ECOPRAVO-LVIV

HOW TO MAKE AN ECOLOGIST FROM GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIAL AND A STATESMAN FROM ECOLOGIST?

In Georgia was held and International regional seminar on Aarhus Convention for Caucasus countries (Azerbaidzan, Armenia, Georgia). It was organized by UNEP with a help of the Aarhus Convention Secretariat. In the seminar took part the Secretary of Aarhus Convention, UNEP representatives and 3 facilitators who spoke in Russian that was very contributing to discussions. Program of the seminar included not only training, but also presentations of Aarhus Convention Secretary and representatives of REC from Budapest. Trainings were provided by 3 facilitators: Svitlana Kravchenko (“Ecopravo-Lviv”, Ukraine), M.Bolshakova (REC) and O.Razbash (“Environmental and Human Rights Protection Center, Russia). More that 40 participants took part in the seminar. Half of them were state officials (rather high state rank from the Ministry of Environmental safety) and representatives of NGOs.

Both were very interested in Aarhus Convention, despite the awful economical and social situation in Caucasus countries . Nevertheless they remain being very enthusiastic: they'd like to act, they'd like to have an electronic newsletters,. WebPages and access to information. Also they are very interested in public participation in environmental problems determination.

Svitlana Kravchenko roused their interest in Ukrainian experience of Ukrainian -Moldavian Dnester Convention elaboration. In future Georgia will have the same work to do, when will make a document about international river Kura.

People say that listening person absorbs 5% of information. Listening with writing process will bring to nearly 20% of assimilation. But if a person takes direct part in discussion, he or she will cope with 50-60% of information. Perhaps that's why participants enjoyed the business games (like brainstorm) that were proposed by organizers. Also facilitators proposed a game where officials had to become NGO (only for the game time) and vice versa, just to come in opposite shoes. First statesmen disliked this idea but “a la guerre comme a la guerre”. Game passed very successfully and all participants liked it very much. After game both officials and NGO representatives admitted that they have got known much more about Aarhus Convention and said that they will popularize it in their countries.

By the way, among 3 above-mentioned countries, 2 of them have already ratified the Convention. It was Georgia and Azerbaidzan. Armenia still prepares itself to ratify The Aarhus Convention. But, let's remind, in all Europe only 11 countries ratified and joined this Convention. So, as for one Caucasus the result is very and very good for now.

Sourse “Ecopravo-Lviv”, January 2001

THE PROTOCOL WAS INFORMALLY DISCUSSED IN ROME

An Informal Meeting of Espoo Convention Secretariat was held in Rome.

“The friends of the Secretariat” are experts that were invited by the Secretary of Convention for discussion of the development of SEA Protocol to Espoo Convention. That's why it was called as an informal one. I'd like to note, that there wasn't too many “East-European friends”: only by one representative from Poland, Hungary, and Ukraine. By the way, our country was represented by the president of Charitable foundation “Ecopravo-Lviv” Svitlana Kravchenko.

For one time the group of experts has already met for the working out of the Conception. After that the Protocol's project was prepared by Espoo Convention Secretary, who invited “Friends of the Secretary” once more, this time to Rome. But officially, the work on the Protocol will start after the Meeting of the parties in Sophia on February 2001. Now experts work only on the lifelength of the text for its officially presentation on the International conference of the parties.

WHAT IS ESPOO CONVENTION?

Espoo Convention was signed in Espoo, Finland in 1991. It is called “Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context Convention” and was ratified only in 1997. Now it has come into force. Also “ The Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment” is developed for this Convention now.

If to explain all above-mentioned information: in The Aarhus Convention in the 6th article, public participation in decision-making on concrete projects was highlighted quite clearly and public participation in preparation of plans, programs, policy and legislation is written very pretentiously in articles 7 and 8. For ex., formulation “Parties aren't recommended…” make countries being uncertain.

In order to avoid such weak spots, the Secretary of Convention has to work out new documents. But, though “Aarhus” wasn't come into force yet ( for this it needs the ratification of 16 countries), Espoo is already in action, and also has a point about public participation in an Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. That's why the experts decided to make a Protocol not to Aarhus but to The Espoo Convention. The only condition was that the representatives of The Aarhus Convention would take part in its elaboration, among whose was also Svitlana Kravchenko. That's why there were the Secretary and representatives of The Aarhus Convention among “Espoo people” at the Rome meeting. In Rome Svitlana Kravchenko was as a representative of European coalition of NGOs -- “Ecoforum”.

Besides, this Protocol has a direct connection with the International conference of Environmental Ministers that will be held in Kiyiv in 2 years. So, this Protocol will be worked out and discussed by 2003. And on the above-mentioned conference it'll be passed.

Sourse “Ecopravo-Lviv”, January 2001

UKRAINE

ATTEMPT TO ADOPT THE FIRST GE BIOSAFETY LEGISLATION IN UKRAINE FAILED

Today the Parliament of Ukraine - Verkhovna Rada - has rejected a draft law recommended by the Parliament Committee on science and education in respect of the state system of biosafety connected with genetic engineering, which was meant to become the first national legislation in this field. The absence of any legal regulation on introduction and use of GMOs in Ukraine is considered to hinder official registration of GE plants and their "commercial debut" on Ukrainian fields. Monsanto, the most active biotech company in Ukraine, has repeatedly failed to register its Bt potato. However, MPs have decided to wait with the "first-born" draft law. Member of the Parliament Committee on environmental policy, Viktor Khazan, has harshly commented on the draft law during the hearings yesterday, claiming that it does not guarantee a sufficient safety level as to the regulation of GMOs. The same opinion was expressed right before today's voting by the member of the Peoples' democratic party's Parliament faction, Sergey Shevchuk. Having referred to his medical background he asked the deputies "not to make foolish things by voting "for" the draft law, which is unsafe for Ukrainian people". Ukrainian public has not remained voiceless as well. This morning members of the Committee on environmental policy have distributed to MPs two hundred copies of a public appeal to the Parliament and the President of Ukraine with a request to put off an adoption of this draft law. More than fifty people, who signed the appeal - ecologists, doctors, agriculturists, journalists, lawyers and members of consumer associations - have expressed uncertainty that the existing draft law could ensure biosafety and health. Instead, as its written in the appeal, this document guarantees LifeSciences "easy living in Ukraine". People demand public hearings on GE legislation, explaining that "eating GMOs" is everyone's issue. Other key demands in the appeal are moratorium on approving GMOs' until they are proved safe and labeling of the products, which might contain GE material. The rejected draft law is now to be considerably revised and rewritten before it returns to the Parliament.

Sourse “Green dossier”, January 2001

 WORLD

NEW RULES TO PROTECT THREATENED SALMON TAKE EFFECT MONDAY

New federal rules to protect salmon threatened with extinction on the West Coast go into effect Monday.

The new regulations, to be enforced by the National Marine Fisheries Service, prohibit acts that could kill or harm the fish.

"It's the teeth of salmon recovery," said Bill Sullivan, environmental director for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians in Washington state.

Puget Sound chinook and 13 other West Coast salmon and steelhead populations were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act nearly two years ago. The fish have suffered from development, logging, dams, overfishing and other habitat changes.

Already in place are rules that require any federal-related project that could harm threatened fish to be approved by the fisheries service.

The new rules expand that shield, making it illegal for individuals, businesses or local and state governments to kill or harm salmon or destroy important habitat.

Violators face fines up to $20,000. Criminal charges could also apply, although only "egregious actions" are expected to be targeted, said Rosemary Furfey, a natural resource management specialist with the fisheries service.

Lawsuits from both sides are pending. Builders challenge the rationale for the rules, while environmentalists say the regulations do too little to protect fish.

A major change under the new rules is that third parties _ anyone who believes salmon are being harmed -- can sue alleged violators. Businesses are concerned that will provoke lawsuits and increase costs.

"Our members are worried," said Tom McCabe of the Building Industry Association in Olympia. "It puts an indecisiveness in the marketplace."

Jacques White, a biologist who works for People for Puget Sound, said his group and others have started listing potential legal targets.

"We are going to be looking at things we can stop," he said. "We have a short list of flagrant violators."

Gov. Gary Locke's top fish adviser said the rules give new urgency to salmon recovery -- if only through the potential threat of lawsuits and enforcement.

"We've done all the easy things," Curt Smitch said. "Now we are to the hard stuff. Deciding what we will do with buffers along streams. Modifying people's behavior in how they treat areas around streams and wetlands."

Besides Puget Sound chinook, the list of threatened runs in the Northwest includes lower Columbia River chinook, Lake Ozette sockeye, Hood Canal summer chum, lower Columbia chum, mid-Columbia steelhead, upper Willamette River chinook and steelhead, and Lake Ozette sockeye.

Listed as endangered -- considered closer to extinction than threatened runs -- are upper Columbia spring chinook.

Sourse AP January, 2001