Dago
soon emerged as the ideal candidate. It had a pressing need and
a relatively simple solution. What happened then is an object
lesson in the triumph of will, turning dreams into reality at
unprecedented speed. SWA assembled an impressive alliance of
companies and experts: from engineering giants like ITT Flygt
and ABB, to accountants, lawyers and smaller contractors, with
Scandiaconsult taking the project leadership role. 

The first site visit to Dago took place in February 1994. By
early May, '95 - a mere 17 months after the idea was first
mooted - the plant was up and running. Next to the wreck of its
old Soviet plant, Korgessaare now has a small, simple but highly
effective sewage works, pumping clean water out to sea and
providing dried fertilizer for local farms. The total cost was
roughly $900,000 - a surprisingly small sum, taking into account
the fact that the plant is treating around 60 percent of the
total wastewater load of the island. It works out at around $50
per person per year, or about half the average rate. With local
industry reliant on local fish stocks - already showing signs of
recovery - the investment should repay itself many times over.
Clean coastal waters are also essential to Dago's efforts to
promote itself as a center for eco-tourism. 

Dago is intended to be the first of a series of such
initiatives. SWA will help local authorities identify pressing
needs, locate sources of funding (either sponsorship, such as
the Nordic Investment Bank), tackle the technical problems and,
last but not least, set up financial structures with the aim of
making each project pay for itself. Appropriate technology is a
guiding principle -- the projects are designed to be run,
repaired and maintained by local workers using, as far as
possible, locally manufactured materials, so avoiding dependency
on costly Western technology. 

And maybe start turning a few of those mountains into molehills.

FIRST ESTONIAN-RUSSIAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENT SIGNED

by Nathaniel Trumbull. Pskov, Russia - The first-ever
environmental agreement between Estonia and the the Russian
Federation was signed on January 11 and represents a major step
toward future Estonian-Russian environmental cooperation. The
agreement was signed by ministerial heads in the ancient city of
Pskov which lies 60 kilometers from the still disputed
Estonian-Russian territory of the Pechory region. The signed
agreement lays the framework for future cooperative
environmental research and scholarly exchange between Estonia
and Russia to begin already this year. All cooperative
environmental research between Estonia and Russia came to a halt
after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Environmental
information on the condition of Lake Chudskoe (Lake Peipsi in
Estonian), which lies in the border area between Estonia and the
Russian Federation and is the fifth largest lake in Europe, has
not been shared between researchers on either side of the lake
for the last four years. Standardization of environmental
measurements on both sides of the lake and border, for example,
is no longer coordinated today. The bilateral environmental
agreement was signed by Minister of the Environment Villu
Reiljan of Estonia and First Deputy Minister of the Environment
Alexei Poryadin of Russia. In addition to the Finnish Deputy
Minister of the Environment, Kari Kaurilehto, the Finnish consul
to St. Petersburg and the Estonian consul to Pskov attended the
signing. During the course of discussions between the three
countries, it became clear that the Finnish Ministry of the
Environment has been playing a key role in aiding the Estonian
and Russian sides to begin to cooperate in the environmental
sphere. The Finnish delegation often assumed the role of
mediator between the Estonian and Russian delegations, ensuring
that decisions were made which were amenable to both Estonian
and Russian sides. Yet the signing of the first Estonian-Russian
environmental agreement can only be considered a partial
success. Only one of two prepared agreements was in the end
signed. The signing of a second agreement, outlining cooperative
environmental work on the water basin of Lake Chudskoe in
particular, has been delayed. Official disagreement over exact
territorial boundaries in the Pechory and Narva regions between
Estonia and Russia continues to make a signing of that second
agreement impossible today, said Estonian Minister of the
Environment Villu Reiljan. A resolution of this border problem
is nevertheless expected in the coming weeks. The water basin
agreement will likely be signed by the end of February,
according to both the Estonian and Russian delegations. The
meeting also included final negotiations on a trilateral
memorandum between Estonia, Finland, and Russia concerning
planning for the Year of the Gulf of Finland in 1996. Because
Lake Chudskoe flows directly into the Gulf of Finland, Pskov
Oblast is to be included in the activities of the Year of the
Gulf of Finland. Activities are to include cooperative
ecological research, improvements in international
transportation, and a wide range of other technical projects in
the Gulf region. The transboundary region of the Lake Chudskoe
watershed is not without its specific environmental problems,
according to Victor Zvonkov, Deputy Head of Pskov Oblast. One of
the most difficult problems concerns the absence of almost any
communication between the Estonian and Russian sides today. Any
environmental work on Lake Chudskoe, for example, is futile
without mutual support from both sides, Mr. Zvonkov said.
Pollution on either side of Lake Chudskoe immediately threatens
Estonian or Russian residents on either other side of lake. The
militarization of the region has also increased in recent years,
with the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe and the
Baltic states to Pskov Oblast. The territory of Pskov Oblast is
larger than Estonia, Belgium, or Holland, and represents one of
the last territories in European Russia which can be considered
largely ecologically undisturbed. The signed environmental
agreement represents one of the first successes in renewing
official Estonian-Russian relations in any realm since 1991. The
Russian Federation has still not recognized the Tartu Peace
Agreement of 1920, the largest obstacle today to establishing
Estonian-Russian relations. As a result, only a handful of
intergovernmental agreements have been reached between Estonia
and Russia today. Martii Poutanen of the Finnish Ministry of the
Environment believes that Estonian-Russian relations have "not
had enough time to develop" since the collapse of the Soviet
Union. Mr. Poutanen expects relations to develop normally as
soon as today's difficult stage of mutual suspicion and distrust
in relations and cooperation is overcome.

"ECODEFENSE! inform" environmental inform-bulletin No. 74,
JANUARY 1996 - "ECODEFENSE!" Moskovsky prospekt 120-34 236006
Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg Russia telephone/fax +7 0112 437286
E-mail: ecodefense@glas.apc.org

LAKE PEIPSI PROJECT PRESS RELEASE

OBINITSA, ESTONIA - A working meeting of local groups from the
border region of Estonia and Russia lying to the south of Lake
Chudskoe (Lake Peipsi in Estonian) took place on January 26,
1996 in the Estonian village of Obinitsa. Discussed at the
meeting was the possibility for the creation of a simplified
border-crossing procedure for local residents. Proposals for
social and economic cooperation in the transboundary region were
also discussed. Juri Vaidla, head of the Council of Elders of
the Congress of Sety of Estonia, and Victor Mikhilovich Isaev,
head of the Department of Inter-ethnic Relations of the
Administration of Pechory Region of Pskov Oblast, led the
working meeting. Mr. Isaev noted that some progress has been
made since the previous working meeting on November 21 of last
year. The ministries of foreign affairs of Russia and Estonia
have agreed to issue multiple visas for one-half year to the
elders of the border-area volosty (county) and uezdy (district)
of each country, which will help representatives of the border
region to work more efficiently on cooperative projects. In
mid-January, the Vyrusskii district administration discussed one
of the working group's project proposals for the development of
border trade. During this coming summer in Vastelinna, Estonia,
a seminar for tourist managers of the border region is planned
and will take place under the leadership of Swedish experts. At
the same time, the working group's project for the creation of a
simplified border-crossing procedure in the region has been
entirely halted. The Estonian representatives of the working
group had discussed the possibilities for a simplified crossing
with the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry in
turn contacted the embassy of the Russian Federation in Tallinn
in order to discuss the question. However, because of holidays,
and also because of the beginning of the next round of
intergovernmental border negotiations between Estonian and
Russian delegations, discussion of the question of a simplified
border crossing region on the southern border of Estonia and of
Russia gave no results. Participants of the working group do not
understand why at the northern part of the national border
between the cities of Ivangorod and Narva, some 12,000 people a
week cross the border by showing a pass, while on the southern
part of the border it is not possible to organize such a
simplified procedure. On the Latvian-Russian and
Estonian-Latvian borders a system of simplified regime has
already been organized. On the Latvian- Russian border, passes
are issued for three months to those people who have close
relatives on the other side. Practice shows that the simplified
border crossing procedure by a system of passes does not lead to
an increase in criminal activity in the region. Nina Komissaro,
head of the Panikovskii Volost of Pskov Oblast, emphasized that
organizing a simplified procedure is essential: the ethnic group
Sety live in the Pechory region live and generally they are
elderly, born from 1918-26 and their children presently live in
Estonia, largely in Tartu, Tallinn, and Pyl've. The elderly
require the frequent assistance of their children. However,
visas in Estonia to go to Russia are difficult to receive, and
also very expensive for them. In order to receive a visa, an
invitation is necessary. The elderly are required to go to
Pechory to apply for an invitation, which is also expensive,
almost an entire month's retirement payment. The existing system
of simplified border crossing by an established list does not
work correctly. At the meeting, representatives of the Vyrusski
Institute and the non-government organization "Chudskoe Project"
also presented their views on the problems of the region. As a
result of the discussions of the working group, a decision was
taken to create a new commission for the drawing up of a project
for a simplified border-crossing procedure. The commission will
be comprised of representatives of the volost and will work in
conjunction with the commission for simplified border crossing
which has been created on the inter-governmental level. It is
clear that the problem of a simplified crossing will not be
resolved until the Estonian and Russian governments can agree on
the exact delineation of the Estonian-Russian border.
Unfortunately, the last round of inter-governmental agreements
on the border on January 25-26 gave no results. Basic
disagreements between Estonia and Russia remain. The next
meeting of the working group is planned for May 17, 1996.

"ECODEFENSE!" Moskovsky prospekt 120-34 236006
Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg Russia telephone/fax +7 0112 437286
E-mail: ecodefense@glas.apc.org

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF TRANSBOUNDARY REGIONS

Representatives of regional ecological organizations,
journalists specializing in environmental issues, and concerned
citizens met to discuss the ecological problems of the
transboundary region of Northwest Russia, the Baltic states, and
Finland at the seminar "Environmental Problems of Transboundary
Regions" held on March 1 in St. Petersburg. The seminar was
organized by the Transboundary Environmental Information Agency
and financed by ISAR (former Institute for Soviet-American
Relations). Dr. Sergei Borisovich Lavrov, President of the
Russian Geographic Society, opened the morning session of the
seminar. Reforms of the last years in the newly independent
states have greatly complicated the geo-political situation in
the new border regions, according to Dr. Lavrov. Political
arguments and conflicts today in the border regions have
eclipsed previous interest in and concern over the environmental
problems of those regions, in his view. The state policies of
the Russian Federation are now unable to solve the critical
situation in the border regions, he said. Dr. Lavrov believes
that the realization of a plan of sustainable development in
those regions is possible today only on a local level and
through local initiatives. Ilkka Luotamo, the Finnish Consul to
St. Petersburg, reported on the history of and the reasons for
the designation of 1996 as the Year of the Gulf of Finland. The
Year is to include collaborative environmental studies among
scientists from throughout the region and international public
awareness programs concerning the environmental problems of the
Gulf of Finland. Irina Mikhailovna Markovets, Co-Chair of the
Working Group for Water Protection, and Valentina Viktorovna
Gol'tsova, research fellow at the Zoological Institute of the
Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, also presented
information on the Year of the Gulf of Finland. 

Gulnara Ishkuzina-Roll, Director of the Lake Peipsi Project,
described the social and environmental problems of the
Estonian-Russian transboundary region of Lake Peipsi and
appealed to those journalists at the seminar to place more
emphasis on the local problems of the border regions in their
work. She emphasized that a large amount of the Lake Peipsi
Project's work involves bringing people from both sides of Lake
Peipsi together in order that communication can be improved and
cooperation begun in solving common problems existing on both
sides of the lake. (...) Aita Ottas, journalist of the Estonian
newspaper Postimees, gave her views on those environmental
problems which have been inherited by Estonia as a result of the
former presence of the Soviet army on Estonian territory. She
described the dilemma for Estonian authorities on the future use
of a former Soviet airfield, one of the largest in Europe today,
left on Estonian territory. 

A lively discussion took place in evaluating the environmental
problems in the transboundary region of the Northwest Region of
Russia and Finland. Alexei Grigor'ev, representative of the
Information Center of the Socio-Ecological Union (...) described
the critical situation of timber cutting in the previously
protected border zone of Russia-Finland. The Finnish Consul Mr.
Luotamo responded to Mr. Grigor'ev's critical remarks on the
activity of Finnish lumber companies in the Karelia region of
Northwest Russia. 

Representatives of other non-government organizations of St.
Petersburg, the Northwest Region, and Moscow also participated
in the seminar. Those organizations are based in St. Petersburg
(Kurgal'skaia Expedition), Apatity and Murmansk Oblast
(EKONORD), and Petrozavodsk (Association of the Greens of
Karelia), Pskov (Education and Information Center of Volnyi
University), and Moscow (Ekologia). A press conference,
organized by the Russian-American Press Center, concluded the
seminar. 

For more information, please contact Alexander Shkrebets or
Nathaniel Trumbull. Phone 7-812-213-40-89 and 314-50-97, fax
7-812-213-41-48, e-mail: trumbull@glas.apc.org

ECODEFENSE!inform 78-79, 07.03.96

MITTELASIEN

alle folgenden Texte sind entnommen aus den letzten Ausgaben von
"Ecostan"

LEEP

LEEP is a United States based charitable corporation formed and
operating under the auspices of six indigenous Central Asian
nonprofit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who share a
common vision of building sustainable development and civil
societies in Central Asia. The individuals who comprise LEEP's
leadership have a long history of personal contact and
cooperation and represent several of Central Asia's oldest and
most established grassroots NGOs. As a formal extension of the
Central Asian NGO movement, LEEP is unique among American
organizations in its structure and management. With financial
support from the National Endowment for Democracy, LEEP began
its "Maintaining a Foothold for Democracy" program on January
24, 1996. This small program has three objectives:

to improve publication and distribution of Ecostan News, a free
monthly electronic journal, in its English, Russian, and German
editions;

to provide informational support, primarily via e-mail, to any
Central Asian NGO requesting such assistance. This assistance is
primarily in the form of copies of laws from any Western
country, and copies of articles from English, French, Italian,
and German language newspapers and journals published around the
world. However, using our American volunteers, other precisely
worded information requests can also be managed.

to provide fiscal and administrative support to selected Central
Asian NGOs. LEEP acts as a fiscal agent for nonprofits selected
by its Central Asian advisors; in most cases only requiring 1%
overhead for this service.

Also, LEEP acts as an intermediary between Central Asian NGOs
and US foundations by initiating contacts and translating
proposals.In Central Asia, LEEP's affiliate organizations are:

Aleyne (Emil Shukurov; Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan):
emil@aleyne.bishkek.su

Ashgabad Ecological Club, CATENA (Andrei Aranbaev; Ashgabad,
Turkmenistan): catena@glas.apc.org

Dashkhovuz Ecological Guardians (Andrei Zatoka; Dashkhovuz,
Turkmenistan): zatoka@glas.apc.org

Ecolog (Oleg Tsaruk; Tashkent, Uzbekistan): tashkent@glas.apc.org

Green Salvation (Sergei Kuratov; Almaty, Kazakstan):
ecoalmati@glas.apc.org

Interlegal Almaty (Sergei Zlotnikov; Almaty, Kazakstan):
serge@aebexc.alma-ata.su

LEEP's U.S. office can be reached at: esievers@igc.org, Eric
Sievers, 569 Whitney Ave. #3, New Haven, CT 06511.

CENTRAL ASIAN DEMOCRACY NGOS TO CLOSE THEIR DOORS?

by Eric Sievers, LEEP - (...) While successful US governmental
and private democratic and environmental development programs
have been active in Central Asia since 1992, they are primary
victims of budget cutbacks and are beginning to close now,
several years earlier than anticipated. The half dozen major NGO
development projects in Central Asia (American Legal Consortium,
Counterpart Consortium, Eurasia Foundation, ISAR's Seeds of
Democracy, Mercy Corps, and National Endowment for Democracy)
are all funded with allocations from the US government, the
majority of them (and the largest) with funds from the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID). This year,
two or three of these programs are expected to close and one has
begun devoting considerably less attention to NGO development.
Next year, the roughly 250 NGOs which US development programs
(...) encouraged to continue to exist, expand their activities,
and build horizontal coalitions may be fighting for survival
among themselves for a piece of a comparatively disappointing
assistance package.

While the same problem of unexpected US funding policy shifts
affects other post-communist regions, in contrast to Central
Asia, dozens of private and European governmental democratic and
environmental assistance programs currently target Russia and
Eastern Europe. The US government, by comparison, currently
accounts for, I estimate, 90% of assistance for grassroots
secular NGOs in Central Asia. Various other organizations, such
as HIVOS and NOVIB (private development agencies supported by
the Dutch government), account for most of the remaining amount.
Other than occasional NGO support from Soros, there are no other
private or non-US funding sources currently located within
Central Asia. (...) The Ford Foundation and the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation offices in Moscow also are in
a position to provide a limited amount of funding for Central
Asian NGOs.

Similarly, Eastern Europe and Russia have much more developed
legislation and tax codes encouraging philanthropy, and, in some
cases, notable indigenous grant-making foundations and
government support programs for NGOs. In Central Asia, by
comparison, the restrictive Soviet-era registration and taxation
climate still prevails, and institutional philanthropy and
indigenous grant-making foundations are only now forming. They
still require several years to become effective. My estimate is
that, unless the action described below is taken, half of
currently active grassroots NGOs may cease working during 1997.
(...)

Yet, part of the USAID development strategy is sustainability,
the practice of ensuring that after a few years of assistance,
other mechanisms are set in place to continue the activity when
USAID removes itself. For example, at least one of these six
programs guaranteed in its 1992 proposal to USAID that by the
time of this writing a local group would be administering its
project and that the American side would find private foundation
support for the continuation of the project. Because it was
realizable and potentially very effective, such a strategy is to
be commended as the embodiment of the sustainability approach.
Unfortunately, USAID has failed in respect to sustainability;
not only did this US organization never even try to turn over
its operations to a local group or secure private foundation
support, USAID apparently never even asked why. So easily
discarded is sustainability in practice, it is almost certain
that this organization's current US staff in Central Asia is not
even aware of this central provision of the proposal.

Generally in USAID's Central Asia, the numerous initially
proposed options for sustainability have not been pursued; it is
fairer to say that they have been ignored. Private foundations
have not been coaxed into the region, local governments have not
been convinced to provide direct support to grassroots NGOs, and
local foundations have not been developed. Similarly,
legislation encouraging philanthropic giving and clarifying
taxation issues has not been a focus of the funding of legal
reform projects. The unfortunate fact is that "sustainability"
is to the professional US development community what "family
values" is to the political community, something which clearly
demands verbal affirmation but is unlikely to play a significant
role once the election is over or the contract is signed.
Moreover, it is difficult to imagine how the professional
development community would see its interests furthered by
sustainability.

Nevertheless, the survival and sustainability of Central Asian
NGOs is of undisputed importance. If NGOs disappear, so will
many of the forces currently facilitating democratic and market
reforms. A democratic and open Central Asia offers global
advantages such as natural resources, a uniquely friendly
cultural bridge between Islam and Christianity, Europe and Asia,
and, as is becoming, sadly, increasingly important, a means of
containing an undemocratic Russia. The opinion of the US
government, European states, the World Bank, and virtually every
other country and institution active in Central Asia is that
NGOs are the most promising and effective democratic
institutions in Central Asia and the most trustworthy and
progressive possible partners in the region.

Further, NGOs in Central Asia are something of an unexpected
surprise. Although the Central Asian countries have been
independent for only four years, already the scope of their NGO
sector (I estimate roughly 2000 grassroots NGOs in the region)
dwarfs that of many South American and African, as well as all
Islamic, countries. Moreover, the percentage of social action
NGOs is many times higher than normal for developing countries.
Still more striking, in Central Asia, the average NGO employee
is a college graduate (often with a graduate degree) and speaks
several languages. The most active NGOs also efficiently use and
own computers, e-mail, and other modern tools at levels
surpassing virtually all governmental agencies. Further, project
costs in the region are a fraction of what similar programs
would cost in other countries. Thus, against the background of
development failures throughout the world, currently, Central
Asia shines. In this regard, Central Asia is an oasis of
exciting possibility in Asia. However, democracy in Central Asia
faces a variety of threats, including increasingly authoritarian
national governmental leaders, ethnic strife (there are
approximately 100 distinct ethnic groups in the region), threats
to secular governance, and outright war. (...)The conflict in
Tajikistan, in which Russia is heavily involved, has claimed the
lives of up to 200,000 Tajikistanis and is not expected to end
soon.

Because USAID is cutting back, because Europe is focused on
Europe itself, and because Central Asia is so poorly understood,
by the end of this year, NGOs will have no major sources of
funding. Therefore, it is crucial that US private foundations
expand into Central Asia. Although USAID assistance has been
invaluable, private foundations are also needed to improve the
quality of development work in the region. For example, actual
grants may comprise only 25% of USAID program budgets for NGO
grant programs. What the NGO sector needs most is the kind of
sensitive and effective (and economically efficient) leadership
and program design that only creative local specialists can
provide, and, apparently, only US private foundations are in a
position to support. Maintaining current levels of NGO
assistance in the region requires a total investment of only
roughly $2 million in grants per year, a fraction of what is
currently being spent by the US government in Central Asia and
only .02% of total annual US private foundation philanthropic
expenditures. (...)

"Geopolitics" - Activities of International Donors in Central
Asia

by Eric Sievers - Over the past (...) months a number of
unrelated events have transpired. At the end of October in
Istanbul, in the five star Chinar Hotel, the International
Secretariat for Protection of the Nature of the Black Sea and
Central Asian Region, a project of the Turkish Fund for Nature
Protection (Turkye Sevre Vakfi), met for the third time. As for
the first two meetings, financial support was provided by
Japan's Sasakav Foundation and the participant list was
unilaterally determined by the Turkish organizers.
Interestingly, with each meeting the number of participants
changes. Those that are willing to sign any document put in
front of them are encouraged to return, while others go absent.
Furthermore, for some reason, Tajikistan and Armenia and other
countries "not associated with the region in which the
Secretariat is interested" went unrepresented, while Azerbaijan
(which is neither part of Central Asia nor near the Black Sea)
was invited. The founding mission of this secretariat was (...)
to gather information about the environmental conditions in the
participants' countries and then, in the name of an established
NGO, carry this information to the international community.
Rather, they appear to be involved in some uncertain politics,
not focused on any apparent work, and opportunistically taking
advantage of Central Asia for financial gain.

Similarly, a large group of Russian biologists recently received
a grant to conduct research on the biodiversity of Central Asia.
These scientists are both capable biologists and good people,
but (...) they are not inviting local scientists (save in
EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, and only then only to collect data
and nothing more) to work with them. While their funds were
issued in the name of international cooperation and to foster
international partnerships, the partnerships that are being
fostered in this study of Central Asia's biodiversity are almost
exclusively Russia-France, Russia-Germany, Russia-USA ...

Also, recently, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) has become
more active in Central Asia. A second biodiversity preservation
conference was recently held (this time on forest ecosystems).
They also received a grant with the KazEcoSys Fund from ISAR for
a conference about the introduction of new IUCN criteria for the
protection of endangered species in the region. The problem with
this project is that the director from the IUCN side, a Dr.
Parakatil, prefers to build his operations on bureaucratic
foundations and views NGO activists as little more than static
that interferes with his plans. Viewing NGOs not as partners but
as beneath oneself is a strange position for an international
NGO to assume, and this attitude damages the quality of IUCN's
work in the region.

In the international headquarters of the World Wildlife Fund in
Switzerland, it was decided that WWF Pakistan's coordinating
role in Central Asia (for the past three years, they have done
absolutely nothing except make promises) will be transferred to
the Russian Program Office. Of course, as usual, no one asked
the Central Asians what they thought about this change. The
Russian office put together a list of coordinators, again not
bothering to wonder whom the Central Asians would like to see on
this list. (...) In the middle of November (...) during the
Eighth International Snow Leopard Conservation Symposium in
Islamabad, Pakistan, all three players in this venture came
together: WWF Pakistan, the WWF Program Office in Russia, and
the Central Asian NGO biodiversity scientists. It was
interesting to watch how the two wings of WWF vied for the
attentions of the Central Asians, and impossible to count the
number of promises made. The Pakistanis began to voice concerns
about why all these Russians and Germans were trying to get
their fingers into "their" region, and the Russians spoke about
the need to prevent the destruction of the great unified culture
and institutions produced while the area was all still part of
the USSR ...

But what, after all, about the Central Asians? Are they just
enshrouded in their own dreams waiting for someone to come solve
their problems? In late November, at the Cheetah 95 conference
in Dashkhovuz, Turkmenistan representatives from Kazakstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the United States
gathered to discuss Central Asia's problems. The result was the
formation of the International Central Asian Biodiversity
Institute. This institution, it is hoped, will be able to
coordinate local scientists (governmental and non-governmental)
and biodiversity work in order to provide an NGO structure
capable of communicating effectively with the international
community. (...) The first tasks of this new organization
involve establishing a data base, information distribution
structure, and funding strategy. Biostan is open to working with
governmental, academic, and nongovernmental organizations, as
well as with private individuals. (...) A Coordinating Committee
of eight people now exists, consisting of representatives of
each Central Asian republic and one representative from the
United States. The Executive Director is Oleg Tsaruk from
Uzbekistan, and a follow-up conference is tentatively planned
for the fall of 1997 in Karaganda, Kazakstan.

Anyone wishing to become a member of this organization:
"tashkent@glas.apc.org" or by overland mail to Eric Sievers, 569
Whitney Ave. #3, New Haven, CT 06511.

Desertification - The Asian  R I O D  Conference

by Oleg Tsaruk, Ecolog - Desertification (the degradation of
natural and anthropogenic ecosystems in arid and semi-arid
zones) is one of the most serious problems in the world today.
More than 100 countries are affected or threatened by
desertification. The most well-known example of desert
encroachment is in the Sahel countries; this desertification has
claimed millions of human lives. The Convention to Combat
Desertification (CCD) was developed to address problems related
to desertification and pioneer strategies for preventing
desertification.

The idea for this convention was born in 1992 at the Rio
Conference; the convention itself was presented on June 17, 1994
in Paris. Since then, 115 countries have become signatories and
twenty have ratified the document. Ninety days after fifty
countries have ratified the convention (expected to be in 1997),
it comes into force. All of the Central Asian countries have
signed this convention, and at least Kazakstan and Uzbekistan
have also ratified it. It is important to note that this
convention is one of the first international agreements which
demands that participant states involve NGOs in the realization
of the convention's efforts. Moreover, the Secretariat of the
CCD includes an NGO Liaison; at present, this post is filled by
Ms. Sylvia Jampies (sjampies.incd@unep.ch).

Translated from the French "Reseau International d'ONG sur la
Desertification," RIOD is the International NGO Coalition
Against Desertification. At the end of January in Islamabad,
Pakistan, the first Asian RIOD Conference was held. Analogous
conferences have already been held in Africa and Europe, and
North and South American conferences are planned for the near
future.

Central Asia was represented by three people from Tashkent
(Uzbekistan), two from Tajikistan, and one from Kazakstan.
Unfortunately, for various reasons, expected participants from
Turkmenistan and Nukus (Karakalpakistan, Uzbekistan) did not
arrive, and Kyrgyzstan did not react to invitations. Once again,
the Central Asian region showed its lack of organization and its
lack of understanding of the importance of direct international
contacts and participation. In addition, representatives from
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mongolia, Nepal,
Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Japan, and Pakistan were
in attendance. The President of Pakistan opened the conference
and pledged his full support for RIOD's work, a display of
governmental interest and recognition that we Central Asian's
could only react to with pleased and unaccustomed astonishment.

One result of the conference which was very important to us was
the recognition of the five republics of Central Asia as an
independent sub-region. Temporarily, the International
Biodiversity Institute (BIOSTAN) will represent RIOD in Central
Asia. For comparison, other recognized sub-regions were
Southeast Asia, Southern Asia, and Western Asia. Also, for the
present time, Turkey and Mongolia will be incorporated into the
Central Asian working group. The Central Asian group will also
focus its attention on the desertification problems of southern
Siberia. Interestingly, Russian environmental bureaucrats have
ignored CCD and RIOD, claiming that Russia does not have
desertification problems! One of our immediate goals is drawing
attention to this oversight by Russia. We are looking for
international contacts to facilitate this effort.

The Central Asian group is now working to inform NGOs in Central
Asia about RIOD and develop a regional coalition of NGOs. We
hope that this coalition will develop in the next three months
into a cogent structure capable of effectively representing
Central Asia and furthering the CCD. Any assistance of any kind
will be appreciated.

Ecostan News Vol. 4/ Number 3 March 1, 1996

Kasachstan

Bayer in Kazakstan

The metallurgical plant H. C. Starck GmbH (Ltd.), a full
subsidiary of the BAYER group located in the East German city of
Goslar, exports waste and scrap metal containing molybdenum to
Stepnogorsk, Kazakstan, ostensibly for recycling. The firm
alleges that conditions there are excellent, even "better than
in Germany." But, environmentalists associated with Greenpeace
found an atomic ruin with dumped heaps of waste. A lot of the
buildings in the factory area are in very bad condition, and the
waste management of the factory is dramatically neglected.
Scattered on and around the actual factory site are large heaps
of varicolored wastes which are spread around by the wind. Here,
uranium and other rare metals are being leached from ore with
the help of sulfuric acid. The uranium output is very high. The
COORDINATION AGAINST BAYER-DANGERS demands an immediate export
freeze of toxic waste to Kazakstan, an extensive environmental
assessment and responsible disposal of these pollutants at the
expense of the BAYER group.

aus: KEYCODE BAYER, the newsletter of COORDINATION AGAINST
BAYER-DANGERS. Since 1983, this group has united the victims of
the multinational BAYER-trust and all those who are interested
in BAYER-critical activities. It is dedicated to fighting for
environmental protection and job security at BAYER all over the
world. Coordination against Bayer-Dangers:
Co_gegen_BAYER@NADESHDA.gun.de

ILYE-ALATAUSKY NATIONAL PARK 

by Kiril Zakhvatkin, Green Salvation - By decree of the
government of the Republic of Kazakstan, the Ilye-Alatausky
National Nature Park has been formed. With an area of 164,500
hectares (640 square miles) and a length of 150 kilometers,
Ilye-Alatau encompasses a large mountain forest zone of the
Zailisky Alatau Mountain Range, itself a section of the immense
Tien-Shan Mountain Range. The new park boasts unique landscapes,
natural formations, cultural monuments, and diverse plant and
animal life. A part of the park consists of high mountains and
glaciers with abrupt cliffs. The park's highest point, Peak
Talgar, is 4974 meters (16,319 feet). (...)

However, the value of the formation of this national park
extends far beyond the borders of general ecology and nature
protection. The park embraces many of the life-giving sources
that enable the existence of the largest social-economic
conglomeration in the country, the 1.5 million inhabitant
metropolis of Almaty. Here in the Zailisky Alatau, moisture
collects and is regulated, supplying a steady stream to the
city. Furthermore, the park may facilitate the resolution of
some of the most serious social and economic problems of Almaty.
(...)

Because of its size and proximity (less than a half hour drive)
to a national capital with rapidly westernizing service and
transportation facilities, the unique natural beauty of this
park presents an unusual combination of cultural (Silk Road and
Central Asia) and environmental (immense mountains and snow
leopard) attractions. Nevertheless, because of the difficult
economic transitional conditions of this young sovereign state,
Ilye-Alatau is being closely watched by the government which
expects the park to redeem its economic potential quickly.
Therefore, this exceptionally wise and far-sighted step toward
sustainable development needs to be recognized by the world
community and confirmed by adventure tourists. [Note by Eric
Sievers: The Press Release of the United States Information
Agency in Almaty on April 15 credits Green Salvation and VOCA
for their technical work in helping to push the park proposal
through. The Kazakstan State Forest Committee will be entrusted
with management of Ilye Alatau. The press release also noted
that the next cooperative project between VOCA and Green
Salvation may be an effort to have the Zailisky Alatau listed as
a UN World Heritage site.]

Welcome to our Safari! 

by S. Malostvolov - On December 5, 1995, the government of the
Republic of Kazakstan adopted Decree 1667, "About conducting on
the territory of Altyn-Emil National Park a scientific
experiment to study the possibility of a limited taking of Red
Book animals. This idea came from none other than the primary
agency for nature protection in the republic, the Ministry of
Ecology and Bioresources. Support for this idea, and legal
assistance, came from the Ministry of Justice and the National
Academy of Sciences.

The guinea pig in this round of experiments is the endangered
djeiran. Before, it was the muflon and arkhar; a plan was
adopted last year to shoot 124 of these animals between 1995-97
for scientific research. Under this new plan, in the next two
years foreign hunters will be allowed to shoot 20 djeiran each
year. The justification for this hunt, as always, is sciencethe
study of biological, morphological, and other characteristics.
This scientific research will occur despite the fact that the
djeiran is a very well-studied animal already. Simultaneously,
as paradoxical as it may seem, the scientists will also study
the effects of shooting on the population of an endangered
species. Even more distressing, the proceeds of these animals
(meat?) from these hunts will be given to the regional
authorities and are supposed to be used to facilitate flora and
fauna protection in regional nature reserves.

Rocket and Space Launches in Kazakstan

Green Women Information Agency - Recently, astronauts have been
seizing headlines again and re-emerging as popular heroes. In
Kazakstan, newspapers, radios, and other media are actively
celebrating these hometown heroes. However, there is little talk
of the actual cost of these space flight achievements and their
effects on the nature and people of Kazakstan. This topic being
so rarely addressed, it is significant that the newspaper Aziya
recently carried a story about this subject, a story informed by
data from Kazakstan's Ministry of Ecology and Bioresources.
Valery Yakovlev, who has studied the issue of the factories of
the military industrial complex and their environmental effects
on their local regions has disturbing news. He claims that the
situation in Djezkazgan Region amounts to an environmental
disaster of global impact, more serious even than the more well
known Aral Sea and Semipalatinsk disasters combined. Consider
that rocket fuel has been sprayed from the Pacific to the
Atlantic. Coming back to the specific problems of Kazakstan, it
is fairly certain that roughly 77 million hectares have been
polluted, one million lives affected, and between two and four
trillion dollars of damage been inflicted on the environment.
The major sources of this pollution are two forty year old
installations in the region, the Baikenour Space Launch Facility
and the Saryshagan Rocket Facility. Almost half of Djezkazgan
Region, 16 million hectares, has been set aside for the
operations of these facilities. Commitments to Russia regarding
these and other installations ensure that they will continue to
operate for at least another decade. Pollution related to
launchings, landings, and the separation of stages will continue
to be a major pollution concern; there were 44 launchings last
year alone. 20 commercial Proton Rocket launches have been
scheduled to occur in what remains of this century. The research
module that just this week docked with Mir was launched from
Baikenour. The toxic and even mutagenic effects of many of the
materials and chemicals used at these facilities and in these
rockets provides well-founded reason to be concerned. Research
has begun to show that some districts are virtually coated in
this pollution and that winds and other natural processes are
transporting these chemicals increasingly into major bodies of
water, as well as ground water. The Djezkazgan Regional
Administration has made repeated appeals to the national
government to address this situation, emphasizing that there is
a proven scientific connection between Baikenour's activities
and morbidity (especially cancers and infant mortality) in the
region. Complicating this situation, 14 of Kazakstan's 19
regions are polluted by military industrial plants or
installations on their territories. There is currently no action
plan or even coordinated research being implemented to address
this issue, much less an organized medical or humanitarian
response being organized to assist those who are afflicted.