NGOs in the Baltic Sea Region - das NGO-Ostseenetzwerk

Spaziergang mit lahmer Ente

2011-10-11T11:03:00.001+02:00

Die Orientierung scheint schwierig: ist nun eigentlich Krise, oder nicht? Von der weltweiten Finanzkrise redet kaum noch jemand, aber die ungerechten Strukturen der Finanzindustrie beunruhigen immer noch ganz Europa. Diejenigen Politiker/innen, die immer noch so tun als ob alles in bester Ordnung sei, erleiden massiven Vertrauensverlust. Und diejenigen, die immer noch einseitig Vergünstigungen für die besser Gestellten verlangen, und dabei meinen einfach "durchregieren" zu können weil sie irgendwann mal demokratisch gewählt wurden, bekommen massive Akzeptanzprobleme beim Wählervolk.
.
Ostseekooperation in der Krise?

Und was bekommen die interessierten Bürgerinnen und Bürger momentan im Ostseeraum geboten? Seit Juli 2011 steht die Arbeit im Ostseerat unter deutscher Präsidentschaft. Aber ebenfalls bereits seit ein paar Monaten amtiert der deutsche Außenminister nur noch auf Abruf: seine Partei stürzte bei mehreren Landtagswahlen in Deutschland weit unter die 5%-Hürde, auch der FDP-Parteichef heißt inzwischen nicht mehr Westerwelle, und mehrere FDP-Minister der Regierung Merkel wurden inzwischen ausgewechselt. "Guido wird nur noch ertragen, weil er so viel im Ausland ist wo ihn niemand mehr sehen muss" - dieser Spruch ist längst kein leise gesprochener Witz mehr.

Aber davon abgesehen: was gibt es Neues im Bereich der Zivilgesellschaft im Ostseeraum, also den gern mit dem Sammelbegriff "NGOs" bezeichneten Strukturen? Seit die litauische Präsidentschaft Anfang 2010 das NGO-Ostseenetzwerk beerdigen half, haben keine gemeinsamen Veranstaltungen der NGOs aller Ostseeanrainerstaaten mehr stattgefunden. Das deutsche Außenministerium scheint es wenig zu stören, schließlich wechselten die für die Kontakte zu den NGOs Zuständigen überaus häufig; wer Karriere machen wollte ging woanders hin, und auch wenn Zuständige sich monatelang krank meldeten fiel den übrigen für Nordeuropa zuständigen deutschen Beamten offenbar kein Informations- oder Aktionsdefizit auf. Anfang des Jahres 2011 überraschte die norwegische Präsidentschaft mit der Meldung, eine kleine Gruppe norwegischer NGOs habe die Durchführung eines Ostsee-NGO-Forums beantragt, die Finanzierung sei bewilligt worden, aber die Initiatoren hätten ihren eigenen Plan dann plötzlich wieder aufgegeben. Und plötzlich entfalten sich hektische Aktivitäten im Hintergrund: sollte Deutschland, unter dessen Ratspräsidentschaft 2001 die Idee der NGO FOREN geboren wurde, nicht einmal in der Lage sein irgendeine Aktivität zum Thema "Zivilgesellschaft" auf die Beine zu stellen?

Gesicht wahren - Gesicht zeigen

Ein beliebtes "Geheimrezept" wurde bemüht, das auch funktioniert wenn der Dialog mit zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisation von Amts wegen gar nicht gewollt ist: Geld. Das wird immer gern genommen, und in Zeiten der vergehenden und neu auftauchenden Krisen stehen diejenigen gern an den Geldausgabestellen Schlange, deren Wohlwollen mit Finanzen zu kaufen ist.

Maßnahme 1: Schmieren an den richtigen Stellen
Vom 24.-26.Oktober 2011 werden sich in Gdansk/Danzig wichtige Repräsentanten von Regierungen der Ostseeanrainerstaaten und der Wirtschaft unter der Überschrift "neue Ambitionen für den Ostseeraum" treffen. Laut Lexikon sind Ambitionen "ergeizige Zielsetzungen" - jedoch bei genauerem Hinsehen sind die Absichten zumindest für den Bereich Zivilgesellschaft keineswegs ehrgeizig. Statt dessen wird aber großzügig Geld bereit gestellt: obwohl ein Dialog mit im Ostseeraum aktiven deutschen NGOs schon lange nicht mehr existiert, gibt das Auswärtige Amt mehrere Zehntausend Euro nur dafür aus, dass in Danzig sich vorzeigbare Figuren dafür hergeben, "Zivilgesellschaft" zu repräsentieren. Dafür werden extra mit Hilfe des Ostseerats-Sekretariats die Reste des seit zwei Jahren bankrotten Ex-NGO-Ostseenetzwerks zusammengekehrt und in gute Anzüge gesteckt: seht her, auch die deutsche Präsidentschaft ehrt die Zivilgesellschaft!

Der Gipfel der Scheinheiligkeit: NGO-Kooperation ohne NGOs
Wer bei diesem schönen Treiben nicht mitmacht, hat offenbar keine Chance. Im Gegenteil: mit der Behauptung, die Strukturen der Ostseekooperation von Nichtregierungsorganisationen müssten "restauriert" werden, werden noch einmal 150.000 Euro bereit gestellt.Wofür? Nein, nicht um die Arbeits- und Kooperationsmöglichkeiten der von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern initiierten Initiativen zu verbessern. Vielmehr wird eine Wissenschaftlergruppe der Humboldt-Universität Berlin beauftragt, auf die Schnelle (also noch während der deutschen Ostseeratspräsidentschaft) etwas einem NGO FORUM Ähnliches aus dem Hut zu zaubern - wiederum ohne auch nur eine einzige NGO direkt zu beteiligen. Termin und Themen werden vorgegeben und müssen akzeptiert werden.
Wer sich über solche Vorgehensweisen (man könnte es auch Ignoranz nennen) wundert, der erkundige sich bitte selbst: Anna-Lena Pohl, Forschungsgruppe Nordeuropäische Politik e.V., Telefon 030-41990890 / 0176-20081031, Email

Aber wundern Sie sich nicht, dass auch die etwa 200.000 Euro, die jetzt im Rahmen der deutschen Ostseeratspräsidentschaft für angebliche Belange der deutschen NGOs ausgegeben werden, garantiert keine Nachhaltigkeit haben werden: das Ende ist absehbar. Die Projektinitiatoren haben angekündigt, diese Rolle der "wissenschaftlich legitimierten Ersatz-NGO" nur bis zum August 2012 spielen zu wollen, und dann garantiert wieder aufzuhören. Warum? Wir ahnen es gemeinsam: dann ist das Geld alle, die sich jetzt so eifrig selbst für zuständig Erkärenden suchen dann andere Aufgaben, und vom Auswärtigen Amt wurde weder ein Konzept für die Einbeziehung der Zivilgesellschaft in die Aufgaben des Ostseerats noch für die Nachhaltigkeit der großzügig finanzierten Maßnahmen abgefragt. Das Auswärtige Amt scheint zum Thema "Zivilgesellschaft" ein höchst taktisches Verhältnis zu haben: am 27.Juni wurde zu einem Gespräch mit Staatsminister Werner Hoyer nur eine einzige "NGO" eingeladen: die Europaunion (=international "Europäische Bewegung), von der offenbar mehr Partei-Kompatibilität erwartet wird, und die für diesen einen Tag auch brav mitspielte (Anfragen, ob das "Netzwerk Europäische Bewegung" beabsichtet nun doch Ostseeschwerpunkte zu entwickeln, sind zu richten an dessen Geschäftsführer Bernd Hüttemann).

Aber was soll's: auch beim Thema "EU Ostseestrategie" ist es nicht viel anders. Ein Kapitel "Zivilgesellschaft" sucht man in dieser Strategie vergebens. Jegliche Behauptungen der Einbeziehung von NGOs in Maßnahmen der EU-Ostseestrategie stellen also reine "Gnadenakte" derjenigen dar, die berechtigt sind Förderanträge zu stellen und sich mit den Ministerialbeamten auf Du und Du zu treffen. Und damit kommen wir zurück zum deutschen Außenminister. Schon Erfahrungen aus anderen Ländern zeigen: ein Einlassen auf eine Zusammenarbeit mit jemand, der bald nicht mehr im Amt sein wird, kann ja wohl nicht viel mehr als ein Spaziergang mit einer lahmen Ente sein.

Materialien: Arbeitsprogramm der deutschen Ostseeratspräsidentschaft

Low interest for Summit of Baltic Sea States

2010-06-04T18:18:00.002+02:00

Well, nobody could know that the German president would step down just last week. The German Government, meeting lot of other problems in home affairs, once again did not use many efforts to put a focus on Baltic Sea Affairs. "Chancellor Merkel participates in Baltic Sea summit", AFP was cited on 1rst of June. Interesting enough, the Russian RIAN was one of the first to announce the opposite news on the same day: "Merkel cancels trip to Vilnius".

Once again German ministers and politicians are occupied when all Baltic Sea States meet. Instead of the new EU Baltic Sea Strategy the stories about possible candidates for president make the headlines (like Spiegel online). The only article about the CBSS-meeting in German in these days publishes "der Merkur", a brandnew online-magazine, which seem to need advertising with the slogan "nothing gets lost with us".

No Baltic Priorities
But what really has been achieved in Vilnius? The German Foreign Office publishes just very general topics: strong will for "dynamic development of the Baltic Sea Region" really is no surprise. Minister of State Werner Hoyer stresses in his press release just three aims for the German interests:
- to strengthen the competetivness of the maritime industry and get more employment by economical groth
- to develop North Sea and Baltic Sea to secure seas untill 2020#
- to take responsibility for global ecological developments and support the efforts fighting climate change
Not very concrete conclusions, dear politicians! Nothing more than nice speeches. Why to ask all CBSS-states to meet, if you anyway don't have more need for urgent activities?

No aims, no visions
But may be we could have a look at the Final Declaration (see text here). But no one single measure to be taken is mentioned here! Everyone just congratulates eachother for "benefit from positive dynamics", "reducing unemployment, social exclusion and inequality" or "positive dynamics of socio-economic development". It sounds like all of this already is achieved - at least no concrete measures or necessary acticities are mentioned. But if this already is achieved: why to call this tiny paper "Vision for the Baltic Sea Region by 2020"? A really weak and unexiting paper. Dear CBSS, do you want to motivate people with this paper? Or is it not more like a justification why to use travel costs and business trips to Vilnius?

Dialogue with Civil Society? No way ...
The Final Declaration of the CBSS Vilnius Meeting says: "The Summit stated its conviction that the Baltic Sea Region, on the basis of ... active civil societies". How nice! If this years Baltic Sea NGO Forum should serve as a proof for this thesis - it would be just a good joke. Where are the "active civil societies", regarding the work of CBSS and EU Baltic Sea Strategy? Are representatives of NGO-networks integrated into the work of CBSS-workgroups? Or are they partners in setting the EU Baltic Sea Stratgegy into practice?

Poor image
Well, it seems one has to accept that Baltic Sea Cooperation does not have a positive image in nowadays Europe. Not among the politicians of Baltic Sea States - take the weak and meaningless Vilnius Declaration as an example. And not among EU-bureaucrats, as Civil Society is not taken as a serious partner for political strategies in the Baltic Sea Region.

Well, the CBSS-summit is over already. Who cares? The next one will not be earlier as in two years time. And where? In Germany! Please mark the date in your calendar, Ms chancellor! Next time will be not possible to escape!

Lithuania: Let the CBSS die

2010-05-22T18:32:00.011+02:00

At June 1-2th Vilnius will host the bi-annual Baltic Sea States Summit organized by the Council of Baltic Sea States. At the same time the Lithuanian CBSS Presidency (Council of Baltic Sea States) will end. What has it brought to the Civil Society?

Does the Baltic Sea NGO Forum have any future?
"I will not speak about any successes of the Lithuanian presidency", said ambassador Neris Germanas, one of the top Lithuanian diplomats at a recent seminar in Berlin. "There are so many international agreements, there is the Baltic Council, the Nordic Council, the Arctic Council, and soon Lithuania will have the presidency of the OSCE." - Lithuania, lost in cooperation? Could that be one reason, why this years Baltic Sea NGO Forum was organised in such lousy manner, changing the Baltic Sea Cooperation into a internal Lithuanian exercise on democracy?

"Well, it was discussed the CBSS might be dissolved," explains Mr Germanas, continuing in non-commenting the Lithuanian CBSS-chairmanchip. "We are only few people in the Foreign Ministry, and there are so many other councils and chairmanships. At the moment I am busy to prepare Lithuania's OSCE chairmanchip."

Busy diplomats, docile NGOs

But can it be true, that nobody uses any more time for the Baltic Sea Cooperation? Is the CBSS a "dead cow" (and as a consequence the NGO FORUM also?). As the new "Baltic Sea Strategy" of the European Union does not even mention the Civil Society, the focus turns back to the recent "NGO FORUM" in Vilnius (see previous post). Some results are very clear, and neither the "lithuanian working methods" nor the culture of discussions shows any more sign of democratic life.

The status of NGO-cooperation in short:
1) the Lithuanian NGO FORUM was organised without the support of the national coordinators (Focal Points) of the previous NGO Baltic Sea Network (no wonder, if neither a preparation meeting were organized, nor the Focal Points could meet during the "NGO FORUM").
2) the workshops of the "NGO FORUM" were dominated by Lithuanian inner policy: just dozens of speeches, much focus on co-operation with Belorussia (a fouvorite field of activity, set by the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry) - but total absence of any exchange of experiences with NGOs from CBSS-countries. The Lithuanian Website promises even that there is a belorussian Focal Point of the Baltic Sea Network - a decision, solitary taken by the Lithuanian NGO Centre.
3) in consequence to the peculiar conference lead of the Vilnius NGO Centre (slogan: just don't meet the other colleagues, and you'll avoid the discussions) Lithuanian organisers wrote also the so called "resolution" of the "NGO FORUM" alone. As no meetings and discussions about it were possible during the conference, it was written and decided just by the NGO Centre after the Forum. This manner in fact weakens the seriousness of NGO-work and sets a big questionsmark at the seriousity of NGOs statements towards gonvernments and authorities.
4) All previous terms of co-operation among NGOs in the Baltic Sea Area were just ignored, and likely will not come back. As it was a NGO Centre itself, an institution claiming to work for the interests of NGOs, this value of self-organised and democraticly organised discussions and meetings will not come back so soon - not under the flag of CBSS (= massive loss of credibility).

No visions please, it's crisis!
Interesting enough, one had to travel to Berlin for more serious discussions on Civil Society in the Baltic Sea Region. "For realisation of the EU Baltic Sea Strategy we are orientating towards the future EU-presidencies," said Jean Marc Venineaux of European Commissions Regional Policy DG at the "Berlin European Academy" (EAB). The CBSS does not seem to play any role in this game. While Lithuania officially still welcomes Norway to follow the CBSS-presidency, this Norwegian CBSS-chair does not promise much more than perhaps some "business-trips to the Northern Neighbour" (financed by the hosts).
But listening ambassador Germanas' speech in Berlin carefully (link), even he just underlined the upcoming EU-presidences: 2011 Poland, 2012 Denmark, 2013 Lithuania. Will the Baltic Sea NGO Network recover? At the moment there are no signs for a positive development. "We have so many different NGOs in Lithuania, you know," explains Neris Germanas. "They need a strong lead. They all think they are important." (it is always nice if governmental officials explain about NGOs ...)
Thank you for the advice, Lithuania. Does hierarchy create democracy? I doubt. There are more "good arguments" to expect: due to economic crisis there will be no money left for supporting democratic developments and independent Citizens Initiatives. And soon the politicians again will blame Citizens for not showing any interest in elections, parliament, parties, and so on. A democratic society can not be created "top-down" (by decree of a government). If the freedom of discussion, the creative atmosphere of common visions are not allowed to grow, democracy is just an alibi. Even after 20 years of independence.

BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM - Will Lithuania bring it to an end?

2010-03-30T17:57:00.003+02:00

The collaboration between people never was easy. It always seems to be better to take care for one's own fate, for the individual welfare, or the rivalry between people with similar interests. It surely is a much nicer feeling just to be able "using one's own power" towards other people, than to use time and engery for informing people, involving others, encourage those having less knowledge, or empower new people with young and fresh ideas.

Sorry to say, but I have no other choice. This so called BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM, which is going to happen in Vilnius at 16th and 17th of April 2010 (see announcement), has not much in common with previous successfull BALTIC SEA NGO FORA in other countries (see f.ex. BS NGO FORUM 2009 Denmark). Anyway, it may be the last ones of it kind: if organisations and intiatives, Citizen groups and action groups of Civil Society first will notice, that a conference is just organized to make a good image for the organisers, leave all the costs (international travel, accomodation, food) to be paid by participants, and use 0% energy on preparing proposals for a better support and concept for NGOs work in future - what sense it could have to join it?

Some key factors which characterize the upcoming "NGO-show" in Vilnius (and distinguish it from previous, successfull ones):

Unknown people prepare for unknown participants

--- the Focal Points (national co-ordinators) had no chance to participate in the preparation of the NGO FORUM Vilnius. After months of quietness and absence of any network communication the Vilnius NGO Centre announced some weeks ago suddenly, that there will be no preparation meeting at all. Given Reason: Problems of financing. No alternatives were seriously discussed, attempts in getting help by international foundations working in Vilnius were not supported by Lithuanian NGO Centre. Only alternative was an virtual discussion of just two hours, partly by skype and partly by Email, organised at one Friday afternoon. Even there only Focal Points of 4 countries participated with proposals and comments. But nevertheless: as the Vilnius NGO Centre seems to have got an order by Lithuanian Foreign Ministry to organize an NGO FORUM "cheap, quiet and comfortable", all problems were left without any attempts for common solutions. The "we-have-no-money-for it"-argument was followed 100% by the leaders of the Vilnius NGO Centre, who by the way never participated in any of the previous meetings of the NGO-Networks meetings of its Consultative Committee (which means = all Focal Points together).

It means, as there will be no chance for a preparation meeting of the NGO Networks Focal Points before the Vilnius conference, this seems to be the end also of the Baltic Sea NGO Network. Why to run a network and to attempt exchanging views, experiences, viewpoints and oppinions and fight for a common concept, if it is possible that someone (with no responsibility towards the others) suddently can come and just say: ok, I'll overtake, I don't need the others at all. Our ministry finances only the NGO Centre, but not the work of the NGO Baltic Sea Network." Those, who do not want to join this "game", are just crossed out of the list (see Webpage of Vilnius Conference). Previously national NGOs had to send proposals and ideas to Focal Points for to get a place as participant of a BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM. This time it will be just online-registration, and even for this registration form every person could write whatever comes to one's mind: true and false stories, self.manifestations, nice sounding stories, or extreme claims and statements - no one will have time to care about it. Without effect, just adding a person to the number of partipants (organizers expect "more than 300"). "Paper doesn't blush" - if you know what I mean.

No one will know what NGOs really want

--- As we all know, it is not that easy to raise one's voice for NGOs interests. Who expects at all that critics towards single governmental institutions, actions for alternative lifestyle, fight against negative consequences of the globalisation of commercial interests, demonstrations against dangerous use of nuclear energy, insist in a social balance, or self confident fights for Human Rights or the Rights of Minorities? Who needs it? May be just those growing number of people who understand that its really important to take care also about the society in their own country, and the peaceful collaboration of Baltic Sea Countries. People who don't hesitate to mention "burning issues".
Well, is this going to happen in Vilnius? After this surprising negative Lithuanian coordination I don't expect more than "a conference of many speeches". The opportunity given will be (and the majority of participants will be just Lithuanians): hold a speech yourselves! (but short!) A wellknown concept of those, who try to avoid that people from different countries (and none of them has English as mother tongue) notice their problems to be very similar. It is surely a misunderstanding that the longer the speech will be (and the Lithuanian president promised to attend at least the opening!), the more important one's own organisation can feel.

And what about the network?

--- It is a clear misunderstanding of networking, using a network only in one direction: if needing help, everybody should join. But if others needs and requests need time and energy, than better to leave. If others have proposals, better not answer, or refuse. The real value of the so far existing Baltic Sea NGO Network was for the one part the inter-disciplinary work (to cooperate with people and experts from different fields, with different background), and for the other part the attempt to equal the opportunities for smaller as for bigger and stronger NGOs. As for representatives from NGOs with thousands of members, or single activists and individuals, all had a chance to join the network, to participate in workshops, in preparation meetings and in responsibilities. So far. The this years conference in Vilnius - which by the way will be very short, just some official speeches and one overnight stay - does not take this common values into account.

And also another problematic structure is not understood: from the smaller and poorer countries view it could be understood as if all "people from the west" are just rich enough to cover costs and bring money to the poorer ones. But does money really mean everything? Are Civil Organisations in so called "rich countries" really so rich as they sometimes look like? What motivation have people in "older democracies" to be engaged in problems of society - are they perhaps just bored? The approach of the this years Vilnius conference seems to be: no, we do not invite you to our country; but IF you really want to come: pay everything by yourselves, and please leave even some money in our country. I am not sure whether this attitude will help to understand colleages and initiatives with possible similar interests better. A network which does not exchange views and oppinions, which never meets and - as a consequence - where even not the national coordinators know each other personally, this network is dead. Congratulations, Lithuania, this was done under your presidency!

What is coming up? A "no-future-in Europe-generation"?

Well, one could say: a conference is just a conference. Like many others. And the next ones will come. But the second upcoming trend is the growing dominance of what is called "EU Baltic Sea Strategy".

It never was easy to get a BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM financed. It never was easy to organise it in a way not being "just another conference". But as the institutions of the European Union never took the activities of the BALTIC SEA NGO NETWORK very serious, NGOs will have to look carefully what really affects their work. Inspite a lot nice speeches of EU-officials, there is a total lack of a common concept how to support Civil Society in the Baltic Sea Region. Regulations and rules are different in all of the countries, the procedure how to register and how to manage a NGO is different in all CBSS-countries, even in EU-memberstates. Therefore it will not be possible to found an organisation with members in all countries of the Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS). For near future all active and interested people will depend on very shortminded project support, like "Swedes this year support Estonia", Finland may be finance contacts to Russia for a while, or Russian sponsors finance one NGO-conference in Latvia (just examples). Germany? Oh, sorry, Germany was left out already long time ago. For Germany partners around Baltic Sea seem not much more than business contacts. Isn't it quite symbolic that Germany has taken responsibility for the field of tourism in frame of the EU's Baltic Strategy? Once again Germans will be just asked to travel to other countries for leaving some money there. But different cultures? Languages? Traditions? Lifestyles? Minorities? Different views and problems in other countries? The official's interest in a cooperation with Germany seems to be as low as the German governments interest in the Baltic Sea Region.
But such critical statements will be successfully avoided at the next Baltic Sea Conferences. As there will be no active Citizens left who work for independent and strong common representation of interests in the Baltic Sea Region. I am afraid the EUs Baltic Sea Strategy (see here) has totally forgot it, and the this years so called NGO FORUM will not be strong and powerful enough to change this tendency.

Wen interessiert noch die EU-Ostseestrategie?

2009-10-26T12:38:00.009+01:00

Erste Hilfe oder letzte Rettung?

Unter diesem Motto lud die Europäische Akademie Berlin (EAB) vom 20.-22.Oktober 2009 zu einem Seminar ein. Ist dies eine Fragestellung, die Ostseefreundinnen und -freunde ebenso stellen? Oder ist das Motto der öffentlichen Veranstaltung am 20.10. in der Euopäischen Akademie treffender, die schlicht von "Kaisers neuen Kleidern" sprach?

Nun, wer ist hier der "Kaiser"? Entweder könnte die EU gemeint sein - mit ihrer für manche als schier unzugänglich erscheinenden Bürokratie. Oder es sind die nationalen Regierungen - die sich ein "Argumentationsmäntelchen" scheinbarer Aktivität umhängen.

Die Ostseestrategie der Europäischen Union bezeichnet die erste regionale Strategie der EU, die während der laufenden EU-Präsidentschaft Schwedens beschlossen werden wird. Mit ihr sollen "Probleme der Ostseeregion identifiziert und in konzertierter Aktion gelöst werden" (so formuliert es Dr. Carsten Schymik von der Stiftung für Wissenschaft und Politik SWP, der an der Diskussion in der EAB teilnahm).

Aber sind es denn so neue Erkenntnisse, wenn wieder einmal die Probleme zunehmender Verkehrsströme, die überregionalen Umweltfragen, die zivile Sicherheit und dann noch - natürlich - die Förderung der Wirtschaft als besonders dringlich benannt werden? Keines dieser Themen taucht ja nur in der Ostsee auf, im Gegenteil: wovon die ganze Welt redet, lohnt es sich, dies in der Ostsee regional begrenzt zu wiederholen?

Global denken, lokal handeln, so hieß es einmal. Aber viel wahrscheinlicher scheint mir, dass Ziel dieser neuen "Strategie" weniger die politische Umsetzung, als vielmehr das Zurechtbiegen EU-kompatibler Strukturen sein soll und wird. Nicht umsonst wurde im Zuge der Diskussion um den Strategieentwurf vielfach auch schon die Abschaffung des Ostseerats (Rat der Ostseeanrainerstaaten, gegründet 1992) verkündet - oder zumindest für sehr wahrscheinlich gehalten. Auf der Veranstaltung der EAB in Berlin war davon nun nicht mehr die Rede. Was hat sich geändert?

Alles klar - und nichts verstanden?

Die Beiträge der EAB-Podiumsdiskussion hörten sich allesamt eher so an, als ob alle Ostsee-Interessenten die größte Lust an "altem Wein in neuen Schläuchen" empfinden würden (der wird schließlich mit längerer Lagerung immer besser, wenn er nur unangetastet bleibt!).
"Die Ostseestrategie ist auch eine Übernahme dessen, was die HELCOM (Helsinki Kommission, zwischenstaatliche Kommission zum Schutze der Meeresumwelt im Ostseeraum) als Aktionsprogramm bereits längst beschlossen hat - so Dr. Schymik. Schließlich wurde das sogenannte "Helsinki-Abkommen" bereits 1974 beschlossen, trat 1980 in Kraft, wurde 1992 als neue Konvention gezeichnet, trat dann 2000 endgültig in Kraft und wurde 2003 noch einmal durch die Formulierung von Prioritäten verdeutlicht. Was sollte eine "EU-Ostseestrategie" da schon daran ändern? Zumindest verraten alle Texte von Seiten der EU dies nicht.

Oder ist es vielleicht das besondere Verhältnis zu Russland? Diskussionsteilnehmer Dr. Mart Laanemäe, seines Zeichens Botschafter Estlands in Berlin, wurde in der EAB danach gefragt. Aber was Moderator Prof. Stratenschulte da praktizierte, ist ja weit davon entfernt politische Praxis in Deutschland und in Berlin zu sein - es könnte eine neue "Traumrolle" Estlands sein, nach den Erfahrungen mit Russland gefragt zu werden, wenn deutsche Politiker/innen erst mal nachdenken und zuhören wollen, bevor sie (in "Schröder-Manier") Sondervereinbarungen nur mit Russland treffen und sich selbst noch mit hoch bezahlten Posten bescheren.

Zwei Thesen bezüglich Russland machten die Runde: entweder müsse Russland in die Ostseepolitik in einer Weise einbezogen werden, dass "die Zentrale" (in Moskau) es nicht richtig bemerkt (es nicht allzu ernst nimmt) - auf diese Art und Weise sei schon so manches Abkommen und so manches Projekt im Ostseeraum erfolgreich umgesetzt worden.

Oder - geradezu konträr dazu - Ostseekooperation müsse so betrieben werden, dass in erster Linie gerade Russland mit einbezogen wird, da nur so der Sache politisches Gewicht und Durchsetzungskraft verliehen werden könne.

Diesen "Richtungsstreit" sah Laanemäe aus estnischer Position um eine einiges pragmatischer. "Es ist schon immer schwer gewesen, zu prognostizieren was in Russland passieren wird", so der Este. Das schwang so ein wenig zwischen "in und mit Russland müssen wir immer mit allem rechnen" und "Russlands Strategie ist es, unberechenbar zu sein". Aber es wurde auch nicht ansatzweise deutlich, was die EU-Ostseestrategie hier zu ändern in der Lage wäre.

Und was bringt's uns?

Und die Bürgerinnen und Bürger? Was könnten die von einer geänderten oder gar neu erfundenen EU-Ostseestrategie haben? Nimmt man die Diskussion in der Euopäischen Akademie als Beispiel, ist das ein ziemlich abwegiges Thema.

Für Dr. Rainer Kosmider, seines Zeichens zuständig für europäische und auswärtige Angelegenheiten in der Staatskanzlei in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, ist das Thema für die Öffentlichkeit offenbar bereits abgearbeitet. "Wir haben im Zuge der Vorbereitung der Ostseestrategie umfangreiche Anhörungen gehabt."

Ja, noch immer wundern sich Menschen, wie schnell das gehen kann mit der "Bürgerbeteiligung". Stimme bei Wahlen abgegeben? Ja, dann handeln die so Gewählten auch in Deinem Sinne! Einspruchs- oder Eingabefrist verpasst? Ja, dann ist in der Folge jedes ordnungsgemäß aufgestellte Projekt automatisch "im Gemeinsinn beschlossen".

Da ändert die deutsche Parteiendemokratie nichts daran: auch der zur Diskussion eingeladene Bundestagsabgeordnete Manuel Sarrazin (nicht verwandt oder verschwägert, wie betont wurde, sondern Mitglied von Bündnis 90/ die Grünen) musste zugeben, dass die eigene Fraktion nur äußerst selten über die Ostseeregion diskutiert. Auch mit neuer EU-Strategie wird sich das offenbar kaum ändern.

Was ändert sich also konkret für diejenigen, die sich ganz persönlich für die Ostsee interessieren, vielleicht um ihren Zustand besorgt sind, sich um zwischenstaatliche oder fachliche Kontakte bemühen, oder besorgt sind um das, was die Politiker und Entscheidungsträger im Ostseeraum so zu beschließen geruhen? Offenbar kaum etwas. Erste Hilfe oder letzte Rettung? Die Veranstaltung in der Europäischen Akademie hiniterließ den Eindruck, dass es der Ostsee so gut oder so schlecht gehen mag wie auch immer - für Politiker oder andere Entscheidungsträger selbst scheint weder das eine noch das andere (weder Hilfe noch Rettung) rechtzeitig eingeplant zu sein.

Diejenigen, die schon ein paar Schritte weiter sind und auch ohne EU-Strategie etwas tun wollen, müssen sich wohl weiterhin eher andere Wege suchen.

Aufklärung der politischen Morde – Für ein rechtsstaatliches Russland!

2009-10-06T21:05:00.002+02:00

Gemeinsame Erklärung
russischer und deutscher Nichtregierungsorganisationen zum dritten Jahrestag der Ermordung von Anna Politkowskaja -

Vor drei Jahren, am 7. Oktober 2006, wurde Anna Politkowskaja in Moskau ermordet. Die Tat ist bis heute nicht aufgeklärt. Die Freisprüche von mutmaßlichen Mittätern sind aufgehoben und neue Ermittlungen angeordnet worden. Der mutmaßliche Mörder ist auf der Flucht; seine Auftraggeber sind unbekannt.

Heute müssen wir feststellen, dass Anna Politkowskajas Tod nur der Beginn einer neuen Serie von politischen Morden war:

21.11.2007: Attentat auf den Journalisten und Menschenrechtsverteidiger Farid Babajew, der am 23.11.an den Folgen des Attentats verstirbt.

31.08.2008: Der Journalist Magomed Jewlojew wird im Polizeigewahrsam erschossen.

19.01.2009: Auf offener Straße in Moskau werden der Rechtsanwalt Stanislaw Markelow und die Journalistin Anastasija Baburowa ermordet.

15.07. 2009: Die Menschenrechtlerin Natalja Estemirowa wird erschossen.

11.08.2009: Die Leiterin einer Hilfsorganisation für Kinder und Jugendliche, die in den tschetschenischen Kriegen verletzt wurden, Sarema Sadulajewa und ihr Ehemann werden ermordet.

Diese Aufzählung ist nicht vollständig. Alle Fälle sind weder umfassend aufgeklärt noch geahndet.

Alle Mordopfer hatten eines gemeinsam: Sie haben sich für ein gerechtes und friedliches Gemeinwesen engagiert. Als Journalisten, Anwälte, Menschenrechtlerinnen. Gegen die Interessen der Mächtigen, Gewalt und Willkür. Deswegen haben sie Todesdrohungen erhalten. Alles spricht dafür, dass sie deswegen hingerichtet worden sind. Sie strebten nicht danach, zu Helden zu werden. Ihre Mörder haben sie zu Märtyrern des Kampfes um den Rechtsstaat gemacht.

Wir, die unterzeichnenden Organisationen, versprechen, dass wir nicht aufhören werden, uns für die Werte und Ziele einzusetzen, denen sich die Ermordeten verpflichtet fühlten. Die politischen Morde müssen beendet und die Verantwortlichen vor Gericht gestellt werden. Dafür werden wir gemeinsam – jeder an seinem Ort – eintreten. Diese Arbeit kennt keine Grenzen. Wir sind Gleichgesonnene und Verbündete in unserer Arbeit für die Menschenrechte. Wir unterstützen einander und treten solidarisch für den Schutz derer ein, die heute Hilfe bedürfen.

Das ist unsere Antwort auf die brutale Gewalt, deren Opfer wir heute beklagen.

Moskau und Berlin, am 6. Oktober 2009

Russische Nichtregierungsorganisationen:
Menschenrechtszentrum Memorial
Internationale Gesellschaft Memorial
Komitee Zivile Unterstützung
Zentrum zur Förderung von Demokratie und Menschenrechten
Stiftung „Public Verdict“
Zentrum für Information und Analyse „Sowa“
Youth Human Rights Movement
Moskauer Helsinki-Gruppe
Allrussische Bewegung „Für Menschenrechte”

Deutsche Nichtregierungsorganisationen:
Aktion Sühnzeichen Friedensdienste e.V.
Amnesty International, Sektion der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e.V.
Deutscher Anwaltverein e.V.
Deutsch-Russischer Austausch Berlin e.V., Berlin
Europäischer Austausch gGmbH
Memorial Deutschland e.V.
Reporter ohne Grenzen e.V.
Journalistenverband Berlin-Brandenburg - Landesverband des DJV

zum Mord an der russischen Menschenrechtlerin Natalja Estemirova

2009-07-16T14:13:00.005+02:00

Wir geben an dieser Stelle eine Erklärung des "Deutsch-Russischen Austausches" DRA wieder. DRA engagiert sich im Ostseeraum besonders bezüglich von Erfahrungsaustausch und Verständnis zwischen Deutschland und Russland.

Rechtsachtung und kritische Öffentlichkeit durchsetzen
Erklärung des Deutsch-Russischen Austausch e.V. Berlin (DRA) zum Mord an der russischen Menschenrechtlerin Natalja Estemirova

Der Deutsch-Russische Austausch Berlin (DRA) ist erschüttert über den brutalen Mord an der russischen Menschenrechtlerin Natalja Estemirova. Die 50-jährige Historikerin und Mutter einer Tochter im Schulalter ist zynisch entführt und hingerichtet worden. Mehrfach hatte sie zuvor Morddrohungen wegen ihrer unerschrockenen Arbeit für die Aufklärung von Verbrechen in Tschetschenien erhalten – darunter persönlich vom Präsidenten der Republik, Ramsan Kadyrov.

Einmal mehr zeigt dieser Mord, wie weit Russland noch von jener „Überwindung des Rechtsnihilismus“entfernt ist, die Präsident Dmitrij Medvedev proklamiert hat. Dies gilt insbesondere für einige Republiken, die wie Tschetschenien mit Duldung und teilweise aktiver Unterstützung der russischen Führung von Quasi-Diktatoren beherrscht werden. Der Umgang mit dem Mord und seine Aufklärung werden deshalb erweisen, wie ernst es Medvedjev mit seinem Ziel ist.

Medvedjev hat gestern richtigerweise die Kontrolle über die Ermittlungen der russischen Generalstaatsanwaltschaft übertragen. Doch dies genügt nicht. In der traurigen Reihe politischer Morde in Russland hat dies praktisch nie zur Aufklärung der Hintergründe und zur Überführung der Täter und Auftraggeber geführt.

Letztlich geht es nicht allein um die konkrete Aufklärung und Bestrafung individueller Täter, sondern um systematische Veränderungen in Staat und Gesellschaft: Es muss eine Priorität der russischen Staatsführung werden, die Menschen- und Bürgerrechte in den Behörden und Sicherheitskräften aller Ebenen und Regionen, in der Alltagskultur und im Bewusstsein der Menschen zu verankern. Menschenrechtsaktivisten wie Natalja Estemirova wären bei der Verwirklichung dieses Ziels die natürlichen und besten Partner.

Auch der Mord an Estemirovas bekannter Kollegin in der Zeitung Novaya Gazeta, der Journalistin Anna Politkovskaja, fiel 2006 mit einer Tagung des „Petersburger Dialogs“ – des jährlichen Treffens der deutschen und russischen Gesellschaft – und den deutsch-russischen Regierungskonsultationen zusammen. Damals war der amtierende Präsident Putin zu schwach und zu feindselig, wenigstens nach ihrem Tod die wichtige Rolle anzuerkennen, die seine Kritikerin für Russland gespielt hat. Die Hinterleute des Mordes sind bis heute nicht aufgedeckt.

Umso wichtiger ist es, dass der gegenwärtig in München tagende „Petersburger Dialog“ sowie Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel und Präsident Medvedev auf den heutigen deutsch-russischen Regierungskonsultationen diesmal klare Worte finden. Der Mord an Natalja Estemirova muss ohne Tabus diskutiert werden als klares Zeichen für ein grundsätzliches Defizit an Rechtsachtung und an Selbstverständlichkeit kritischer Öffentlichkeit in Russland und als Aufforderung, dieses Defizit zu bekämpfen.

Der DRA Berlin teilt die Trauer mit seinen Partnern und Freunden in Russland, besonders den Kollegen der Menschenrechtsorganisation „Memorial“, für die Natalja Estemirova seit 2001 tätig war und mit der der DRA zurzeit ein Zentrum zur Unterstützung von Kleinunternehmen und ethnische Verständigung in der nordkaukasischen Teilrepublik Nordossetien aufbaut. Beim Begräbnis ihres im Januar ermordeten Kollegen, des Menschenrechtsanwalts Stanislav Markelov, hatte Natalja Estemirova gesagt: „Die größte Frage ist jetzt, wer seine Arbeit fortführen wird. Aber ich bin sicher: Er hat eine ganze Gruppe von guten Anwälten in Tschetschenien herangebildet – sie werden die Arbeit übernehmen.“

Der DRA hofft und ist sich sicher, dass es trotz aller Gewalt immer weiter mutige Menschen geben wird, die sich für die Belange der Menschen- und Bürgerrechte einsetzen werden. Für diese Menschen empfinden wir große Achtung. Wir werden sie weiter nach Kräften in ihrer Arbeit unterstützen.

Kontakt:
Deutsch-Russischer Austausch e.V.
Badstr. 44
13357 Berlin
Tel.: 030/446680-0

Further information in English

NGO Ostseenetzwerk - Treffen deutscher NGOs in Hamburg

2009-05-10T13:25:00.005+02:00

EINLADUNG

Treffen zum Thema "Ostseekooperation"
- Baltic Sea NGO FORUM -
NGO Ostseenetzwerk

FREITAG den 29.Mai 2009 15.00 - 18.00 Uhr

Ort: in Räumen der Firma "con_sens", Curio-Haus, Rothenbaumchaussee 11, 20148 Hamburg

Wegbeschreibung: Mit dem Zug und öffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln: Mit Zug oder S-Bahn bis Bahnhof Dammtor, Ausgang Theodor-Heuss-Platz. Die Straße überqueren und halblinks in die Rothenbaumchaussee gehen. Dieser auf der linken Seite folgen, die Moorweidenstrasse überqueren und bis zur Hausnummer 11 weitergehen. Dies ist der linke Eingang des Curio-Hauses.

Tagesordnungspunkte:
1) die Abschlußerklärung des BS NGO FORUM Dänemark 2009 - was davon ist uns auf deutscher Seite zur Umsetzung am Wichtigsten?
2) Neuordnung der kulturellen Zusammenarbeit im Ostseeraum - wie ist der Sachstand, was können wir beitragen?
3) Ostseeratspräsidentschaft Litauens - welche Schwerpunkte sind absehbar?
4) die neue Ostseestrategie der EU - welche Rolle nimmt Deutschland ein?
5) Klimagipfel in Kopenhagen 2009 - welche Wortmeldungen von NGOs gibt es?
6) Weiterarbeit als NGO-Ostseenetzwerk - nötige Beschlüsse und Ziele

Teilnehmer als Gast: Herrn Jan-Axel Voss, Auswärtiges Amt, Berlin

Vom 26.Februar bis 1.März 2009 fand das BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2009 in Helsingör / Dänemark statt. Ergebnisse des BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2009 sind auf folgenden Webseiten zugänglich:
NGO Initiative Ostseekooperation (die wichtigesten Infos)

BS NGO FORUM Fotodokumentation

Dänische NGO Ostsee-Webseite

Unser Treffen am 29.Mai in Hamburg findet auf der Basis der NGO Ostseeinitiative statt, die sich nach dem NGO Ostseeforum 2001 - dem Jahr der deutschen Ostseeratspräsidentschaft - gebildet hatte.
Das nächste Treffen des Ostseerats ("Ministertreffen"), in dessen Arbeit die Vorschläge des Ostsee-NGO-FORUMs eingehen wird, findet am 3.&4.Juni 2009 in Dänemark statt.

Die neueste Ausgabe des (englischsprachigen) Newsletters des Ostseerats-Sekretariats, BALTICNESS, ist hier downloadbar (PDF-Datei)

Informationen zur EU-Ostseestrategie sind hier nachzulesen hier.

"Ostsee-Kalender" aller wichtigen Veranstaltungen der Ostsee-Zusammenarbeit

Gemeinsame Aktivitäten dieser NGO Ostseeinitiative sind bisher, dass die Koordination und Information rund um das NGO-Ostseenetzwerk beim Verein INFOBALT (Albert Caspari) liegen. Dadurch werden NGO-Aktive und andere Interessierte über die Veranstaltungen und Initiativen des NGO-Ostseenetzwerks informiert und Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten angeboten. Diese Funktion und diese Dienstleistungen werden ehrenamtlich (leider auch ohne jegliche Kostendeckung oder Unterstützung von einer deutschen Seite) betrieben.

Bisher fanden seit 2001 jeweils parallel zu den Ostseeratspräsidentschaften auch NGO FOREN statt (Ausnahme: Island 2007). Die Prinzipien und Grundlagen dieser (lockeren, weil unverbindlichen) Zusammenarbeit von Aktiven aus verschiedenen deutschen NGOs, bezogen auf die OSTSEE NGO FOREN, wurden 2001 in einer "Berliner Erklärung" zusammengefasst. Die Arbeit des NGO-Ostseenetzwerks wird jeweils von denjenigen NGOs oder nationalen Koordinierungsstellen ("Focal Points") koordiniert, deren Land den Vorsitz im Ostseerat hat.
Momentan ist dies Dänemark, ab Sommer 2009 wird dies zu Litauen überwechseln.

Zwischen den (möglichst) jährlichen BS NGO FOREN gibt es Treffen des "Coordination Comittee" (CC), das sich aus den Vertreter/innen der nationalen Koordinationsstellen ("Focal Points") zusammensetzt, plus pro Land wahlweise ein/e weitere/r NGO-Vertreter/in.
Die Grundlagen der Zusammenarbeit im NGO-Ostseenetzwerk sind als "Richtlinien zum NGO Ostseenetzwerk" 2008 beschlossen worden (Text siehe unten).

Für deutsche NGOs ungeklärt sind bisher die folgenden Fragen (Beispiele):

1) Es gibt bisher keinerlei verpflichtende Erklärungen von deutschen NGOs, die ihr Interesse an Ostseezusammenarbeit nicht nur spontan je nach Stimmungs- und Finanzlage verkünden, sondern langfristig stärken wollen. Daher hat sich die deutsche Mitarbeit im NGO-Ostseenetzwerk weitgehend von den NGOs selbst auf einzelne NGO-Aktive verlagert, denen die Möglichkeiten des NGO-Ostseenetzwerks in der laufenden Arbeit gerade eine Hilfe waren - die sich also innerhalb eines begrenzten Zeitrahmens persönlich einbringen. In der Regel müssen diese Interessierten auch vom Focal Point des NGO-Ostseenetzwerks gesondert angesprochen und informiert werden - deutsche NGOs, auch diejenigen, deren Aktive schon oft am

2) Da sich die internationale Zusammenarbeit in den letzten Jahren weiterentwickelt hat, müssen deutsche NGOs hinter den Möglichkeiten inter-sektoraler Kooperation zurückbleiben. Es gibt viele NGOs anderer Länder, die feste "Plattformen" gegründet haben zur Ostseekooperation, die sich die entstehenden Kosten teilen und gemeinsam eigene Schwerpunkte einbringen wie auch die Schwerpunkte der NGO OSTSEEFOREN wieder umgekehrt in die eigene Arbeit einfließen lassen. Diese NGOs und diese Länder haben einen weit größeren Einfluß nicht nur auf das öffentliche Erscheinungsbild von NGO-Aktivitäten im Ostseeraum, auch weil sie gemeinsame Kräfte einsetzen, um die Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten ihrer NGO-Aktiven an der Ostseezusammenarbeit zu unterstützen.

3) Die Mitarbeit deutscher NGOs und NGO-Aktiven im NGO-Ostseenetzwerk wird durch die deutsche Föderalstruktur von 16 verschiedenen Bundesländern wesentlich stärker behindert als gefördert. Für die Institutionen, Gremien und Politiker/innen scheint es sehr schwer zu verstehen zu sein, dass NGOs auf ihrer Ebene internationale Zusammenarbeit wesentlich direkter und (im Vergleich mit eingesetzten Geldmitteln) effektiver organisieren können als es die politischen Strukturen eigentlich vorsehen: Ostsee-Zusammenarbeit funktioniert gerade deshalb so gut, weil es für einzelne Aktive NICHT notwendig ist, erst ein Vertretungsbüro in Berlin zu gründen und zu bezahlen, dann Gleiches in Brüssel, und erst dann aktive Schritte und konkrete Projekte unternehmen könnten. Allerdings verlangt das von jeder/jedem Aktiven ein großes Maß von eigenverantwortlicher Initiative - es ist zu hoffen, dass diese Initiative für die NGO-Aktiven wenigstens auf Ebene ihrer eigenen NGOs anerkannt und gewürdigt wird.

3) Die Koordinierungsarbeit, die momentan vom Verein INFOBALT geleistet wird, kann nur vorläufigen Charakter haben. Sie ist momentan einzig deshalb so geregelt wie sie geregelt ist, weil die anfallende Arbeit unter den zur Verfügung stehenden Rahmenbedingungen sonst gar nicht gemacht werden könnte. Die Grenzen und auch das Ende dieser Arbeit sind bereits zeitlich absehbar: nach der Ostseerats-Präsidentschaft Litauens 2010 und Norwegens 2011 wird Deutschland 2012 den Vorsitz haben. Es wird völlig unmöglich sein, mit den jetzigen Strukturen ein OSTSEE NGO FORUM in Deutschland fachlich, organisatorisch und personell zu bewältigen.

Soweit einige Anregungen für die Diskussionen am 29.Mai in Hamburg. Teilnahmeinteressierte werden gebeten, sich kurz per Email an >post@infobalt.de< style="font-weight: bold;">Albert Caspari
INFOBALT e.V. / BALTIC SEA NGO NETWORK
- member of Coordination Committee, 28217 Bremen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidelines for BS NGO Network

§ 1. Name
The name of the network is BS NGO Network.

§ 2. Aim of the Network
The purpose of the network is to support the civil society in the Baltic Sea area: By bringing NGOs from different Baltic Sea countries and from different fields together, for exchanging experience and information and improvement of knowledge and create partnerships.By creating partnerships and supporting trans-national and inter- sectoral networks between NGOs from different Baltic Sea countries.By making NGOs more visible and influencing the democratic decision-making process on national, regional and EU level.By supporting the development of inter-national understanding and inter-cultural activities.By raising public awareness and understanding for the work of NGOs, citizens activities and initiatives, and encourage people to get involved and take an interest in their own affairs.

§ 3. Annual NGO Forum
Each year the network is arranging a NGO Forum with participants from all the Baltic Sea countries. The host country is the country that is chair of the CBSS. The national platform/focal points in host country in co-operation prepare the annual forum with the Co-ordination Committee. The NGO Forum serves not only as a meeting point for NGOs but also offers an opportunity for a dialogue between NGOs and public authorities on future perspectives of co-operation in the region of Baltic Sea. Results of each Forum are concluded in Forum’s Final paper (statement) and delivered for further consideration to CBSS and other institutions on regional and European level At the annual forum a working and action plan for the next year is decided.

§ 4. National focal point/platform - structure
The NGOs in each country shall establish a national focal point/platform. The platform shall be open to all NGOs wishing to participate in the Baltic Sea network. The co-ordinator shall be elected among the members of the platform. An organisation can also be elected as co-ordinator. The co-ordinator is member of the Co-ordination Committee, se § 6, responsible for interaction between CC and national platform.

§ 5. National focal point/platform – activities
The national platform shall choose the representatives from NGOs who shall participate in the annual forum. The national platform shall discuss the agenda of the NGO Forum with its member organisations before the forum begins. The platform shall arrange activities decided by the annual forum or CC.

§ 6. Co-ordination Committee (CC) - structure
Between the annual NGO Forums a Coordination Committee (CC) is responsible for the activities of the network. Members of CC are one representative from each of the Baltic Sea Countries (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia and Sweden). From each country a specialist can participate in the meeting (= second delegate). CC can also allow other persons to participate. Chair of CC is the representative from the country, chairing of CBSS. To assist the chair a troika with the previous chair and the future chair shall be formed. To assist the chair a permanent secretariat can be establish in one of the countries, se § 8.

§ 7. Co-ordination Committee (CC) – activities
CC prepares the annual NGO Forum together with the platform from the country, which is chair of the CBSS. CC can decide to make a political declaration. A declaration shall respect the decisions taken at the NGO Forum. Between two forums CC can work together will national, regional or international political bodies to influence political decisions. CC can establish thematic groups. The thematic groups can participate in the preparation of the annual NGO Forum and support the CC in certain political questions. Before each CC meeting each thematic group shall send a report of their activities to CC. NGO members of CC can apply for funds to support the NGOs in the Baltic Sea countries. CC is responsible for establishing tools for communication in the network. CC can e.g. establish a homepage and a newsletter.

§ 8. Secretariat*
A secretariat as mentioned in § 6 cannot act independently. The secretariat is only a practical help for the chairing focal point. The secretariat informs all focal points about all its activities.

§ 9. Financing
The CC members can seek for a common financing for the Networks activities

§ 10. Coming into Force and Changes
The present guidelines have been adopted at the CC-meeting 21st February 2008 in Latvia. These guidelines can be changed, if proposed changes are announced at least 4 weeks before a CC meeting, in which all Focal Points are invited to participate. Changes have to be accepted by all Focal Points.

* Secretariat is not established yet

Russian State authorities damage NGOs work in St.Petersburg

2008-12-06T17:01:00.007+01:00

On december 4th the Russian Prosecution Office searched the rooms of St.Petersburg NGO "Memorial", an internationally wellknown NGO working for Human Rights. Masked police confiscated all hard drives from the organisation’s computers and disconnected all telephones in the office.

As several NGO-reports tell, the scientific research on crimes of Stalinism were heavily harmed. Memorial has conducted extensive research into the Red Terror in 1918-1922 and the history of Russia’s labour camps. Now activists fear what might happen to the material. International NGO-partners of Memorial call the case an act of repression against NGOs work, an attempt to suppress independent civic activity and silence critical voices.
Memorial is Russia's oldest and best-known human rights organisation.

Some members of Memorial suspect, that the raid may be linked to the screening of Andrey Nekrasov’s documentary film, “Rebellion - The Litvinenko Case.” The film was first shown in Russia on 20 November 2008 in Moscow’s Sakharov Centre. The screening was organised by Memorial.

Report "Deutsch-Russischer Austausch" (DRA, German)

Report Finnish-Russian Civic Forum (engl.)

Report Human Rights Watch (engl.)

Statement Amnesty International (engl.)

Report of Bellona (engl.)

Declaration of MEMORIAL (russian)

Declaration of MEMORIAL (engl.)

St.Petersburg Herold (German)

Report "Russland-Aktuell" (German)

Declaration of Green Party in German Parliament (German)

The Guardian (engl.)

What to build, what size, what technology? NGOs criticize nuklear adventures in Lithuania

2008-10-09T03:22:00.004+02:00

Lithuania is planning to replace existing Soviet-time Ignalina nuclear power plant with new one. Environmental NGOs notice that the process has been very political with little or no discussion about alternatives such as renewable energy and energy saving.
As for such project an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is binding (involving also neighbouring countries), such EIA's first draft is currently available for public comments.

The following text is the statement of the ESTONIAN GREEN MOVEMENT.

------------------------------------------------
Comments to the EIA report of new Nuclear Power Plant in Lithuania

Estonian Green Movement-FoE
October 8, 2008

Nuclear safety and risk analysis (page 30)
It’s stated that only data from 2001 and 2002 were used for meteorological simulations. As climate and weather conditions vary a lot across the years, we propose to use much longer data set for simulations.

4. Alternatives (page 67)
Ultimate aim of the proposed economic activity is to generate electricity for Lithuania. There aren’t any reasons for exclusion of other ways of generating the electricity as alternatives. Project promoter Lietuvos Energija AB has in its possession results of a 2006 calculation of the feasibility of different renewable and non-renewable energy sources in Lithuania. Such analysis of alternatives shall be part of the EIA. The alternatives currently presented can’t be considered as alternatives in light of EIA good practice or legislation.

Current EIA states that the new NPP will consist of 1-5 reactors. One can’t seriously assess all potential impacts of the planned economic activity once the level of uncertainty is so big. First a technological choice has to made by project promoter, otherwise the technological detail of the EIA report remains as poor as it currently is.

5.3.4 Implementation of the safety requirements for a new NPP (page 109)
The risk of accidents that are briefly covered in chapter 5.3.4 shall be also reflected in the section of alternatives.
It’s currently foreseen that full safety analysis will be carried out in a later stage of the process. We demand a full safety analysis to be part of the current EIA report and presented to the public discussion. Results of the full safety analysis shall be reflected in the section of alternatives.

6.1 Construction of the nuclear power plant (page 116)
Report states that the volume of waste can’t be estimated as it depends on the reactor type. Such level of uncertainty is not tolerable. The section shall be seriously re-written to include detailed information on different waste volumes vis-à-vis technical choices of the new NPP.
Also, the estimated construction time of 4–7 years is unrealistic. Thus the impacts of longer-lasting construction period should also be assessed.

6.2.2.4 Spent nuclear fuel (page 128)
Report states that long-term storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel will be a subject of a separate EIA in the future. We would like to stress that the management of spent nuclear fuel is part of nuclear cycle and shall be included to current EIA report.
The table 6.2-5 indicates that the annual production of high-level nuclear is in range from 47 to 370 tons. Uncertainty in such a scale can’t stay in the EIA report. The report shall include detailed assessment of the spent nuclear fuel differently for all proposed technical solutions of the NPP. After all the spent fuel could be a most serious environmental impact of the proposed economic development.

7.1.2.6 Impacts of thermal load (page 192)
The report gives impression that without a functioning NPP the ecological situation of the lake Druksiai will worsen due to colder waters and presence of ice cover. Let us remind that such ecological conditions are natural to the lake and can’t be considered as negative impacts in any way.

7.12.2.6 Comparison of non-implementation of the project (page 441)
Report looks narrowly at Visaginas region and suggests that non-implementation of the project would have negative socio-economic impact. First of all, the EIA report shall have much larger geographical scope. Secondly, the non-implementation would probably have in contrary a positive impact as Lithuanian energy sector will than be based on de-centralised production pattern, creating potentially more jobs and lowering the risk of a serious accident.

10.2.1 Operational states and accidental conditions at NPP (page 477)
The evaluation of nuclear accident in the EIA report calculates that the total radioactivity of the evaluated emissions would amount to less than 10PBq. It’s a major underestimation of the scale of potential worst case scenario. Just for illustration - total radioactive emission of the Chernobyl disaster was roughly 12 000 PBq. 10PBq constitutes to less than 1/10 000 of the radioactivity contained in a modern reactor.

Proposal of Estonian Green Movement-FoE to overcome shortages underlined above

We propose that the development of current EIA should be frozen until key decisions are taken by project promoter vis-à-vis technology (type of reactor; number of units) and planned capacity. Only after such decisions a meaningful EIA can be carried out and further debated in public. In its current composition the EIA report is too general and poor to be publicly discussed or approved.
________________________
Estonian Green Movement-FoE
(Eesti Roheline Liikumine)
PO Box 318
Tartu 51005
Tartu, Estonia
Phone: +372 7 422532
E-mail: info@roheline.ee

(the Lithuanian Environmental Impact Assessment Report regarding Ignalina - the Estonian statement refers to it - is downloadable f. ex here)

Für atomfreie Zukunft an der Ostsee

2008-09-02T15:23:00.006+02:00

In den 80er und 90er Jahren galt das Atomkraftwerk Ignalina in Litauen als eines der gefährlichesten Anlagen seiner Art. Zehntausende protestierten in den 80er Jahren gegen den Ausbau, jahrelang sah es so aus, als ob eine erstarkende Unabhängigkeitsbewegung in den baltischen Staaten nicht nur ein marodes Sowjetsystem, sondern auch die teuren Märchenonkel der Atomindustrie zum Schweigen bringen könnte. Von ursprünglich vier geplanten Reaktoren wurden dann zwei fertiggestellt und gingen danach in den Besitz des unabhängigen Litauen über.

Bis 2004 herrschte noch Einigkeit darüber, das AKW Ignalina im Zuge des EU-Beitritts Litauens abzuschalten. Der erste Block ist inzwischen abgeschaltet, der verbleibende letzte wurde immer wieder zum Streitobjekt in der litauischen Politik: trotz entsprechender Zusagen gegenüber der EU wurde die Abschaltung immer weiter herausgezögert. Ende 2009 soll nun endgültig Schluß sein.

Die Anti-Atombewegung der baltischen Staaten aber kann Nachwuchs inzwischen sehr gut gebrauchen. Seit Energiequellen aus Gas und Öl in Osteuropa fast synonym stehen mit ökonomischem und politischem Druck aus Russland, scheuen die Regierungen Estlands, Lettlands und Litauens vor einer zu starken Förderung dieser Energieträger zurück. Dazu kommt noch, dass die Ölschiefergewinnung in Estland gerade aus Klimaschutzgründen auch nicht gut dasteht. Vieles vom wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung in der baltischen Region war aber in den vergangenen Jahren von Investoren abhängig, d.h. meist von global tätigen Konzernen, die auch in dieser Region ihr Gewinn- und Absatzgebiet absichern wollten. Aus ähnlich simplen Gründen stehen nun schon einige bekannte Energiekonzerne in der Warteschleife, um neue Atomanlagen bauen zu dürfen, sobald die Regierungen der baltischen Staaten ein solches Projekt absichern.

Wieder einmal würde es dann teure, zentral organisierte, für zukünftige Generationen gefährliche Atomanlagen riesiger Dimensionen geben, die flexiblere und nachhaltig umweltfreundlichere Lösungen blockieren werden - zu dieser Aussage haben sich die Umweltschützer/innen des CEE Bankwatch mit Büro in Prag (Tschechien) zusammengefunden. Nach den Plänen für ein neues Atomkraftwerk in Litauen wird nur der Name gewechselt - nicht mehr der Name der 45km vom bisherigen Standort entfernten Stadt Ignalina wird für eine atomar strahlende Zukunft stehen, sondern Visaginas, der direkt betroffene Ort. "Die sogenannte Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, die gegenwärtig in Auftrag gegeben worden ist, sieht eine Energieversorgung auch ohne den Bau eines AKW gar nicht vor!" Somit ist die einseitige Befürwortung von Atomkraft in den Augen der Umwelt-NGOs klar - und ebenso klar abzulehnen.
Im Rahmen des Netzwerks CEE Bankwatch ist ein erstes Video entstanden, das nun den Standpunkt der Atomgegner bekannt machen soll und zur Unterstützung der Kampagne aufruft.

Partner für Erwachsenenbildung im Ostseeraum gesucht

2008-08-31T22:14:00.002+02:00

Als Plattform von Organisationen der Erwachsenenbildung im Ostseeraum versteht sich BNAL (Baltic Network for Adult Learing) mit Sekretariat in Stockholm / Schweden. Im Vorstand sind außer Schweden auch Finnland, Polen und Estland vertreten.
"Unsere Kontakte nach Deutschland sind ausbaufähig," so äußert sich nun Margareta Hammerman vom BNAL-Sekretariat, die auch für das Ostsee-Netzwerk der Nichtregierungsorganisationen (Baltic Sea NGO Network) die Kontaktstelle für Schweden übernommen hat. "Es wäre schön, wenn wir noch mehr Partner aus Deutschland für gemeinsame Projekte im Bereich der Erwachsenenbildung interessieren könnten. In Planung befindet sich ein Netzwerktreffen, zu dem auch neue Interessenten aus Deutschland mit eingeladen werden sollen. "

Kontakt ist möglich über das BNAL-Sekretariat.

NGOs call for common strategies for Baltic Sea Cooperation

2008-05-31T18:07:00.003+02:00

Participants of the 7th Baltic Sea NGO Forum, which took place in Riga 11th-13th of May, demand more common efforts for Baltic Sea Cooperation. "If always certain countries are excluded of taking part in common programmes and activities - how should we continue and strengthen our networking in the Baltic Sea Region?" Kjeld Aakjær, one of the coordinators of next years NGO FORUM 2009 in Denmark, stresses the weaknesses of the governmental strategies of CBSS-countries. Lars-Erik Haggman, member of the Baltic Sea Networks coordination group adds: "It does not help, if the Nordic Council excludes Germany, the EU excludes Russia, and so called EU-neighbourhood-policy not even intends to involve all Baltic Sea Countries!"

On June 3rd - 4th 2008 the Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS) meets in Riga. Will they notice, that cooperation between countries does not consist only of how to earn money (business) and dozens of governmental comittees?

Final declaration of Baltic Sea NGO FORUM Riga 2008

Impressions and photos from Baltic Sea NGO Forum Riga

Ostseerat - wie lange noch?

2008-04-26T16:28:00.011+02:00

Am 3. & 4. Juni 2008 treffen sich in Riga die Ostseeanrainerstaaten zu ihrem "Gipfel" - Dänemark, Schweden, Finnland, Russland, Estland, Lettland, Litauen, Polen, Deutschland, und sogar Norwegen und Island. Seit 1992 galt diese Zusammenarbeit als wegweisend für ein friedliches Miteinander nach dem Fall von "eisernem Vorhang" und der Konfrontationen des Kalten Krieges, vor allem auch durch die Einbeziehung Russlands. Im Ostseeraum vernetzt sich immer mehr - aber die Wege der Politik trennen sich: während die einen die Ostseekooperation nunmehr als "EU-interne Angelegenheit" betrachten möchten, setzen die anderen auf das gemeinsame Attribut "nordisch". Wird der Ostseegipfel von Riga vielleicht sogar der letzte sein?

Die gegenwärtige lettische Ratspräsidentschaft tut einiges, den Eindruck aufkommender Gleichgültigkeit wegzuwischen: "Balticness" (Baltischheit?) wurde als zwischenzeitliches Leitwort neu geschaffen: eine Wanderausstellung junger Fotografen, plus tourende lettische Jazzer sollen dieser Idee auf die inspirativen Sprünge helfen. Aber diese nur sehr punktuell vor "erlesenem" Publikum stattfindenden Veranstaltungen (meist Wirtschaftssenioren und hochschulinternes Publikum) werden wohl kaum nachhaltigen Eindruck hinterlassen. Viel interessanter scheint das, was hinter den Kulissen, in den Komittees der sogenannten "senior experts" diskutiert wird. Auflösung des Ostseerats? "Anschluss" der meisten Anrainer an den Nordischen Rat? Eine neue "nordische Strategie" der Europäischen Union? Oder ganz weg von der Ostseekooperation, die ja teilweise auch als Mittel zur Annährerung an neue EU-Mitglieder genutzt wurde: nach Weißrussland (=Demokratiedefizit), Ukraine (NATO-Aspirant), oder gar Georgien (Empfänger von "Entwicklungshilfe" und "Lieblingsfreundesland" auch der drei baltischen Schwestern)?

"2009 müssen wir bereit sein, in der EU zu deren neuen Ostseestrategie mit einer Stimme zu sprechen", - das schrieben vier dänische und schwedische Europaparlamentarier am 11.4. in der dänischen Zeitung "information". Als eine der möglichen Strategien wird hier für eine "Ausweitung des Nordischen Rats" plädiert - eine Entwicklung, die dieser allerdings bereits seit etwa zwei Jahren mit der Ausweitung seiner finanziellen Förderprogramme auf die meisten der Ostseeanrainerstaaten (einzige Ausnahme: Deutschland!) einzuleiten versuchte. Ostseepolitik also in Zukunft gegen die "großen Länder in der EU"?

Anne E. Jensen, Johannes Lebech, Olle Schmidt und Henrik Lax befürworten allerdings in ihrem Beitrag in der "Information" auch eine Einbeziehung Deutschlands. Wird Deutschland also nordisch? Oder soll dies - wo sich doch schon die 16 deutschen Bundesländer bezüglich der Neuordnung ihrer föderalen Strukturen nur schwer einigen können - ganz der Regionalpolitik einzelner norddeutscher Bundesländer überlassen werden?
Wichtig scheint es vor allem zu sein, dass sich wieder etwas nach vorn bewegt. Wo scheinbar längst alles einheitlich zu sein scheint, geht es in der Praxis nur schwer voran. Zwar sind Umweltschutzfragen (durch die HELCOM), Wirtschaftsförderung (durch die Handelskammern und EU-Fördergelder), Tourismus (durch neue Leitprojekte) und die Kriminalitätsbekämpfung (durch Zusammenarbeit der Strafverfolgungsbehörden) inzwischen besser geregelt. Aber die Nachwirkungen des forschen deutsch-russische Alleingangs in Sachen Nordstream (Gaspipeline) sind immer noch nicht ganz behoben. Vor allem Deutschland hängt in der Ostseekooperation weit hinterher: mit Geld in den Taschen zum Nachbarn zu kommen, wenn es an grundlegender Kommunikation und Verständnis für die Perspektiven des Nachbarn fehlt, das reicht eben nicht immer.

Sinikka Bohlin, Abgeordnete im schwedischen 'Riksdagen' und Präsidiumsmitglied im Nordischen Rat, schiebt die Verantwortung für eine "Wiedervereinigung" der Konzepte zur Ostseekooperation zunächst einmal weit weg. In einer Erwiderung auf den erwähnten Diskussionsbeitrag vom 11.4. plädiert sie am 17.4.2008 (ebenfalls in "Information") für eine Konzentration auf die Arbeit der Versammlung der Ostseeparlamentarier (engl. abgekürzt: BSPC). Doch - liebe Damen und Herren Politiker - glaubt ihr denn mal wieder, alles allein entscheiden zu dürfen? Sich selbst (also den Berufspolitiker/innen) die Macht zu sichern, und damit die zarten Pflänzchen anderer Mitwirkungsmöglichkeiten durch die Bürgerinnen und Bürger der Ostseestaaten wieder hintenan zu stellen? Wer das für durchsetzbar hält, der glaubt wohl immer noch, die eigene Politik sei nur durch das Verschweigen der eigenen Ziele durchsetzbar!

Ostseegipfel in Riga - das erinnert an das kümmerliche Bild des sonst gar nicht so zurückhaltenden Ex-Kanzlers Helmut Kohl, der sich in den 90er Jahren stur weigerte, die frisch unabhängigen baltischen Staaten mit einem Staatsbesuch zu beehren. Im Januar 1998 kam er dann doch für ein paar Stunden nach Riga - um sich dort fast ausschließlich nur mit seinem russischen Gesprächspartner Tschernomyrdin zu unterhalten (kein gutes Omen - Ende desselben Jahren waren beide nicht mehr in ihrem Amt). Am Ende der Amtszeit des Kanzlernachfolgers also wieder ein Akt der Ignoranz, den zu reparieren viele Gespräche kosten wird - auch wenn Bundeskanzlerin Merkel allseits erstaunliche Vorschußlorbeeren entgegengebracht wurden.

Der Diskussionsbeitrag in "Information" benennt auch die gegenwärtigen Schwächen: große Unterschiede bestehen noch durch sehr unterschiedliche historische Erfahrungen und Prägungen einzelner Länder, in einer unausgewogenen Energiepolitik (die im Zweifelsfall nur denjenigen dient, die Energie exportieren können), und in Defiziten bei einer zu vereinheitlichenden Gesetzgebung. Demnächst soll also die EU eine neue Ostseestrategie ausarbeiten. Es ist sicher der These zuzustimmen, dass nur derjenige etwas in der Zukunft verbessern kann, der aktiv diese Strategie bereits mit vorbereitet. Aus deutscher Sicht klingt dies allerdings wie ein Rufen übers weite Meer: wo sind sie, die deutschen Diskussionsbeiträge? Werden endlich einmal partnerschaftliche Zusammenarbeit mit dem großen Nachbarn Russland, und gut-nachbarschaftliche Beziehungen mit den "neu-nordischen Staaten" rund um die Ostsee zwei Seiten derselben Medaille sein?

Ankündigung des lettischen Außenministeriums zum Ostseegipfel

Fotogalerie "Balticness"

"Nordisk Råd skal arbejde for ny Østersøstrategi" (Information, 11.4.08)

"Mere handling i Østersøregionen" (Information 17.4.2008)

"Baltinfo" - englischsprachiger Newsletter des Ostseerats

Be non-governmental in Latvia - how it works

2008-03-21T20:33:00.010+01:00

Latvia hosts the BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM this year - an excellent opportunity to focus a bit more on the actual situation of Non-Governmental Organisations in in Latvia.
Some Latvians say: "NGOs, that are either interest groups financed by foreigners who want to influence our local politics, or they work only for their own private interests and profit." And some foreigners say: "NGOs in Latvia, they are as weak as politicians: no self-confidence, no ideals, and what are people interested in? Only consuming, shopping, making money."

As it is often the case - truth is to be found between the extremes. The Civic Alliance Latvia (Latvijas Pilsoniskas Alianse - LPA) unites some 70 different Latvian organisations - from Culture Centres, Youth Funds, environmentalists, to Pensioner organisations and Red Cross - tries to "translate" what is called "Civil Society" into a language people can understand and get interested to participate.On the LPAs website you could find for example a list of terms which are used in Latvian language to define the different parts of NGOs activities. These terms are also used be the Latvian Ministries, who work on a Programme called "development of Society 2005-2013" (The Latvian "Special Task" Ministry f.ex., the "Integration of Society" department).
I'll try to translate these LPA-list here, as I regard it to be quite interesting, how Latvians define "Civil Society" themselves, and what terms they use. Couldn't it help in cooperation, if we would know what they are speaking about?
I'll translate these list of terms first in German (my mother-tongue), and then add how I would translate it into English. Readers are invited to add, correct me, or comment!

Biedru labuma organizācija - eine Organisation die für das Wohl ihrer Mitglieder arbeitet - an organisation working for its members interest

Brīvprātīgais darbs - freiwillige Arbeit. Unentgeltliche Arbeit oder Dienstleistung zur Erreichung von per Satzung festgelegten Zielen, die von einer physischen Person erbracht wird, die nicht mit dem Verein (biedrība) oder dieser Arbeit in rechtlicher Verbindung steht. - Voluntary work. Work not paid, for aims defined by statutes, which is done by a physical person not connected to the association /club.

Filantropija (labdarība) - Philanthropie, Wohltätigkeit. Spende an Geld, Zeit, Wissen oder sonstigen persönlichen Ressourcen, ohne irgendeine Gegenleistung zu erwarten. Erwartungen zu Gegenleistungen können nicht gemessen oder bestimmt werden, aber ein Entgelt gibt es in Form eines Steuernachlasses. - Philanthropy, charity. Donation of money, time, knowledge or other personal ressources without expecting something in return. Such return is not measured or defined, but its possible to get a tax allowance.

Formāla sadarbība - formalisierte, strukturisierte Zusammenarbeit. Zusammenarbeit, die auf strukturisierten Beziehungen basiert, meist staatlich registriert, zum Beispiel bei Vereinensgründungen, Gewerkschaften. - cooperation basing on formalized relations, mostly registered by state, for example founding of clubs, associations, trade unions.

Kopiena - Gemeinschaft. Eine geografisch geeinte Gruppe von Individuen, die ihre soziale Identität oder gemeinsame Interessen zusammenführt. - Community. A geografically unified group of individuals, united by common social identity or common interests.

Līdzdarbība - Mitarbeit. Mitwirkungsform, die eine Einbeziehung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft in die Formulierung, Beratung, Umsetzung und Bewertung von Aufgaben demokratischer Machtausübung bekundet. - Form of collaboration including participation of civic society in formulation, consultation, realisation and valuation of tasks concerning the ruling power.

Neformāla sadarbība - nicht formalisierte, nicht strukturisierte Zusammenarbeit. Zusammenarbeit, die gewöhnlich auf mündlich verabredeten Vereinbarungen basiert und nicht registriert wird, zum Beispiel bei Interessengruppen, Gemeinschaften im Internet, Freizeitgruppen, Gruppen von untereinander persönlich Bekannten. - Non-Formal Cooperation, which is usually based only on oral agreements and is not registred; for example interest groups, Internet communities, leisure groups, friends.

Nevalstiskās organizācijas (NVO), Sabiedriskās (nevalstiskās) organizācijas - Nichtstaatliche / gesellschaftliche Organisationen. Organisationen, gegründet auf privater Initiative ohne Gewinnerzielungsabsicht. In Lettland gibt es zwei Arten der gesellschaftlichen Organisationen: biedrības un nodibinājumi (Vereine und Verbindungen). Im Rahmen des Regierungskonzepts zur gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung werden hier religiöse Gruppierungen, Gewerkschaften und politische Parteien NICHT mit erfasst. - Non Governmental / Societal Organisations, founded on private initiative without commercial aims. In Latvia exist two kinds of NGOs: associations and foundations. In frame of the state dokument on development of society the religious organisations, trade unions and political organisations are NOT belonging to this groups.

Nevalstiskais sektors (arī trešais sektors) - Der nichtstaatliche Sektor (oder dritte Sektor). Bereich der Gesellschaft, den sowohl formale wie auch non-formale gesellschaftliche Netzwerke formen und der außerhalb und unabhängig von demokratischen Machthabern und der Wirtschaft existiert. - Non-Governmental Sector. Part of Society based on both formal and non-formal networks and which exists outside and independently from the democratic rulers and the business sector.

Nevalstisko organizāciju (NVO) sektors - Der Sektor der Nichtregierungsorganisationen (NROs). Derjenige Teil des nichtstaatlichen Sektors, den die gesellschaftlichen (nichtstaatlichen) Organisationen und die gesellschaftlichen Netzwerke bilden. - the NGO sector. Those part of the non-govermental sector which is created by NGOs and NGO-networks.

NVO sektora ilgtspēja - Fähigkeit zur Nachhaltigkeit des NRO-Sektors. Der NRO-Sektor organisiert sich selbst gemäß den Notwendigkeiten einer verantwortungsvollen Gesellschaft und orientiert an dem Erreichen wichtiger Ziele, und trägt selbst die Ressourcen zur Verwirklichung dieser Arbeit. - the sustainability of the NGO sector. The NGO sector organises its own work for the needs of a responsible society, oriented towards its aims, covering the realisation of its work by own ressources.

Pilsoniskā izglītība - Bürgerschaftliche Ausbildung. Ausbildung, deren Ziel es ist Kenntnisse und Erfahrungen zu vermitteln an Menschen, um erfolgreich teilnehmen zu können an vollwertiger Integration und am Leben in einer bürgerschaftlichen Gesellschaft. - Civic education, aiming in getting knowledge an experiences which is necessary for for successful integration and live in a civic society.

Pilsoniskā sabiedrība - Bürgergesellschaft. Gesellschaft, deren Mitglieder keine Hindernisse haben mit anderen Individuen zuammenzuarbeiten und ihre Probleme und Fragen der Gesellschaft lösen können. Diese setzt sich zusammen aus jeglicher Art formalen oder nicht- formalen Gruppierungen, unabhängig vom Staat, Familien oder Unternehmertätigkeit. Die bürgerschaftliche Gesellschaft sichert auch die Interessenvertretung für Dinge, die sich selbst nicht vertreten können (so zum Beispiel die Umwelt, Kinderrechte, Menschen mit besonderen Bedürfnissen in Rechtsfragen). - Civic Society. Society, in which individuals don't have barriers to cooperate with eachother, and can solve their problems and topics of society publicly. It consists of all kind of formal or non-formal formations independent from state, family or business activity. The civic society ensures representation of interests, but also of those items which can't represent themselves (like environment, childrens rights, people with special necessities towards law).

Politikas veidošana - Politikbildung. Ein Prozess, der eingeht in die Herausbildung, Ausarbeitung, und Urteilsfähigkeit zum politischen Geschehen auf allen Ebenen. - A process which contributes to shaping, elaboration and evaluation of politics on all levels.

Sabiedriskā labuma organizācijas - Organisationen zum gesellschaftlichen Wohl (deutsch würde man wohl sagen: gemeinnützig). Nichtstaatliche Organisationen, deren hauptsächliches Ziel das Erreichen von für die Gesellschaft wichtigen Zielen ist. - NGOs who aim in achievments important for society.

Sabiedriskie tīkli - Gesellschaftliche Netzwerke. Diejenigen formalen oder nicht formalen Kontakte und Beziehungen zwischen Einzelpersonen, die innerhalb einer Gesellschaft gebildet werden. - Those contacts and relations between formalyl or non-formally organised people, of which society consists.

Sadarbība - Zusammenarbeit. Horizontal ausgerichtete Teilnahme, die in einer Gesellschaft zwischen gleichen Partnern entsteht, zum Beispiel innerhalb von staatlichen Institutionen, oder innerhalb von Nichtregierungsorganisationen. - Participation of horizontal direction, which happens between equal partners in society, for example between state institutions or between NGOs.

Sociālais kapitāls - Das soziale Kapital. Die dem Wohl der Individuen zu Gute kommenden Arbeitsresultate der gesellschaftlichen Netzwerke. - Work results of societal networks to the benefits of the individuals.

Well, lets use this terms for better cooperation with Latvian NGOs, and participation in BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2008 in Riga!

More about BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2008 (in German) - mehr zum BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2008 hier

More about the "NGOs dictionary" of "Civic Aliance Latvia" (Latvian)

Latvia invites for BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2008

2008-03-03T21:59:00.006+01:00

On Monday, 12th of May and Tuesday, 13th of May 2008 Latvian NGOs will invite to the 7th BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2008 to Riga. Host organisation is Latvijas Pilsoniskas Alianse LPA (Civil Alianse Latvia), a NGO-lobby-organisation with more than 70 local members.

The BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM bases on a tradition back to 2001, when two such events have been organised in Kopenhagen / Denmark and in Luebeck / Germany. Since then a NGO Baltic Sea Network has been formed, consisting of a Focal Point (coordination) in each of the CBSS-countries, and those NGOs who are interested and active in the inter-sectional Baltic Sea Cooperation of the Non-Governmental Organisations. Parallel to the Council of Baltic Sea States a yearly NGO FORUM has been organised: 2002 in St.Petersburg/Russia, 2003 in Turku/Finland, 2004 in Paernu/Estonia, 2005 in Gdynia/Poland and 2006 in Stockholm/Sweden. Only the presidency of Iceland, which indeed is member of the CBSS, had to be left out, as Iceland could not afford to invite the NGOs to visit the nordic Island.

Now its Latvia's turn! It will be exiting to meet Latvian NGOs in Riga in May. But places for delegates are limited, so all those who might be interested to tell about their NGO-projects, activities, experiences, or who tend to find new partners, are asked to turn towards the national coordinators (Focal Points) for more information. A list of all Focal Points is to be found here. More information may be also accessible very soon at the Webpage of the host organisation LPA in Riga.

IX. BALTIC SEA DAY St.Petersburg

2008-01-24T12:50:00.000+01:00

IX INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM BALTIC SEA DAY

St Petersburg, 11-13 March 2008

On March, 11-13th, 2008 in St.-Petersburg will hold IX International Environmental Forum "Baltic Sea Day".
For nine years of the existence the Forum became one of the integral ecological events of the Baltic Sea region.
This event usually holds under the aegis of Ministry of National Resources and annually gets together about 500 participants from the Baltics and the Europe.
Among participants of the Forum-2008 the high level of representation from HELCOM, European Commission and countries of region of Baltic Sea is expected.

The basic theme of the Forum-2008 will be the discussion devoted to “Baltic Sea Action Plan” (BSAP) implementation in the Baltic states (a new strategic document of HELCOM “Baltic Sea Action Plan” was adopted at extraordinary Ministerial session on November, 15th, 2007 in Krakow, Poland) with wide attraction national and international NGO, the international financial institutions, executive and legislature bodies of the Baltic region.

In the Forum-2008 the next few topics have been suggested to discussion:
- Participation of NGO in implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan.
- Financing & Implementation of Projects around the Baltic Sea
- Assessment of the Baltic Sea environment
- Development of scientific and student's cooperation of educational institutions of the Baltic states
- Trends of Marine Management and Activities in Russia
- Environmentally safe Agriculture
- Tourism and Ecology
- Meeting of the working group on the Russian-Finnish-Estonian cooperation in the Gulf of Finland (this section session already traditionally will be held before official opening of the Forum, on March, 11th, 2008)

As a resume of the Forum-2008 will be published the Thesises Collection, in which will be placed thesises and presentation of the participants.

Proposals and questions we ask to direct to address of SPbPO "Ecology and business" which during 9 years realize technical organization of the Forum.

Truly yours and with hope for fruitful cooperation

The Organising Committee

The IXth International Environmental Forum
“Baltic Sea Day” Organizing Committee
Phone: + 7 812 431 1167,
phone/fax: +7 812 430 9305
E-mail: korovinl@helcom..ru
vorobyeva@helcom.ru

NGOs question North Stream Project (Baltic Sea Gas Pipeline)

2007-11-27T10:10:00.000+01:00

Answers to questions asked by representatives of non-governmental organizations on the EIA procedure for the Nord Stream Project

1. The SEG Project is divided into several projects: onshore (Gryazovets-Vyborg), a 122km long section in the Russian part of the Finnish Bay +1.5km onshore section, the 1,200km long seabed section and an on-shore section in Germany; and it has at least two operators. How do you explain this?

According to a decision taken by the Project shareholders, the Nord Stream gas pipeline is a pipeline from the scraper launcher chamber at the coast of the Port Bay, Vyborg, to the respective chamber at the coast at Greifswald. The gas pipeline crosses the territorial sea (TS) and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Russia, the EEZ of Finland, the EEZ of Sweden, TS and EEZ of Denmark, as well as TS and EEZ of Germany. As a transboundary project, Nord Stream is subject to environmental impact assessment in conformity with the Espoo Convention and in compliance with the respective national legislations of the countries, whose TS or EEZ are crossed by the gas pipeline in relation to the respective route section. The Nord Stream AG Company is responsible for design development, construction and subsequent operation of the gas pipeline.

About 122km of the gas pipeline route are within the Russian EEZ and TS + 1.5km on shore up to the scraper launcher chamber.

The onshore gas pipeline Gryazovets-Vyborg is part of the integral gas transport network of Russia to be designed and constructed by OAO Gazprom. It also connects the existing networks with the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

Preparations are conducted for construction of two onshore gas pipelines within the territory of Germany for connection of the Nord Stream pipeline and the existing networks. Their names are OPAL (from Greifswald to Olbernhau) and NEL (from Greifswald to Ahima). VINGAZ and E.ON Ruhrgas are responsible for their design development and construction.

The name SEG was the working designation for the project aimed at developing infrastructure in order to increase supplies of gas to Europe until the structure of the project has been determined in well-defined terms. The name of SEG is not applied anymore and has been replaced by Nord Stream in October 2006.

2. Since the operators of both onshore and offshore sections of the SEG are companies related to Gazprom (probably, the latter was initially the company who ordered the EIA for the onshore section of the gas pipeline), is there any connection between these two projects.

The Nord Stream and Gryazovets-Vyborg gas pipelines are separate projects implemented by two different companies – Nord Stream AG and OAO Gazprom, respectively. There is the following connection between these two projects: (a) gas will be supplied from one gas pipeline to the other; (b) OAO Gazprom is a shareholder of Nord Stream AG.

3. Will the EIA for 122km + 1.5km onshore section be carried out only according to the Russian legislation?

As a transboundary project, Nord Stream is subject to environmental impact assessment in conformity with the Espoo Convention, as well as in compliance with the national legislation of the countries, whose TS or EEZ are crossed by the respective gas pipeline route sections.

The EIA within the territory of Russia will be conducted in accordance with the Russian legislation taking also into account the relevant provisions of the international environmental law (in particular, the International Convention on the Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, i.e. Espoo Convention), which do not contravene the Russian legislation.

4. Why the particular 1.5km of the onshore section has been added? Why the CS “Portovaya” has not been included?

According to a decision taken by the Project shareholders, the Nord Stream gas pipeline is a pipeline from the scraper launcher chamber at the coast of the Port Bay, Vyborg, to the respective chamber at the coast at Greifswald.

5. Were there any Terms of Reference prepared for the EIA of the 122km long section in the Finnish Bay? If yes, where and when?

The terms of reference for the EIA for this stage of the investment process, for which the Nord Stream AG Company is responsible (i.e., development of project documentation (feasibility study / design development)), were signed on March 29, 2007. They are available on the Company’s web site http://www.nord-stream.com/113.html?&L=2 along with the preliminary version of the EIA materials for this stage of the investment process.

During the previous stage of the investment documentation development for the gas pipeline (stage “Substantiation of Investments”), public hearings were carried out in the city of Vyborg in September 2006.

6. At what stage is the EIA for the 122km long section in the Finnish Bay? The materials presented in Vyborg are called “preliminary EIA”. For what stage of the project had they been prepared – is it the investment substantiation stage? What is planned further within the framework of the EIA for the 122km long section in the Finnish Bay?

First, the EIA in a transboundary context for the Nord Stream seabed gas pipeline in the EEZ and TS of Russia is conducted within the framework of the international EIA procedure according to the Espoo Convention.

A report on the EIA in transboundary context will be prepared at the beginning of the next year and will be presented to the relevant governmental agencies and the public.

Second, the EIA within the territory of Russia is conducted in compliance with the Russian legislation. Currently, the preparation of a preliminary version of the EIA materials is nearing completion with respect to that stage of the investment process, for which Nord Stream AG is responsible (preparation of the design documentation, i.e., feasibility study and project design).

Those materials will be discussed with the public starting from October 23, 2007 after their publication in official media of the respective federal executive bodies, in official media of the executive authorities of the member territories of the Russian Federation (Leningrad Oblast, City of Saint-Petersburg) and by local self-government bodies (Administration of the Vyborg District municipality, Leningrad Oblast). Starting from October 23, 2007 the preliminary version of the EIA materials to be discussed will be available for the public in the library of the city of Vyborg. Furthermore, it will be sent in the CD format to interested represtatives of the public. All materials are available on the Nord Stream AG web site.

Public hearings on the preliminary EIA version (Stage of Feasibility Study/Design Development) will be carried out in the building of the Viborg District Municipality Administration on November 23, 2007. Information about the exact date and the venue for the public hearings as published on October 23 in the mass media mentioned above.

After the public hearings the final version of the EIA materials for the Russian section of the seabed pipeline of Nord Stream will be prepared taking into account the comments and proposals made by the interested parties, including the comments and proposals by the public.

7. Will be the preliminary EIA materials made available in Saint-Petersburg and Moscow as it had been requested by the NGO representatives at the meeting on June 28, 2007?

The preliminary EIA materials are available at the site of Nord Stream AG and in the Library of the city of Vyborg. In addition, they will be circulated in the CD format to all participants of the information meeting held on June 28, 2007.

Such a procedure is complete and available to a maximum degree to the public. Thus, all interested representatives of the public will be able to get familiar with the relevant materials and present their proposals and comments.

8. When and where it is planned to carry out the next public hearings and at what stage of the Project? If it will be only in Vyborg, will representatives of the public from Saint-Petersburg be able to participate in them?

As mentioned in the answer to Question 6, the public hearings on the preliminary EIA materials will be conducted in the building of the Viborg District Municipality Administration on November 23, 2007. Information about the exact date and the venue for the public hearings will be published in due time (30 days prior to the hearings) on October 23 in the mass media mentioned above.

Currently, the preparation of the preliminary EIA materials for the investment process stage, for which Nord Stream AG is responsible is nearing completion (i.e. preparation of the project documentation – feasibility study / design development).

There are absolutely no limitations as to participation of representatives of the public from Saint-Petersburg (or any other city).

9. In what other ways the public will be involved in the EIA procedure for the 122km pipeline section in the Finnish Bay?

The Russian public will be able to get familiar with the following documents and express their comments and proposals:

a) Preliminary version of the EIA materials for the Russian section of the seabed gas pipeline of Nord Stream;

b) Final version of the EIA materials for the Russian section of the seabed gas pipeline of Nord Stream;

c) Draft materials for the EIA in transboundary context for the entire Nord Stream pipeline route, including the Russian section.

10. When and who will carry out the environmental review (expertiza) for the 122km long section in the Finnish Bay?

The environmental review of the Russian section of the seabed Nord Stream gas pipeline will be carried out by the State Environmental Review (Expertise) Department of the Federal Service for Supervision in the field of use of natural resources during the first half of 2008.

11. When and where will be available the environmental review statement relating to that gas pipeline section?

In accordance with the Federal Law “On Environmental Review”, No.174-FZ of November 23, 1995 with subsequent amendments, Article 19 (Rights of Citizens and Public Organizations (Associations) in Relation to Environmental Review), citizens and public organizations (associations) in the field of environmental review are entitled to “… obtain from the federal body of executive authority and bodies of governmental authorities of member territories of the Russian Federation organizing governmental environmental review of specific facilities, the information about the review results.
Thus, the information about the results of the environmental review will be available after its completion.

12. How complete are the preliminary EIA materials for the 122km long seabed pipeline section in the Finnish Bay?

For the given stage of the preparation of the investment documentation, the degree of completeness of the EIA assessment is considered to be sufficient.

13. At what stage of the environmental studies they have been collected? Is it considered that the duration of the period was sufficient for collection of objective EIA materials?

In conformity with the national and international EIA practice, the EIA materials for the Russian section of the Nord Stream seabed pipeline were prepared on the basis of the archive and scientific data collected during the 10-year periods of observations, as well as the results of special field surveys carried out during 2005-2007, which has ensured collection of objective materials for the EIA.

14. In what way will be the Russian public involved in the EIA procedure for the 1,208km long seabed pipeline section? What events are planned in this connection and at what time? Which legislation will be applied – only international or also national?

Similarly to the stage of publication of the “Information about the Project”, within the framework of the Notification Procedure according to the Espoo Convention (November 2006 – February 2007), after the completion and publication on the Company’s web site of the EIA report in the transboundary context it is planned to conduct (in early 2008) public consultations during a period of 2 to 3 months. Comments will be submitted by the public to the respective national governmental organizations with possible submission of copies to the Nord Stream Company. See also the answer to Question 6.

The materials for the EIA report will be submitted in compliance with the provisions of the Espoo Convention (Articles 4 and 5) to the competent agencies (i.e. agencies responsible for implementation of the Espoo Convention) of Germany, Denmark, Russia, Finland and Sweden for circulation of the given documentation among the bodies and the public of the affected Party in areas, which most probably will be exposed to the impact and for submission of comments to the competent body of the Party of Origin directly or, if required through the Party of Origin within reasonable time until the final decision relating to the planned activities will be taken (par.1 of Article 4 of the Espoo Convention).
Thus, in Russia (and in other countries as well) the competent body in charge of the Espoo Convention, i.e. the RF Ministry of Natural Resources, will be responsible for discussion of the EIA materials for the entire seabed gas pipeline route.
The Nord Stream AG Company provides and will provide all required assistance to the competent agencies (i.e., the agencies in charge of the Espoo Convention implementation) in all the above states, including Russia.

15. Is it planned to disseminate the EIA information for the 1,208km long section of the project in any other ways, in addition to its publication on the Nord Stream site, for the Russian stakeholders?

As it has been mentioned in the response to the previous questions, according to the norms of the international environmental law (Articles 4 and 5 of the Espoo Convention), dissemination of information (EIA documents) and consultations with the stakeholders, including the public, is within the competence of the relevant official agencies of Germany, Denmark, Russia, Finland and Sweden responsible for compliance with the provisions of the Espoo Convention.
It is also planned to present the materials relating to the EIA report in the transboundary context for the entire Nord Stream on the Company’s site.

16. Who and when will carry out the environmental review of the 1,208km long pipeline section?
According to an agreement reached between the official agencies of Germany, Denmark, Russia, Finland and Sweden (i.e. the states, whose territories will be crossed by the pipeline), the international procedure for EIA in transboundary context will be applied to the entire seabed gas pipeline of Nord Stream in accordance with the provisions of the Espoo Convention (the procedure has been developed within the framework of the UN ECE International Convention on the Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context).
An environmental review procedure is not foreseen by the international environmental law for the Baltic Sea states.
The EIA in a transboundary context will be performed by the Ramboll Company, one of Europe’s leading companies in the field of engineering and environment. Ramboll will also have qualified contractors for some specific types of work, for example, for marine surveys.

17. Will the final EIA materials for the entire marine part of the Nord Stream project and environmental review statements be made available to the Russian public?

As has been pointed out in the answers to Questions 14 and 15, the EIA materials in a transboundary context for the entire Nord Stream pipeline route will be placed on the Nord Stream AG web site. Furthermore, at the stage of consultations relating to the EIA materials, they will be presented to the Russian public in conformity with the norms of the international environmental law (Articles 4 and 5 of the Espoo Convention) to the official agencies of Russia representing the country for the Espoo Convention (i.e., the RF Ministry of Natural Resources).
As far as the environmental review (expertiza) is concerned, as mentioned in the response to Question 11, according to the Federal Law “On Environmental Review” (No.174-FZ of November 23, 1995 with subsequent amendments, Article 19 (Rights of Citizens and Public Organizations (Associations) in Relation to Environmental Review), citizens and public organizations (associations) in the field of environmental review are entitled to “… obtain from the federal body of executive authority and bodies of governmental authorities of member territories of the Russian Federation organizing governmental environmental review of specific facilities, the information about the review results.
Thus, the information about the results of the environmental review will be available after its completion.

18. On January 26-27, 2007 the Coalition of Clean Baltic had sent a letter on behalf of 26 NGOs of the Baltic Sea countries to the RF Government setting forth its position with respect to the Project and made some proposals, which were to be taken into account in the process of the EIA. Until now, no response has been obtained. Has that letter and the proposals reached the Nord Stream Company? If yes, which of the comments and proposals have been taken into consideration in the process of the EIA development?

The letter by the Coalition of Clean Baltic (CCB comments and requests for studies to be included in the Environmental Impact Assessment for the planned North European Gas Pipeline, in the Baltic Sea, under the Espoo Convention) was received by the Nord Stream Company and considered in the version, which had been sent by the Coalition to the environmental protection agencies of a number of countries of the Baltic Sea region as a response to the notification circulated under the Espoo Convention.
That letter was considered and all issues touched upon in the letter will be included in the EIA materials in a transboundary context. In conformity with the common international practice, no individual replies are sent in connection with comments made by the public.
In accordance with the requirements of the Russian legislation (Regulation on environmental impact assessment of planned commercial and other activities in the Russian Federation approved by RF GoskomEcologia Committee, Order No.372 of May 16, 2000, Annex, Par.12.6), the EIA materials will also contain a list of “comments and proposals made by the public with indication whether those proposals and comments have been taken into account or not by the customer, and if yes, in what form or if no, then with indication of the reasons for rejection”.
----------------------------------------------
Background information:

FRIENDS OF THE BALTIC

Press-release

25.11.2007

Public Hearings on the Russian part of the Nord-stream project - 122 km of gas pipe-line in the Gulf of Finland

November 23, 2007 in Vyborg (Leningrad region, Russia) the public hearings on the Russian part of Nord-stream project was organized by local administration and Nord-stream company.

Nikolay Grishin, Norsd-Stream expert on international conventions, said, that transboundary EIA is starting now, all countries of ESPO conventions confirmed participation in it, including Russia, which didn’t ratify convention. The transboundary EIA will be focused on the consideration of alternative routes, commercial fishering, destroyment of the bottom, chemical weapons and risks of the accidents.

Grigorij Vilchek (Petergas company, contractor of Nord-stream) - has made presentation of Preliminary EIA of the Russian part of the project, made by the order of Nord-stream company. Since January 1^st , 2007, according to the new Russian Law EIA of gas and oil pipelines on the land areas is not obligatory, but Nord-stream included their 1,5 km of coastal pipe-line to the EIA.

Environmental NGOs participated in the Hearing, had brought set of questions, prepares together with experts at the course of preparatory meetings.

Alexander Sutyagin mage detailed analysis of the EIA documents and said, that many of statements, that project doesn’t’ influence nature, are not confirmed with figures, results of investigation. In particular EIA said, that the pipe-line doesn’t cross the nature protected areas, and project doesn’t affect their ecosystems. But EIA doesn’t include maps, which show shape of mentioned in the project nature reserve areas - Beryezovye ostrova, Kurgalskij, Prigranichnyi and Ingermanlandskij, so as sketch of pipe-line. The answer was, that most of lard-scale maps are secret and institutions, with provided maps for the EIA, didn’t give permission to show these maps for public.

Olga Senova, Friends of the Baltic, said, that according experts opinions, project will give various influences, including disturbing birds in their migrations, and roiling of water will sufficiently worsen conditions for invertebrates, ichthyo-fauna, and fishering. Also some results of EIA are not enough earnestly, if expected pollutions are calculated, taking as a background zero pollution before project starts. Really we have very polluted water and background pollutions must be taken in accounting.

Tatyana Artyemova, Association of Environmental Journalists, said that issue of chemical weapons must be included to EIA (now it is not mentioned in EIA), even if there is no weapon on the pipe-line rout. Company should prepare their technology for processing chemical weapon if will meet this problem by any accidents, storm or other cases.

Vera Ovcharenko, Green World, asked question about implementation condition of absence any project activities in the gulf within the spawning period - the answer was, that this condition is confirmed in EIA. Also she asked about situation with river Serga, mentioned in the CCB statement. The answer was that dregs and dredge, caused with project activities, will not reach that river.

Alexander Shkrebets , TEIA, said that nature reserve Ingermanlandskij should be considered in the project as an existing nature protected area (not as planned), because it is already designed and almost approved, more over it is situated extremely close to the pipe-line (8 km to the Fiskar island).

Local residents, pensioner from the rural settlement, said, that gas pipeline on the land area near his settlement, had destroyed melioration system, roads, natural streams - and nobody improved situation., The answer was, that land part of the gas pipeline (exepting 1,5 km coastal line) belongs to Gasprom and Nord-stream company can’t be responsible on it.

The decision of the Hearing was to take in accounting all NGO comments for preparing the Final EIA. Additional comments can be sent to Nord-stream in 30 days after Hearings.

At the Hearings NGOs passed to the Nord-stream company the Memorandum on Social Responsibility, where suggested company to show its social responsibility for losses, brought to nature by the projects, taking under its patronage establishing and support for Ingermanland nature reserve.

Olga Senova

Friends of the Baltic

www.baltfriends.ru

+8 921 9117986

Baltic Sea - sick from Finnish forestry?

2007-11-08T11:54:00.000+01:00

Drained peatlands causing huge phosporus releases from bottom of the seas

The Finnish Association for Sustainable Forestry has called upon the
Finnish government and the Baltic Marine Environment Protection
Commission – HELCOM to study the impact of forestry on the state of the
Baltic Sea and the inland waters of Finland. This request is based on an
assessment that tiny particles of suspended humus in the effluent from
drained peatland in Finland have caused oxygen depletion near the bottom
of the sea and inland watercourses, triggering the phenomenon known as
internal loading. This pollution phenomenon arises when the bottom
sediment of these waters releases the phosphorus that causes eutrophication.

More than five million hectares of peatland have been drained in
Finland, while large quantities of nutrients and humus have also been
discharged from over ten million hectares of clear-cutting and soil
cultivation sites.

The Finnish Association for Sustainable Forestry believes that these
actions devastate the natural water cycle and have a decisive impact on
the origins of eutrophication.

“It’s odd how forestry is overlooked when considering the gigantic flow
of humus and its consequenses” observes Association legal advisor Mikko
Vartiainen, criticising current methods of compiling statistical records
on discharges.

“This is an unfair practice when comparing the responsibility of various
activities for the state of the water system. There are plenty of lakes
that suffer regularly from algal blooms, even though there is no human
habitation or agriculture anywhere near them.”

The Finnish Association for Sustainable Forestry is also surprised at
the generally poor state of knowledge of humus discharges and their
effects.

“It seems that during the golden age of mire drainage it was not even
possible to make measurements during the most severe flooding so that we
would know the quantities of humus that were released at these times,”
explains Association information officer Hannu Hyvönen.

“We do know, however, that over the years following the first mire
drainage projects the rate of humus discharge increased to levels
corresponding to the natural leachate of several hundred years.”

In its communication to the Finnish government and HELCOM the Finnish
Association for Sustainable Forestry calls for the appointment of an
independent international research team to study the effects of forestry
operations on the state of the Baltic Sea.

“One reason for the lack of information and attention in this area is
that mire drainage is regarded as a heroic accomplishment in Finland,
and conditions have not been auspicious for researchers to go out and
study the negative impacts of this work,” arques prof. Erkki Lähde the
justification for insisting on an independent international study.

New mire drainage poses a threat to water system

While the Association believes that humus discharges from forestry will
cause sustained problems in the water system, the latest threat comes
from current projects to renovate existing mire drainage ditches. The
humus discharges from these projects will almost match the scale of the
original mire drainage.

“They say that special drainage arrangements could be used to stop
discharges to the water system, which would be a plausible argument if
it wasn’t for the flooding season. The huge mass of water flowing at
this time carries the greatest discharge volumes, and these discharges
will not be trapped in settling basins,” Hannu Hyvönen explains.

The communication from the Association calls for the suspension of
remedial drainage projects until studies of the effects of drainage have
been completed. The Association is also insisting on a moratorium on
clear-cutting and soil cultivation in areas where there is a high risk
of nutrient leaching.

Annexes:
1. Communication to the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
– HELCOM

2. Article by Pekka Viherä on oxygen depletion and phosphorus loading

Video interview:
The video interview of Pekka Viherä and Mikko Vartiainen is available in
mp4
(The video is untill now only in Finnish. We hope to get english version soon in this address:
The footage with full resolution is available for broadcastings if needed.

More information on:
http://mehta.fi

Ostseerat: Prioritäten der lettischen Präsidentschaft

2007-08-15T19:36:00.000+02:00

Seit dem 1.Juli 2007 übernahm Lettland für ein Jahr die Präsidentschaft im Ostseerat (Council of Baltic Sea States - CBSS). Dabei ist es üblich, dass jede Präsidentschaft inhaltliche Schwerpunkte festsetzt. Lettland hat bisher drei Hauptthemen für die anstehenden Aktivitäten genannt: Bildung & Ausbildung, Energie, und zivile Sicherheit.

Bildung und Weiterbildung
Hebung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der regionalen Ausbildungseinrichtungen auf europäisches und globales Niveau - so steht es auf der Agenda Lettlands. Die gegenseitige Anerkennung von bildungspolitischen Ergebnissen einzelner Länder soll dabei einer der zu erreichenden Punkte sein. Allerdings bleibt das lettische Thesenpapier an dieser Stelle noch sehr allgemein, was denn diese "Ergebnisse" (Errungenschaften) sein sollen.
Leichter verständlich scheint es da, wenn die elektronische Vernetzung der Universitäten eingefordert wird. Zusätzliches Geld hat eine Einrichtung wie der Ostseerat sowieso nicht zur Verfügung - leichter scheint es da, dort etwas zu fordern, wo die Finanzierungswege sowieso klar sind. Da werden "Innovations-Parks" für neue Ideen gefordert, Weiterbildung zum Thema nachhaltige Entwicklung bis hin zur sogenannten "nachhaltigem Konsum" - freundlich zur Umwelt, und anhaltend fördernd für die Kommerzialisierung aller Lebensbereiche?
Auch das Thema Erwachsenenbildung erscheint vielleicht einfacher, als es seine Positionierung auf der Prioritätenliste ahnen läßt: zu verschieden sind ja die Modelle von Bildung und Weiterbildung in den einzelnen Ostseeanrainerstaaten.
Auch Maßnahmen und Arbeitsmittel werden für diesen Bereich genannt, hier gibt es aber keine Überraschungen: Arbeitsgruppen von Expert/innen & Ministertreffen gibt es auch anderswo zu Genüge.

Energie
Hier versammeln sich vielleicht die heißesten Themen. Immerhin gilt das russisch-deutsche Projekt einer Gaspipeline durch die Ostsee nicht gerade als geeignet, sich neue Freunde an der Ostsee zu schaffen, und die Explosion der Energiepreise erzeugt in vielen Ländern großen Ärger. Zudem stellt gerade Lettland mit Andris Piebalgs in der Europäischen Kommission den Kommissar für Energiefragen. Aus den baltischen Staaten war in der jüngsten Vergangenheit vermehrt der Ruf nach einer Koordinierung der EU-Energiepolitik zu vermehmen, und vielleicht meinte man so eine breitere Zustimmung zum teuren und nicht unumstrittenen Vorhaben des Baues eines neuen Atomkraftwerks zu bekommen.
Die Ostseerats-Präsidentschaft gibt sich aber gerade in Energiefragen auffällig zurückhaltend. Ist hier die "Realität des Machbaren" zu spüren? Die Infrastruktur zur Engergieversorgung will man stärken, Erfahrungen bei der Förderung von erneuerbarer Energie austauschen, und eine einheitliche Position der Ostseestaaten in rechtlichen Fragen will man erreichen. Das war's.

Zivile Sicherheit
Dieser Bereich, der Englisch "Civil Security" heißt und Deutsch immer etwas unbeholfen daherkommt, meint eigentlich die Bereiche Menschenrechte, soziale Sicherheit und nachhaltige Entwicklung. Einerseits könnte es als Absicherung des Wohlstands und der Wirtschaft bezeichnet werden, andererseits sind eben wichtige Bürgerrechte gemeint. Hier existieren im Bereich des Ostseerats die meisten Arbeitsgruppen: eine Expertengruppe zur maritimen Sicherheit, eine Task Force gegen Menschenhandel und eine weitere gegen organisierte Kriminalität, eine Arbeitsgruppe zum Schutz der Rechte von Kindern, eine weitere zu sogenannten "demokratischen Institutionen", ein jährliches Treffen von Staatsanwälten und eines von Abteilungsleitern zum Thema Zivile Sicherheit, eine Arbeitsgruppe zu nuklearer Sicherheit und Strahlenschutz, und die Baltic 21 zur Diskussion von Maßnahmen zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung.
Was kann da in den nächsten Monaten konkret erreicht werden, außer das alle diese Kommissionen weiter arbeiten? Das, was Lettland an Prioritäten formuliert, klingt zunächst mal einfach nach "mehr Kooperation wagen". Im übrigen soll die Schiffssicherheit weiter verbessert und die Korruption stärker bekämpft werden.

Erwartungen
Jährlich trifft sich der Ostseerat zum sogenannten "Ostseegipfel". Doch wer interessiert sich für die Ergebnisse, wer beobachtet die Aktivitäten, wer fordert Effektivität der beschlossenen Maßnahmen ein? 2007 fiel das Ereignis mitten in den Hype um den globalen Weltgipfel in Heiligendamm.
Die meisten Ostseeanrainer - bis auf Norwegen und Rußland - konzentrieren sind inzwischen auf ihre erweiterten Möglichkeiten als Mitglieder der Europäischen Union. Da wird die Ostseekooperation - obwohl direkt vor der Haustür gelegen - psychologisch schon mal zum Randmeer.
Auch Deutschland entwickelt kein starkes Interesse an der Ostseeregion: nicht einmal die norddeutschen Bundesländer vermögen das in Berlin zu erreichen, eine Koordination in Ostseefragen gibt es nicht. Zwar dürfen Politikerinnen und Politiker einmal pro Jahr zum "Rat der Ostseeparlamentarier" fahren (auch mehr so eine "Kennenlern-Veranstaltung", als ein Instrument zur Umsetzung innovativer Ideen). Dieses Jahr Ende August findet dieses Ereignis mit dem Kürzel BSPC gar im hauptstädtischen Berlin statt - mal sehen, wieviele deutsche Medien es überhaupt bemerken. Anläßlich der lettischen Ostseeratspräsidentschaft haben sich eine ganze Reihe lettischer Gäste in Berlin angesagt. Deutsche Ziele für die Ostseekooperation: Fehlanzeige.

Schlußfolgerung: Ostseekooperation ist ..... wenn sie stattfindet. Der deutschen Politik scheint es zu genügen, wenn zwei bis drei wissenschaftliche Institute still und leise die Szene beobachten (Berlin, Kiel, Greifswald). Dabei könnte doch die regionale Nähe zum Beispiel dazu genutzt werden, Menschen, Kulturen, Traditionen und Lebensarten mehr miteinander bekannt zu machen! Doch solch ein Ansinnen scheint nach der EU-Erweiterung von 2004 wie weggeblasen: regierten noch bis dahin die Vorurteile und Vorbehalte, so tuen die EU-Mitglieder in Ost und West inzwischen so, als ob man sich bereits jahrzehntelang kennen würde. Amtsträger mit gleichen Rechten, junge aufstrebende Ökonomen mit gleichen Marktchancen = Ziel erreicht?
Ich meine, Ostseekooperation könnte mehr sein als die Selbstgefälligkeit gut verdienender Wirtschaftskonzerne und mittelmäßiger Politiker/innen. Die Zivilgesellschaft fördern, dass hieße Bürgersinn entwicklen, Menschen Aktivitäten anbieten, kulturelle Events mit Teilnahmechance für alle bieten, Gleichgesinnte zusammenbringen. Auch hier gilt es zu "investieren": die Menschen mit ihrem Engagement und ihrer Ungeduld, die Verantwortlichen mit Umsicht und Sensibilität für unterschiedliche Interessenlagen. Lettische Präsidentschaft im Ostseerat: hoffen wir auf neue Ideen!

Lettische Ostseeratspräsidentschaft: Kalender der Aktivitäten und Termine (lettisch)

Prioritäten der lettischen Ostseeratspräsidentschaft (englisch)

Der Ostseerat (Council of Baltic Sea States - engl.)

Kalender der Aktivitäten rund um den Ostseerat (engl.)

Ostseekooperation der Nichtregierungsorganisationen

Portal "Baltic Sea Region" (engl.)

Der Deutsche Bundestag zur Konferenz der Ostseeparlamentarier 27/28.August 2007 in Berlin

Lettland startet Ostseerats-Präsidentschaft mit Fotowettbewerb

2007-07-23T20:42:00.000+02:00

Am 1.Juli 2007 übernahm Lettland die Präsidentschaft im Rat der Ostseeanrainerstaaten (auch "Ostseerat" genannt). Turnusmäßig wechselt die Präsidentschaft jedes Jahr.
Koordiniert werden Aktivitäten des Ostseerats in den jeweiligen Außenministerien.
Lettland ruft junge Fotografen und Fotografinnen, die zwischen 18 und 30 Jahren alt sind, zu einem Fotowettbewerb auf. "Where the Baltic Sea and People Meet" - wo sich die Ostsee und die Menschen treffen, so könnte es wohl übersetzt werden. Die besten Fotografien sollen im nächsten Frühjahr Teil einer Wanderausstellung werden, die in allen elf Hauptstädten der Ostseeanrainerstaaten gezeigt werden soll. Das Projekt wird zusammen mit dem lettischen Zentrum für moderne Kunst durchgeführt. Die lettischen Initiatoren erhoffen sich dadurch eine Förderung des Gedankens der "Balticness"

Jede Bewerberin / jeder Bewerber kann bis zu 5 Fotografien einsenden. Einsendeschluß ist der 5.September 2007.
Koordination und weitere Informationen: Lettisches Außenministerium, Elīna Hermansone / Elīna Lazareva, Telefon +371 29140968, E-mail: photo@mfa.gov.lv.
Addresse: The Latvian Center for Contemporary Art, Alberta Str.13, Riga, LV – 1010, Lettland.

Lettische Infoseite zum Fotowettbewerb (engl.)

Teilnahmeregeln (PDF-Datei, engl.)

Baltic Environmentalists comment Gas Pipeline Project

2007-01-26T14:47:00.000+01:00

Coalition Clean Baltic - the Network of the Baltic Sea Regions Environmental NGOs, published its comments on the Gas Pipeline Project today.

Here is the text of the press release, to be requested also from: Coalition Clean Baltic, Östra ?gatan 53, SE-753 22 UPPSALA, Sweden. Phone +46 18 71 11 70 Fax +46 18 71 11 75
E-mail: gunnar.noren@ccb.se, www.ccb.se.

CCB comments and request for studies to be included in the Environmental Impact Assessment for the planned
North European Gas Pipeline in the Baltic Sea,
under the Espoo Convention.

CCB has the following comments:

Environmental effects of the project
The initial environmental impact will be during construction. As the sea floor is not flat work will be needed to make a “road” for the pipeline. The environmental impact depends largely on how much dredging, blasting and removing of rocks that will have to be done. The big difference between really soft bottoms quickly changing to rocky bottoms will be demanding for the construction. Another physical problem might be the quick pulses of stronger currents on the bottom and the ice cover during winter for the beginning and ending of the pipe and the service station.

In the Gulf of Finland there are a lot of hazardous chemicals buried in the sediment (also in other parts of the Baltic Sea), specially cadmium, mercury, led, TBT and DDT. Very high concentrations and corresponding amounts in the sediments can be foreseen. According to the EIA program by Nord-Stream, the concentrations of heavy metals in the Gulf of Finland are very high according to Swedish standards (from considerable pollution (class 3 of 5) to very contaminated (class 5 of 5)). Therefore the option of removing contaminated sediments to the surface and handling/cleaning it on land should be included in the EIA.

Nord Stream mentioned the risk of dumped ammunitions to be found while constructing the pipeline. In different sources it is documented that ammunitions have been dumped before reaching the dump sites or accidentally distributed through fisheries activities. The available information on the exact position and amount of all dumped ammunitions is incomplete. Hence, CCB expects dumped ammunitions not only on registered dump sites but more or less all along the planned route of the pipeline.
The danger occurring from these old weapons is manifold: When they are intact they can explode by accident and release different toxic substances apart from the noise. When they are corroded and/or broken these toxic substance can be mobilised through the pipeline construction.

In case of explosions of ammunitions (accidentally or indented) there is a harmful influence on marine mammals and fish to be expected. In a circle of several kilometres radius around the detonation serious injuries of gas filled organs of animals are likely to occur.

The nutrient content in the sediments is also very high, and an estimation should be made of the amount that could be released during construction is needed. The impact on Baltic eutrophication can be adverse, and can indicate a final regime shift for the Baltic.

Note that several of governmental long term environmental monitoring stations will end up being under the pipeline. One should ensure that these can still operate and provide their data.

Underwater noise can also be a problem for the marine life, such as fish species and marine mammals, close to a gas pipeline when the pipeline is in use. The Environmental Imapct Assessment (EIA) must include a description of what kind of noise, incl frequences of the sounds and sound levels that can arise from the gas pipeline and the extent of disturbances during construction.

It is essential that the project parties are aware that the planned location of the gas pipeline will have on impact on Natura 2000 areas, such as the Hoburg bank area. All possible conflicts with sites designated for Natura 2000 network should be a subject of separate assessment to fulfil requirements of Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, which is not the case now.

The entire Gulf of Finland must be regarded as a gas pipeline environmental impact area, and not only the strip of two kilometers along the pipeline itself.

CCB request:
1. To monitor the content of hazardous substances and nutrients in the sediment in each spot where dredging is planned or needed, and estimate costs for removing of the dredged sediments up on land and handle it as hazardous waste, if the concentrations of contaminants are above permitted levels.
2. A detailed estimation of how much nitrogen and phosphourous, in different Baltic Sea sub-basins, that can be released when contructing the gas pipeline.
3. All research work and analyses on dumped ammunitions have to be applied for the total length of the planned pipeline.
4. The EIA has to describe, analyse and evaluate the effects of: - Remobilisation and release of potential harmful substances from dumped ammunitions caused directly or indirectly by the pipeline construction - Blow up and accidentally explosion of dumped ammunitions - Pushing aside of found ammunitions - Salvage of found ammunitions - Re-dumping of found ammunitions (as far as foreseen)
5. A detailed safety and ammunition handling concept will have to be presented prior to the EIA. It should contain detection, going around (where ever possible), removal, handling and mitigation measures for explosions in the sea. For any activities Best Available Technologies (BAT) have to be employed. The guiding principle has be the minimisation of harmful effects for human beings and the environment.
6. The risks for marine mammals and fishes through detonations of dumped ammunitions have to be analysed and measurements to minimise the injuries (e.g. gas bubble curtains) have to be discussed. Nord Stream has to present a convincing security concept how they want to protect the marine environment against the harmful effects of possible explosions.
7. To study what environmental monitoring stations in the Baltic Sea that will be influenced by the planned location of the gas pipeline, and estimation of costs for moving the gas pipline outside the area of importance for long-term monitoring.
8. A description of what kind of noise, incl frequences of the sounds and sound levels that can arise from the gas pipeline, e g submarine sounds, and its impact on the Baltic Sea fauna.
9. A study that describes the impact of the gas pipeline (construction phase and operating phase) on the very vulnerable Ringed Seal population in the Russian Gulf of Finland (Vyborg Bay), and northern Gulf of Finland shores and archipelago area in Finland, and what actions can be taken to mitigate such impact.
10. To propose alternative locations of the pipeline accordingly to the Article 6 of Habitats Directive and relevant procedures, to ensure that Natura 2000 areas, e.g. Hoburgs bank in Swedish waters, will be safeguarded.
11. Description of the fish stocks and fisheries interests around the pipeline area, and evaluation of the impact of the pipeline construction and operation on fish stocks and fisheries interests.
12. To establish a liability fund with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage which may occur during the construction, exploitation and decommissioning phase of the project.
13. Many islands in the Russian Gulf of Finland are very important nature sites and are intended to be included into the planned nature reserve “Ingermanlandskiy”. It is important to make sure that the area of these islands is not used for construction activities (e.g. as storage sites etc). The EIA should contain information that will guarantee the safeguarding of Russian islands in the Gulf of Finland.
14. To restrict Gas Pipeline construction activities in spring-summer fish spawning period in coastal areas in Russia and Germany (e.g. 15 April – 15 June according to fish protection legislation in Russia).
15. “Gazprom” company as the project leader, according to Russian environmental legislation, should organize public hearings in Russia as a part of the EIA and provide the results of the public hearing for state environmental expertise process.

Other options should be considered
In the EIA programme only two options are considered, the zero option of no pipeline and the option of building according to plans in the programme. There should be included other options as well, both on land (e g parallel with existing lines) and on the sea floor.

Environmental impact on the Baltic Sea ecosystem of the planned gas pipeline, in Russian waters, outside Russian land territories, around the Vyborg Bay

The gas pipeline will enter the Baltic Sea close to river Serga, west of the Vyborg Bay. The following fish species are in these waters (see e g Nature Conservation Atlas of the Russian Part of the Gulf of Finland, published by Baltic Fund for Nature St Petersburg, www.bfn.org.ru). - Sea-trout (Red Book species in Russia). There are areas with high concentration of young sea-trout at the delta and outside river Ser’ga, in border waters between Russia-Finland and in the delta and outside river Virojki (in Finland) - River lamprey - sites with high concentration of migrating individuals, e g in the delta and outside Ser’ga River - Anadrom vendace - in Gulf of Finland waters - Twaite shad - along the northern coast of Gulf of Finland

Some bird species also have important areas in this region (e.g. Whooper swan, Caspian tern, Barnacle goose) These require special attention, and must be studied in the EIA.

The impact on natural values in Russian RAMSAR areas in the Gulf of Finland must be considered and described, and actions to mitigate such impacts should be suggested.

* The impact of the construction and operation of the gas pipeline on above-mentioned fish species must be described in details, and proposals for actions to avoid any impact on these species, must be suggested. * The impact on smelt catches (one of the most important commercial fish species in the Gulf of Finland) in the waters where the gas-pipeline will be situated and adjacent Russian and Finnish waters must be considered carefully.

Environmental impact on the Baltic Sea ecosystem of the planned gas pipeline on Russian land territories around the Vyborg Bay and Leningrad oblast

The pipeline is planned to enter the Baltic Sea in Portovaya Bay and will accordingly cross 7 rivers coming from Nort-West via Finland to the Vyborg Bay. In these river ecosystems we find Baltic Sea ecosystem species, using the river ecosystem for a part of its lifecycle, for spawning and breeding, and living the rest of its life-cycle in the Baltic Sea waters. Such species are e g Baltic salmon, Baltic sea-trout, Baltic whitefish (Coregonus) and river Lamprey (Lampetra).

The impact from the land construction of the pipeline on Russian land territories are most relevant to bring up and handle within the Espoo convention case, because such land construction can have adverse impact on Baltic Sea marine species and ecosystem.

* The EIA shall describe the location of the gas pipeline on Russian land territories from St Petersburg region to Portovaya Bay on detailed maps, and also describe the crossing of rivers to the Baltic Sea, possible changes of the river beds, and proposals for actions to avoid any impact on Baltic Sea river migrating species in such rivers. Of special interest are the rivers on the Northern shores of the Russian Gulf of Finland, which have documented natural values, and the upper tributaries of the Luga river, the most important wild Baltic salmon river in Baltic Russia, South and South-West of St Petersburg where the gas pipeline may cross the Luga river system.

Monitoring of environmental impacts
In the presented EIA programme there is no plan for continuid monitoring of the environmental impacts of the pipe line after construction. Neither is it mentioned how the effects and impacts of the construction phase will be monitored. Such details must be presented, with a chance for other stakeholders to comment and influence the final decisions of monitoring and contingency procedures.

The use of expertise
The project is very extensive and the best expertise from different areas is needed. In the EIA programme is it not mentioned who will be the experts and how the studies will be executed. Such info must be provided and stakeholders must be given chance to influence the selection of best expertise.

Public Access of information about the project
The information and data already collected on the Baltic Sea bottom structures, sediment contamination etc, by Nord Stream must be accessible for the general public. Nord Stream data connected to the environmental impact of the project must be made publicly available. Maybe it could ease our concerns?
“Gazprom” company as the Russian project leader, according to Russian environmental legislation, should organize public hearings in Russia as a part of the EIA and provide the results of the public hearing for state environmental expertise process.

In case of accidents
The assessment of effects in case of an accident, for example a rupture of the pipe, should be included in the EIA. An evaluation should be made staing the devision of responsibility – in potential accident scenarios. What is the responsibility of the governments, the construction contractor and the operators and who will make the actual decisions on clean-up initiatives and in the handling of emergency situations. The prevention and remedying of environmental damage should be paid by the consortium through an established liability fund.

Removal of the gas pipeline after its life-span of 30-50 years
All constructions in the Baltic Sea Region in waters and on land shall always be removed after its life-span.
* The EIA shall include a presentation of the costs for removal of the construction after 30-50 years, and how a reserve fund, with a “removal fee” included in the gas tariff system, must be constructed under the operation period to guarantee a future removal and restoration of the area.

The timetable The timetable for the EIA is far too tight. We are concerned that there will not be enough time to discuss the quality assurance for all the necessary studies enabling a professionally produced EIA.

On-going process for stakeholder influence of the EIA
As many important facts and information on the details of how the EIA study will be performed are still not presented, an on-going consultation process with the Parties of origin within the Espoo convention and with other stakeholders interested in the EIA study, should be organised. One way could be to provide detailed info on the Nord Stream website regularily, and by organising regular meetings with all interested partners during 2007.

Environmental liability
Environmental liability of the project is very unclear now. EU rules on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (Directive 2004/35/CE) are not directly applicable for the project. However, the EU Member States (parties) in accordance to art. 14 of aformentioned directive can introduce a financial security intruments. Therefore, we believes all potentially project affected parties have right to demand a project liability fund.

On behalf of CCB
Gunnar Norén
Executive secretary

Bremen welcomes young Europeans of Baltic Sea Region

2006-11-07T09:21:00.000+01:00

More than 100 delegates of "Model European Parliament" (MEP) were welcomed in the big hall of Bremen Town Hall on Monday 6th of November. Welcome adresses were given by Willi Lemke, Senator for education and science, and by Helga Trüpel, member of European Parliament.

The MEP Baltic Sea Region Programme is a leadership programme for teenagers in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Northern Germany. In addition to these delegates, guests from Austria, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain are participating in Bremen. The goal of the MEP Baltic Sea Region programme is to develop interest and skills in addressing high level international issues among high-school students in the eight countries around the Baltic Sea and other guest nations. The simulation of the European Parliament is used as a model for international sessions (General Assembly) in which young adults from the participating countries take part. The programme might serve as practice for future leaders and politicians.

During this week the young delegates will discuss European matters in five committees:

1) Foreign Affairs (main topic: conflicts in the Near East - Israel, Palestine)

2) Economic and Monetary Affairs (main topic: secure sustainable energy supply)

3) Environment, Public health and Food safety (main topic: prevention of infetious diseases)

4) Constitutional Affairs (main topic: gap between EU-institutions and Citizens)

5) Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (main topic: promote Integration of Migrants and fight Xenophobia)

Part of the programme will be also a meeting with Bremen NGOs, who deal with intercultural exchange and coopertion with the respective countries.

The MEP Baltic Sea Region in Bremen will end at Friday, when all delegates will meet for a final plenary. The final part will be opened by Jens Böhrnsen, Mayor of Bremen.

Links:
Homepage of MEP Baltic Sea Region Bremen
Short description ot MEP Bremen (German)
Homepage MEP Germany
MEP Baltic (Swedish Homepage)
Homepage MEP Netherlands
Wikipeda Page on European Communities Projects
Wikipeda on MEP
A Report from Denmark about MEP in Helsinki 2003 (Danish)
Homepage MEP Italy (Italian)
Homepage MEP Spain (Spanish)
A Report on the MEP-project from Irland
A diary of an Austrian MEP-Delegate about participation in MEP Vilnius in April 2006 (German language - newspaper "Der Standard")
A Latvian report about MEP in Vilnius April 2006 (Latvian language)
Information about MEP in Estonian Language
Press release of Valdas Adamkus, president of Lithuania, on MEP Vilnius in April 2006
On Thorildplans Gymnasiums Delegates (Sweden) in MEP Bremen

Nouvelle Europe - the way to the Baltic Sea Region

2006-07-20T03:33:00.000+02:00

How much do people in France know about the Baltic Sea Region? How many french people know details about the 10 new members of European Union? "It is really not in fashion", explains Philippe Perchoc, president of french NGO "Nouvelle Europe". But his organisation wants to build bridges between the cultures. The project "Baltic Trip" wants to collect more information for french speaking public: the current role of agriculture, the flow of workers between "new" and "old" EU-members, the relation to Russia, the environmental protection - that are only some of the topics, which the project will cover (see document "dossier du voyage" - french) Phillipe Perchoc, Ryad Fagoul and Sindbad Iksel - three french travellers, two of them living in Colombes near Paris, one in Birmingham in England, will try to find out more about the current situation in eight different Baltic Sea States. From July 15 to September 1 st 2006 they will be on travel through Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark.

On July 17th the three "Baltic Travellers" spent one day in the Hanseatic City of Bremen. "Is the Hanseatic Tradition still alive? How succesful were the measures to protect the environment of the Baltic Sea? What vision Germans have on the future development of the European Union and the Baltic Sea Region?" These and other questions the three travellers asked to members of INFOBALT, the Bremen located NGO working with Baltic Sea Cooperation. The "Baltic trip" of Philippe, Ryad and Sindbad is also a media project. A cooperation with German-French TV-Station ARTE helped to produce a several short video-clips, a documentary and lots of photos. A Bloggersite accompanies the travel and gives space for spontanous reports and comments.

The timetable of the trip: Warshaw around July 22th, Vilnius / Kaunas around July 27th, Riga around August 3rd, Tallinn around August 11th, Helsinki around August 15th, Stockholm around August 20th, Copenhagen around August 25th. Quite a long trip - but at the end a lot of material will be collected, and it will be interesting to observe whether the three friends have changed a bit the attitude of French people towards the Baltic Sea Region.

"We have members of our organisation 'Nouvelle Europe' also in some of the countries we now visit," explains Philippe, "and they of course were very eager to help us in preparation of our trip." Possibly there will be many new friends afterwards ... For all those people in the Baltic States, who would like to contact the three French travellers during their trip, and possibly arrange additional meetings, they offer a contact via Email: philippe.perchoc@gmail.com

SOS! ST.PETERSBURG - DANGEROUS PROJECTS THREATEN MARINE ENVIRONMENT

2006-06-19T10:52:00.000+02:00

The government of Russia and St.-Petersburg authorities have launched two unprecedentedly ambitious and highly dangerous projects on the shore of the Baltic sea.

The project of the Seaport Terminal in the western part of the city includes inwashing of 450 hectares for the port itself and apartment blocks and buisiness buildings as well. According to the plan, three berths for cruise vessels more than 300 m in length will be built already by 2008. Experts believe that the inwashing of huge territory will harm the ecosystem of the region. As a result of the construction works the water will be roiled with the polluted subsoil from the seabed, which can destroy the habitat of the sea species. The subsoil will also wash towards the mouth of the Neva river and alter it's streamway. This will reduce the flow of fresh water into the Finnish Gulf and lead to further changes in ecosystem.

The second related project is the Western Speed Diameter - an 8-lane tall highway which will cross the Finnish Gulf area from south to the north to connect the sea port with Baltic and Scandinavian countries.

In the northern part of the city the highway will go along the border of the Yuntolovskiy nature reserve and cross the forest witch serves as it's buffer zone. The wetlands of the Yuntolovskij reserve provide a resting site for migratory birds flying from Arctic region to Western Europe and Scandinavia. 13 of the bird species are listed in the Red Data Book of the Baltic Region.

According to independent experts, noise and pollution from the highway will destroy the habitat of migratory birds and threaten biodiversity of the Baltic region. This violates international conventions, as:
- Rio de Janeiro convention of biological diversity (articles 8c, 8e);
- Helsinki convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (article 15).
Also as the highway is going to pass through lowlands it would be necessary to drain the territory before construction. The draining will change the hydrosystem of the Lahta region which makes up an important part of the Finnish Gulf. The situation can become even worse as the city governer has recently announced about a plan to build Nissan plant close to the Yuntolovskij reserve. According to the statement, the streamway of the Chernaya river which flows to the Lahta bay will be changed in order to build the industrial area.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION More than 27 000 residents have signed against the sea terminal and Western High Speed Diameter but still the city government does not respond to the protests.

The city authorities do not provide people with information about the projects. So far numerous requests for environmental assessment documents remain unanswered. The public hearings of the projects were held formally and the residents were not properly informed about them.

Also, in violation of the Helsinki convention (article 7.1) and Espoo convention on environmental impact assessment in transboundary context, the Baltic countries were not notified about the proposed activity.

HOW YOU CAN HELP
As far as we were not able to receive the information on environmental impact of the projects we are urged to address you for help.
Please send requests for environmental information in accordance with international conventions (Espoo convention, Article 3.7). We will also be grateful if you take part in consultations on these projects (Espoo convention, article 5) and in public environmental expertise.
Note: it is important to take action as soon as possible as the implementation of the projects has already started.

THE STATE OF THE PROJECTS The planning decision on the Passenger Seaport Terminal and Western High Speed Diameter was included into the General plan of the city development accepted in 2005. The project of the Passenger Seaport Terminal was approved on March 30 by Glavgosekspertiza (russian regulatory authority).

The project of Western High Speed Diameter is divided into three parts which undergo all the procedures separately. The southern part of the highway has passed the environmental impact expertise and the construction works are already started. The central part has passed the expertise though it is supposed to be built last. The project of the northern part is not yet ready.

RELATED LINKS http://www.mfspb.ru/en/ - learn more about the Seaport Passenger Terminal (in English) http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=296908 - the Seaport Passenger Terminal and Western High Speed Diameter on the map of St.-Petersburg (in English) http://www.ecosafe.pu.ru/RB/Yuntolov/yuonEC.html – Yuntolovskiy reserve: Site identification under EC_Nature 2000-CorineInfBiotopes (in English) Public organization "Save Yuntolovo" http://sos-yuntolovo.spb.ru

Contact us:
Public organization "Save Yuntolovo" http://sos-yuntolovo.spb.ru
Tatyana Skrodenis arttri@detisite.ru
Vera Ponomareva vera.ponomareva@gmail.com +7 812 343 82 16

Concern about new NGO-legislation in the CBSS countries

2006-06-10T11:23:00.000+02:00

Statement from Baltic Sea NGO Forum to the 6th Baltic Sea States Summit in Reykjavik 8th June 2006

Concern about new NGO-legislation in the CBSS countries. We, the members of the Consultative Committee for the Baltic Sea NGO Forum, wish to express our deep concern about the new legislation for the NGO-sector, both in the EU-member states and in Russia, legislation brought forward under the cover of "fight against terrorism", after the event of September 11th 2001.
Free and independent NGOs are a very important part of the civic society, and have a very decisive role in a democratic society, both as “watchdogs” and initiators of the political process. If they are hampered in their work by government control in form of compulsory registration, compulsory delivery of membership lists and financial control, it will have a very detrimental effect on our democratic society and political development.
Moreover, this control legislation will, in our opinion, not be an effective instrument in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, a dynamic civic society, and independent NGOs can be an important contributor in our common fights against terrorism.
In Russia the new NGO-legislation will hamper the cooperation of the civic society in the political process, and will prevent the very important international cooperation between NGOs. In this legislation, Russia indicates that it has been inspired by the EU-proposals, and this may hamper the EU-countries from complaining to Russia over this restriction in democracy.
We, the members of the Consultative Committee for the Baltic Sea NGO Forum, therefore request the 6th Baltic Sea States Summit to: - keep a close watch over the NGO-legislation in the membership countries in order to respect the freedom of associations, - work for a close cooperation between CBSS and the NGOs in the CBSS member states, - include a clear statement in the EU-Northern Dimension of the importance of the cooperation between government and civic society, - work towards a simplification of the visa-rules in connection with NGO-arrangements.

The Baltic Sea NGO FORUM is a NGO-network with partners in all CBSS-countries. More information is available at
www.cbss-ngo.de - German platform of the Baltic Sea NGO Network
http://www.cbss-ngo-pl.org - NGO FORUM 2005 in Gdynia / Poland
BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2006 in Stockholm / Sweden

German NGOs prepare for BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2006 in Sweden

2006-04-16T17:33:00.000+02:00

The German NGO Initiative Baltic Sea Cooperation, a loose coalition of German NGOs interested in the Baltic Sea Region, held a meeting on Saturday 8th of April in the Town Hall of Rostock.
The Initiative works as a link to the Baltic Sea NGO Network, which has organised the annual BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM since 2001. The Baltic Sea NGO Network since then was developed parallel to activities of the Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS), which was founded in 1992.

Roland Methling, Mayor of Rostock Hanseatic Town, welcomed the NGOs in the Rostock Town Hall. Telling about some recent developments in Rostock and at the German Baltic Sea Coast, he expressed his readiness for closer cooperation also in frame of the NGO FORUM. As Rostock Town is f. ex. active in the Union of Baltic Cities (UBC), this could be also a link to the NGO-community.

Albert Caspari, the German Focal Point of the Baltic Sea NGO Network (co-ordinator of activities on German side), reported about two preparation meetings for BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2006 in Sweden (one held in January 2006 in Copenhagen, one in March/April 2006 in Stockholm).

The NGOs welcomed the proposals for four workshop-topics. Albert Caspari explained, that the Swedish organisers of the upcoming NGO FORUM will try to organise additional opportunities for meetings also for those initiatives, whose key aspects of activity probably will not be served by one of the main workshops.

The detailed programme for the BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2006 is still to be prepared by the Consultative Council (the Focal Points of every CBSS state - Norway, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Denmark, Germany). The NGO FORUM 2006 is going to take place in Stockholm at 5.-7th of October 2006.

The NGOs representatives at the Rostock meeting discussed some actual issues of the Baltic Sea Region, like HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, problems of Atomic Power Use, sustainable use of energy, Oil Transport at Sea, and new NGO-laws in Russia and other Baltic Sea States. Several regional initiatives of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern presented their activities.

A lively discussion on opportunities of democratic participation in decision processes followed. Lutz Huettel and Dr. Burkhard Luber, two participants of the meeting, initiated the formulation of "NGO essentials" - a declaration of most essential rights, which all NGOs of the Baltic Sea Region should be granted in all CBSS-countries. The initiators hope that the text could function like a catalyst for a discussion among NGOs from different Baltic Sea States.

The participants of the NGO-meeting expressed their hope, that the work of the Baltic Sea NGO Networks German Focal Point would be possible to continue, even if no help in financing was available until now. The efforts for co-operation between German NGOs from different Northern German Federal States still has no partner on the Governmental bodies, as the German Federal States do not have a common concept for Baltic Sea Cooperation. The only partner for discussion and exchange of viewpoints until now is an advisor on Baltic Sea Cooperation at the German Federal Foreign Office in Berlin.

One project between NGOs in Germany and Poland was presented at a good example of positive results of the BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM in Gdynia / Poland in 2005.
Among the participants of the NGO FORUM 2005 were representatives of Fundacja Slonecznik Pomorskie (Gdansk) and Kulturzentrum Lagerhaus (Bremen). As a result of the NGO FORUM they agreed in starting a project, which aimed in bringing NGOs of both towns together, improving the contacts and starting new projects on various fields of activity.
The Bremen-Gdansk-project could be taken as a "good example" for NGO-cooperation (in contact to GOs), as this project was a direct result of BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2005. More information is available (english!) at http://www.hb-gd-ngo-act.de/meeting.html)

Draft paper on "NGO ESSENTIALS" (to be discussed):
Essentials for Regulating the Activities of Non-Governmental Organizations with special reference to state authorities

All NGOs´ acting falls under the specifications of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where especially articles 13 (freedom of movement and residence), 17 (right of property ownership), 19 (freedom of opinion and expression), 20 (right of association), 29+30 (exercising rights and freedoms) are relevant.
NGO acting must be in conformity with international law regulations which basicly are used by the United Nations and national law regulations of the country in which the NGOs are acting, if it is not in conflict with international principles of human rights.
The acting of NGOs should not be subjective to more restrictive regulations than those of the penal and civil laws of the country in which the NGO is acting.
The legal regulations for starting and acting of NGOs should not be repressive, i.e. those regulations should kept on a minimum of procedures.
Elements of a minimum transparency of NGOs should be: Presenting statutes, informing about changes in the NGO´s responsible board, transparency of finances.
Conflicts between and NGOs and state authorities have to be submitted to and decided by independent courts with the possibility to appeal against court decisions on the base of the constitution and of the Declaration of Human Rights.
NGOs, especially those of minorities, should be able to spread their information, news, and commitments by independent media in every language they like without discrimination by governmental authorities.

Environmentalists discuss Gas-Pipeline

2006-01-13T19:22:00.000+01:00

The Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), a Baltic Sea wide network of environmental organisations, has raised its concern about the German-Russian Megaproject of a gas-pipeline crossing the Baltic Sea. "We all need open information sources, access to EIA materials, to be sure that all environmental impacts were considered thoroughly and sufficiently," says Olga Senova, CCB-member and eco-acticvist from Russia.
But many members of the network are not ready to express a final opinion, as many clear details of the planned project are currently lacking. "We should collect the information about possible environmental threats and what it could cost to the Baltic Sea," hopes Taavi Nuum from Estonian Green Movement. What he points to seems to be partly just a hope - as information about the plans of the Russian-German consortium are not available yet. "So far, we do not have sufficient and reliable information about expected environmental impacts, and cannot make valid conclusions," says Sergey Anatskiy (Baltic Federation of Fishermen) from Russia.

Business, just big politics, ignorance, or what?
But there are also other voices to be found. Some call the whole projekt "a business issue", other "very much a political issue". Voices are mixed, and concerns regarding a possible threat to the environment come together with disappointment, that Russia and Germany may try to keep the discussion as just an internal issue. "We expect that all the HELCOM member countries, especially those which also signed the Espoo Convention, like Germany, really start the cross-border EIA." Such statement voices Valdur Lahtvee, chairman of the Coalition Clean Baltic. (Source for all CCB-statements: CCB-Newsletter)

German eco's in silence
But where are the statements of the German environmentalists? Not much has been heard or seen up to now. Could it be the effect of the new "big coalition" of conservatives and socialdemocrates in Berlin, that irritate German ecologists? Quite many of the more experienced eco-functioneers had become used to have a "Green" partner also in the German government. Some environmentalists where offered well paid jobs in ministries and other institutions during the rule of the red-green's. Suddently the political szene has turned upside down. The former coalition-partner of the Greens suddently choose a new "best friend", who does not hide a strong willingness to reintroduce atomic power stations. And Joschka Fishers "best friend", the "dear Gerd", has made his personal deal with another "best friend" in Moskow, for assuring his personal earnings. Fisher himself has disappeared from the political szene. New green leaders currently look quite like the old ones, but even older. It does not seem to be popular any more to fight for the environment very much.
What may be the background of all this political games? Will the environment be the main looser?

The pipeline from Russia to Germany will have 1200 km of its route on the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Some already have made up their minds: "Well, apart from some limited areas of old stuff from last war it will be only mudd on the ground of the Baltic Sea." Who cares?

Different interests
Other opponents step into the arena. The 24th session of the presidium of the Baltic Assembly, where law-makers of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland came together in Estonian capital Tallinn, passed a resolution concerning the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline (NEGP) urging Russia and Germany to consider ecological and economic interests of the four states. (as for ex. Russian paper Kommersant reports).
The resolution adopted in Estonia contains an appeal to the parliaments of the countries situated in the area of the Baltic Sea and the Council of Ministers of Baltic states to pay a special attention and look into the North European gas main project for its compliance with treaties on the protection of the Baltic Sea and laws of the European Union. The four undersigning states speak up clearly: The North European Gas Pipeline disregards interests of Baltic states as well as those of Poland.

But isn't it then again just a "business issue"? Do those, who protest against the project, just want to have a "piece of the cake"?
One other expert tries to calm emotions down. Andris Piebalgs, a Latvian, holds the post as EU-commissioner for energy. "I really have no doubts ... that the companies involved will do everything necessary for protection of the environment," he was quoted by REUTERS.

But it seems interesting to follow what some Russian press is expecting from the side of one of the smallest Baltic Sea States, Estonia. Three of the political fractions in Estonian parliament could initiatite a widening of Estonian sea borders to 12sm. If Finland would join the Estonian initiative - the gas-pipeline could be blocked. Once again, some question: Are governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (all three strong opponents of the German-Russian pipeline) got a "green heart", or is it just for trying to get a share of the business?
May be the year 2006 will show it soon.

EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment

Baltic Assembly = was set up in 1991 as a deliberative body on the cooperation between parliaments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. It consists of 20 people from each of the countries.

New Russian Legislation on NGOs

2005-12-23T17:11:00.000+01:00

This Post gives some links about the recent Duma decisions on the new Russian NGO law.

Peter Lavelle, an US think tank, comments on the 2nd reading on the law, referring especially on certain amendments in comparsion to initial bill version
http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?cat=3&type=3&art=2109

In another comment Lavelle observes the controversial debate on that law http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?art=2076

Bellona, a Norwegian environment foundation, also looks upon the 2nd reading on, with focus on foreign NGOs and the registration process for Russian NGOs http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/envirorights/info_access/41344.html

In another article Bellona stresses the so far mostly unnoticed point, that by the new law foreign and international organizations cannot longer operate in the so-called "closed cities" in Russia (which are a dark heritage of the former Soviet nuclear activities, mostly with high contaminations in their surroundings) http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/envirorights/info_access/41357.html

In his "Russia´s NGOs: It´s not so simple" in the IHT Nikolas Gvosdev looks on Russian NGOs with a considerably critical eye http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/08/opinion/edgvosdev.php

In an intense deeper going analysis Human Rights Watch critizices the law right from the legislative beginning http://hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/russia1105/

A profound legal analysis of the new law is done by EurActive, an independent media portal dedicated to EU affairs http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-150717-16&type=News

The "International Center for Not-For-Profit Law" deals with the law on its initial draft status with links to the Russian and English texthttp://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:zRP43Ky2ZbgJ:act4europe.horus.be/module/FileLib/ICNLanalysis.doc+analysis+of+the+draft+law+%22on+introducing+amendments&hl=de

Also from "International Center for Not-For-Profit Law" comes a lenghty analysis http://www.icnl.org/PRESS/Articles/2005/20051111.htm

How dangerous is it to live democracy in Belorussia?

2005-12-02T01:43:00.000+01:00

Civil engagement in Belorussia - a nightmare?
Tatsiana Khoma, a 21 year old student at the Belarus State Economic University (BSEU), seems to have to pay a high price for being engaged just for students interests. In beginning of november 2005 she attended a conference of the "National Unions of Students in Europe" (ESIB), taking place in Reims, France. ESIB is an umbrella organisation of 44 national unions of students from 34 countries Tatsiana in Reims was among about 100 participants from all over Europe. - On November 24th the Universities administration informed her, that she will be expelled due to the fact that she attended ESIB's European Student Gathering "Higher Education and European Citizenship", without notifying the university. Tatsiana Khoma did not notify the university because of two important facts: firstly will the law on reporting your whereabouts to the university not take effect until two months, and secondly did she only visit the conference during the weekend.
All people under controll?
Belorussia is known as the country of one of Europe's last dictator, Aleksander Lukashenko, a man, who on his presidential website openly announces his motto: "I sometimes have to take unpopular decisions. I know that I will not be liked because of that." It seems, this kind of "top-to-bottom-education" is introduced in all the hierarchy of the country. At least Mr Vladimir Nikolaevich Shimov, Rector of the BSEU, seems trying to become a "small Lukashenko". Such methods seem to help a personal career - but not civil engagement for the interests of all people. Time by time some Belorussion organisations demand their participation also in the structures of NGO Baltic Sea cooperation. But sorry, ladies and gentlemen, please give us an explanation about such authoritarian behaviour - why it can happen, and why without your common and loud protest?

Students organisations are shocked
The European studentsorganisation ESIB strongly condemns the actions taken by the Belarus State Economic University, as an "unacceptable violation of student and human rights [with special reference to articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights]". ESIB has sent a letter to the Rector of the BSEU, for to demand stopping of the actions against Tatsiana Khoma, and to allow her to continue her studies at the BSEU without any further harassment from the management of the University.
But their is not much hope. The girl did not only to leave the University, but also her room at the dormitory.
The Norwegian Association of Students has started a campaign in favour of Tatsiana, and have already collected hundreds of signatures for three aims:
a) Tatsiana Khoma should be allowed to continue as an ordinary student at Belarus State Economic University (BSEU).
b) Tatsiana Khoma should be allowed to stay in her dormitory.
c)All students in Belarus should be able to engage in the student movement both nationally and internationally.
"It is completely unacceptable that a student representative is treated this way and we want to show that Norwegian students strongly dissapproves of these actions", says ?yvind Reidar Bakke, President of Studentenes Landsforbund (StL).

Any chance for a change?
Tatsiana's case now seems to becomes an object of diplomacy. Even ministries and rectors conferences row up for support. The Swedish Minister for Education also wrote a letter of protest. And there is - what a wonder - a reaction! In an open letter published at the Belarus State Economic University website, the rector declares that he will stand by his decision to expel Tatsiana Khoma. He says that Tatsiana "performed a rude violation of the inner regulations of the University and demonstrated her straight unrespect for BSEU as an organization which is legally and morally responsible for the students’ security during their educational process" and that the decision "was made in accordance with the norms of the Republic of Belarus legislation in the field of education". He also critizises the international organisations who have written to him so far.

ESIB chairperson Vanja Ivosevic says: "I think the main reason why no one asked the rectors' permission to send Taciana to France is the simple fact that this course of action is unheard of anywhere else in Europe! It is a human right to move and travel freely." ESIB is still appealing to governments and international organisations to ask the rector to reverse the decision of expulsion.

Proposed law seen as threat to operation of NGOs in Russia

2005-11-25T15:19:00.000+01:00

As finnish paper HELSINGIN SANOMAT reports, a new law in Russia could make the work of independent russian NGOs more difficult. Also AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL raises a voice of concern.

"Finnish and international civic organisations have expressed concern over their possibilities to continue operating in Russia in the future. The Russian Parliament is preparing to pass a law that would place tight restrictions on the activiteis of non-governmental organisations in the country. President Vladimir Putin expressed his support for the proposed bill in an interview on a newscast on the television channel Rossija on Thursday. He also promised to hold further discussions on the details of the bill with the senior members of the Duma.

The law, which would require all NGOs to register with the Ministry of Justice, could come into effect in 2007. The NGOs anticipate difficulties particularly for human rights and environmental activists, as well as for religious groups. However, the new law is not expected to cause many problems for social and health work, which the majority of Finnish organisations in Russia are involved in.

Nevertheless, Frank Johansson, executive director of the Finnish section of Amnesty International, sees the proposed law as very alarming. "This bill is likely to result in quite an extensive dampening of the operation of free civic organisations in various parts of the Russian Federation", notes Johansson. While Amnesty International in Finland does not expect the new law to have any effect on its own operation, it could substantially hamper the work of Amnesty’s press office in Russia. Furthermore, there is a risk that certain Russian cooperative organisations which are funded by various foundations could be closed down, argues Johansson. The Russian cooperative partners are the main concern of other civic organisations as well, even though nobody knows yet what the consequences of the proposed new law will eventually be.

"The Russian organisations have warned us that the new bill could lead to problems, hence hampering our cooperation", notes Merja Hannus, the Secretary General of the Finland-Russia Society. The society is carrying out tasks related to various issues including social equality, and training civic organisations in Russia. The Vaaka association is a Finnish voluntary group whose activities include collecting baby clothes to be delivered to Russian Karelia. "We have no Russian staff and no office in Russia, but we trust that we will be allowed to operate quite freely from Finland", says Tiina Seppälä of Vaaka. Project Manager Lea Ylitalo of Karjalan Apu ("Karelian Aid") believes that the forthcoming changes will not much apply to the Russian operations of social and health groups.Arja Käyhty of the Dikoni project agrees. "Our work has met a very positive response in Russia, for we have not expressed any criticism that would undermine the foundations of Russian society", Käyhty concludes."

"Russian Federation: Draft law -- the latest in clampdown on civil society", writes AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL on the same issue. "By allowing government officials to deny registration to NGO's according to such vague criteria, there is a grave risk that decisions on which organisations are allowed or banned will be politically motivated," said Nicola Duckworth.

Baltic Sea Foundation for Environmental and Regional Development + Support Circle "Livonian Common Weal and Economic Society" of 1792

2005-11-25T15:07:00.000+01:00

The (in English) "Baltic Sea Foundation for Environmental and Regional Development", (in brief: "Baltic Sea Foundation") is an Estonian civic law (registered name: Läänemeere Keskkonna- ja Regionaalarenduse Sihtasutus) body corporate which will shortly be inserted in the Estonian official register of private non-profit organizations (NGOs).

The seven Founders hold, either Estonian, or Swedish or German nationalities. They have different professional and social back-grounds. But, since years, they practice exceptionally good neighbourhood relations in Western Estonia (peninsula of Noarootsi / Nuckö, close to the spa of Haapsalu / Hapsal).

They found together under the roof of the Foundation to demonstrate their firm willingness to undertake joint activities for the benefit of civic society and common interest, not only in Estonia, but Baltic Sea region wide.

Continued below....

ooo

The "Support Circle 'Livonian Common Weal and Economic Society' of 1792" (in brief: Livonian Common Weal) is the German counterpart of the "Baltic Sea Foundation".

The Support Centre, for the time being, is an informal body. But it is intended to transform it, as soon as possible, into a civic association or - even better - into a foundation, incorporated under German civic law.

The denomination "Livonian Common Weal", at one hand, draws the attention on an example of singular dedication which is fully in-line with the aims and objectives of the "Baltic Sea Foundation"; at the other hand, it intends to bring the successor countries of Livonia - Estonia and Latvia - closer to each other via general interest non-profit co-operation.

Cosmopolitanism was a characteristic of the old noble "Livonian Common Weal and Economic Society"; its heritage is honoured by practising this attitude.

Continued below....

ooo

Baltic Sea Foundation

Background

The Foundation approaches its action fields of “Development of Environmental Protection” and “Regional Development” in a complex way, i.e., always having in mind the civic society and social contexts because only a broad view can produce long lasting effects.

This methodology requires close and permanent exchange with the people, taking into account their backgrounds and, additionally, confidential relations with the official authorities and with other common interest institutions, in the country and abroad, as well.

The Founders are convinced that progress is driven, above all, by the engagement of the inhabitants themselves, especially those of the new EU countries, in the shaping of their habitat and its future. They aim at reaching sustainable solutions through general interest activities, with the help of the Foundation or its allies.

The principal promoter of the Foundation and its actual Chairman of the Supervisory Board is Juergen Lewerenz (tel. + fax in Germany – October to May: +49.2642.1532 and in Estonia – June to September: +372.47.41193. Permanent postal address: Am Bach 12, D 53424 Remagen, Germany; additionally, in Estonia during his above mentioned stay there: Mikutalu, EE 91201 Pürksi, Noarootsi; e-mail: lewerenz.juergen@freenet.de).

Over decades, Jürgen Lewerenz has accumulated experience with developing and reform countries (MEE) and with the subject related national and international, private, as well as official, institutions. Only during half of his professional career he fulfilled desk-duties at administration head-quarters. During the other half, he worked in Latin America, in Bangladesh and within and for all three Baltic countries[1]. He also served the EU Commission PHARE and TACIS Programmes.

The remaining Founders live at Noarootsi in Western Estonia, or close to the place. They are: Birgit Eldh from Spithami / Spithamn, Nova commune, with an additional residence on the island of Gotland; the couple Elar and Leili Piir, both from Noarootsi, Valeri Đeripov and Alar Uus, also from Noarotsi, and Liivia Leškin from Haapsalu.

The Foundation has been able to win a General Secretary. He is the new pastor at Noarootsi parish who, besides from his half-time parsonage attends – heroically – the inmates of the not far away Estonian central jail.

It can be anticipated that the Foundation has to contract paid personnel, in a not too far away future. Because of the absence of sufficient revenues from invested financial resources of the Foundation, personnel costs and other expenses will have to be covered from project budgets.

The task ahead is immense and long lasting. Under the given circumstances, collaborators are needed who volunteer, assuming charges and sacrifice.

State programmes will be utilised but subsidies must and will only be complementary resources; they will be employed to reach targets quicker. They must never be a substitute for own efforts and responsibility.

The Estonian Ministries for Environment and for Regional Development (in Estonia, under the roof of the Home Ministry) and the – vast by its space but small by the number of inhabitants – municipality of Noarootsi have contributed valuable advice during the stage of designing the Foundation because the public authorities of the country require reliable, safe, autonomous, civic society based, democratically operating common interest minded executing bodies with whom they can work together for the success of reconstruction and development programmes.

Ahead of giving the Foundation its actual shape, it has been discussed to develop, out of the Noarootsi based local, half-official nature and environment institution (SILMA), a communal foundation with a wider objective, i.e. including “regional development”.

Finally, this transformation could not be reached because of the decision of the Estonian State to re-organise the public nature and environment protection and to separate it from the local authorities; this field will become directly State governed[2], at the end of the current year.

By defining the whole of the Baltic Sea basin as its sphere of activities, the Founders have freed themselves from local narrowness and from too strong influence by communal policy, without giving up the friendly relations with their home municipality and their place of origin.

The Foundation has been registered, only a few weeks after its notarial enactment and, thus, it is now a body incorporate.

Within short, it will be entered in the National Register for Common Interest NGOs (“NGO Register”). This is the entrance door for bidding for the execution of official projects from nature and environment or regional development programmes, or for requesting official support for projects under its own responsibility.

The Foundation will co-operate closely with like-minded national and expatriate personalities and with analogous bodies, especially with such from EU countries.

Consortial relations (with Germany and Sweden) have commenced, long before the Foundation has been enacted.

The communication, within the Foundation and with the external world, inside and outside Estonia, will be preferentially in English.

Projects

The first projects of the Foundation will be closely related to its region of origin. These are, for the moment:

(English language commented) fotos show– to be presented in the Baltic States and in other Eastern or Western countries, as well – on the theme “Nature and Environment (possible sub-theme: ‘Birds’) in Western Estonia and a (to be defined) German reference region”, with special attention to the rich but, nevertheless, also in Estonia endangered natural circles, comparing the Estonian situation with the damage done in the respective German region. Harmful human influence; lessons learnt from mistakes; decided upon consequences and such still in discussion; protective and nature repair measures – all will be shown and described.

Co-operating (preferably: boarding) schools in Estonia (candidate: “Noarootsi Gümnasium” at Pürksi, Noarootsi municipality – due to its close relations with the here traditionally settling ethnic Swedes, usually called the “Swedish Secondary School”) and in Germany (suitable candidates are envisaged but because of un-concluded discussions, it would be premature to name them here) shall participate actively in the preparation of the event, from the start on.

The co-operating schools shall host the presentation. Boarding houses – where they exist - shall be used and, additionally, other suitable places in the neighbourhood of the schools (in Noarootsi: Lyckholm / Saare Manor, which focuses birds protection, and the close-by Lyckholm Museum).

The schools co-operation shall go hand-in-hand with a partnership between their home municipalities. This could partnership could be supported under the EU Commission “Town Twinning Programme”.

To this end, measurable own efforts have to be contributed which, in this case, could be produced (certainly mostly in kind), without major difficulties, or by the students, or their teachers, or the parents, or the municipalities, or other helpers.

On the German side, an experienced nature protection institution of a “Land” has committed itself to donate exposition material, out of its own stock or to procure it from its partners, and to help with specific know-how.

The event shall take place during the summer 2006 vacation period when the facilities of the schools and the boarding houses are available.

The preparatory period is short but sufficient – if all involved get started soon. (If not, the project will have to be postponed.)

Subsequently, the exposition shall “migrate”, not only in the Baltic Sea region but also in the West and beyond the Baltic Sea countries.

It would be desirable to develop, out of this first co-operation, a durable cohesion between the schools, their students, the parents and the teachers.

Professional movie on bird’s life in Western Estonia – one of the most important European migrating birds’ spots – for TV. This project idea originates from the local Noarootsi nature and environment body, SILMA (about SILMA, see above). Actually, with the assistance of like-minded institutions abroad, producers and connections with media institutions are sought. Interested individuals and institutions are welcome.

Local (= Western Estonia) conditions adjustment of techniques for the use of alternative energy resources – envisaged focus: geo-thermal heating -, with the help of qualified professionals, producers and independent institutes. Success promising contacts are under way.

o

Because of the close relation to the operational field “Regional Development”, the Foundation will also act for the rescue and restoration of monuments (and, within this context, for the re-activation of examplary, still to-day valuable, traditions). The project sketched below is actually discussed:

Restoration, in-line with valid rules and regulations for national monuments, of the roof of Riguldi (Swedish: Rickul; German: Rickholtz) Manor in Noarootsi municipality which is covered with - now widely damaged - Rhenanian slate (the manor buiding is actually owned by the City of Tallinn where it runs a summer school for mentally handicaped children), plus the transportation of the slate material - from the (usual) river Rhine shipping port of Andernach (Germany), via the North Sea and the North Sea – Baltic Sea Canal (or through the “Skager Rak” and the “Kattegatt”) and the Baltic Sea - to a port close to the Manor site, with a traditional sailing cargo-boat, formerly owned by Swedish Estonians and now completely re-habilitated by their grand-children and helpers.

o

Financing of services (such as: purchase commissions; health care; official administration and public services matters) for aged, remote living “singles” with poor income (test region: Noarootsi), out of the sale of attractively packed high quality products, on the basis of raw materials coming from home gardens, from forest and fields and processed by the aged themselves, including a mailing service, on “peasant’s markets”, at touristic crossings, during summer time.

o

Development of western (medical and catering) standard health centres (focus: re-habilitation medicine and nursing of handicaped persons), in the neighbourhood of the famous and attractive spa of Haapsalu / Hapsal (tradition: curative mud baths; see –for the history of the spa: http://www.framare.ee/) for Western European patients (model: Haapsalu’s success with social welfare and private Finnish client?le), in partnership with innovative, cost effectiveness and internationally minded Western institutions (rehabilitation and nursing centres, especially their training and logistics branches; insurers; concerned official bodies) – as alternative for hiring personnel from this region for Western service institutions.

In spite of the relatively low salaries in Estonia, returners would be enabled to increase their savings capacity because of the considerably lower local cost of living, compared with the Western high-cost host countries. They would be in a position of benefiting from Western type professional up-grading without being deprived of their personal, institutional and material connexions.

o

Generation of a system of thorough and in-depth audit of common interest or needy target groups oriented institutions which use “other persons’ money”, i.e. public subsidies and/or private donations, coming from internal sources or from abroad or who handle people’s savings.

The proposed system would enhance the much needed trust of supporters and costumers of such institutions and, at the same time, it would help to cleansen the NGO and the self-help world from abuse and incompetence.

This type of audit would be much more intense and far reaching than ordinary commercial audit or State Supervision ever could be. Also the conduct and the performance of leaders and managers would be judged.

The official control organs would be backed by the new system. They could rely on it what would not only ease their work burden; it would fortify the autonomy, the acceptance, the spread and the effectiveness of the audited institutions, for the benefit of the national community, as a whole.

Possible extra costs – compared with conventional controls – would be, by far, exceeded by a safety and acceptance surplus. The audited institutions would not be oppressed; on the contrary, their chances to survive and to grow would increase.

Under such a control regime, community supporting institutions, most probably, would pop up in big numbers, non-profit NGOs and commercial enterprises of this type, as the so-called self-help businesses, i.e. co-operatives, mutual societies or communal businesses, as well.

The failure of the numerous, often very expensive, attempts to re-activate people’s banks, mutual insurance societies and other financial institutions, serving low and middle income groups in the “transition economy” countries, was mainly caused by the absence of safety, caused by unsatisfactory control mechanisms. Therefore, the emerging self-help enterprises did not convince the authorities and the public did not trust them either.

The best way to develop the suggested system quickly would be the voluntary submission of the addressees to it. The proposed mechanism could be managed by associations of which the audited are members; the main role of the State Supervision bodies would be to keep a vigilant eye on the performance of the self-control system, instead of controlling individual “grass-root” institutions.

The best suited and most reliable model would be the so-called association audit, practiced, since long ago and successfully, by co-operatives and savings banks in Germany and in other countries of Continental Europe.

The positive social impacts and the competitivity, for which the financial institutions of these groupings are known, are, above all, based on their effective self-audit mechanisms, a fact which merits to be highlighted.

It would be in vain to request direct involvement of the mentioned groupings but access to their special know-how could be opened via technology facilitation agreements.

For the Eastern Baltic Sea Region inhabitants, the proposed modality is not absolutely new because, until World War II, there were successfully operating cooperative banks, mutual savings, loans and insurance societies, as well as muncipality banks in almost every place which – of course – practised self-audit, in a similar way as described above.

A valuable heritage of business culture of the Baltic Sea Region would be re-born with the application of this control mechanism.

Possible partners for the promotion, the preparation and the introduction of the new modality could be forward looking business auditors in the Eastern Baltic Sea Region and, additionally, the responsible State Supervision authorities and – of course –accountability minded leaders and managers of non-profit and commercial NGOs (the “Baltic Sea Foundation” included).

Co-operating partners could be Western auditors who intend to create a rewarding new field of attractive and competitive activities, beyond their usually practiced range of activities.

o

Complementary contributions and co-operation

The fortune of the Foundation – the main pillar of each institution of this type – is still rather modest because free resources are scarce among the Co-Founders.

Each of them contributed – apart from paying the erection expenses – according to the individual possibilities. The most urgent need was to reach the minimal amount required for the official registration.

It can be foreseen that no major additional endowments will come from the Co-Founders group. Each of the Founders possesses some property but this is entirely required for the subsistence of the family and as protection against risks of life.

Therefore, the Foundation is looking for complementary contributors. Money donations are especially welcome but also real estate may be donated, for instance restituted property in the Baltic countries which is not exploited by the title holders themselves.

Donations may be addressed directly to the “Baltic Sea Foundation” or – which will perhaps be preferred by those living (and paying taxes) in Germany and by citizens of other Western countries, to its German counterpart, the “Livonian Common Weal” (see below).

The Foundation’s intention is to co-operate with like-minded persons and institutions, especially for bidding consortia for the execution of official and private projects and for self-governed undertakings, with or without external support.

Since the Foundation is actually still unable to contract paid personnel und because the Founders have little free time, the call for volunteering collaborators is repeated, at this stage.

ooo

Livonian Common Weal (Society)

The “Support Center ‘Livonian Common Weal and Economic Society’ of 1792 is the Germany based counterpart of the “Baltic Sea Foundation”.

In addition to its support function, the “Livonian Common Weal” may operate in other fields which are compatible with the objectives of the “Baltic Sea Foundation” and the good traditions of its historic patron.

The “Livonian Common Weal”, for the time being, is handled by Juergen Lewerenz alone.

The Support Circle has been startet informally but it shall be transformed – hopefully soon – when additional persons or institutions join and more material and personal resources find together under its roof, into a registered civic society or, even better, into a German civic law foundation.

German income tax deduction possibilities (EStG – Einkommensteuergesetz - and AO - Abgabenordnung) played an important role when conceiving and locating the Circle.

The title “Livonian Common Weal and Economic Society” (its German name: Livländische Gemeinnützige und Ökonomische Societät), founded in 1792 in Riga, was incorporated because it is an intentions close example for the new “Baltic Sea Foundation”.

The Society is an out-standing intellectual monument and a tradition of good practice which merits to be honoured; it is worth-while to re-habilitate it.

The “old” Livonian Common Weal Society, for a century and a half, has been a positive expression of Baltic Sea culture which, since centuries, had many ties with the West, not only with the German speaking world.

The (old) “Livonian Common Weal Society” operated, for the benefit of its home region, until the beginning of World War II.

It held very closely ties with fellow institutions in the neighbouring regions of Livonia, the “Courland Economic Society” of 1836 (in German: Kurlaendische Oekonomische Gesellschaft) and the “Estonian Agricultural Association” of 1839 (in German: Estlaendischer Landwirtschaftlicher Verein).

In 1813, the “Livonian Common Weal” was transferred to Tartu (Dorpat). This domicile was kept until the end of its activities (in 1939).

In the middle of the 19th century the Society was re-named into “Imperial Livonian Common Weal….” to stress its close relations with the Zaristic crown. This name was kept until the separation of the “Baltic Provinces” from Russia, at the end of World War I.

The split of the Livonian territory and the annexion of parts of it to the, at that time, newly created, countries of Estonia or Latvia, respectively, made the undertakings of the “Livonian Common Weal” somewhat more difficult. Its co-operation with Latvia weakened a bit but, nevetheless, it kept its original orientation towards the whole region and its progress.

The activities ended with the destruction of civic culture in the Baltic Region and the isolation imposed by the occupants.

The reconstruction efforts can become effective if the initiator is not left alone. At the end of the presentation he re-iterates his wish to win personal and material support.
[1] Juergen Lewerenz was – in the period 1992-1993 - the first long-term EU adviser for Estonia (Bank of Estonia – Eesti Pank). Apart from his official job, he volunteered, upon request of the President of the Central Bank - anonymously and without honorary or consent of the EU Commission, for the design and the introduction of the new Estonian currency. All this took place, ahead of the return of the country to the international central and commercial banking community. His experience during these harsh and conflictive times was laid down in his (German language) book, titled “Banken im Baltikum. Gestern. Heute. Morgen?” (Banks in the Baltic. Yesterday. To-day. Tomorrow?) Fritz Knapp-Verlag. Frankfurt/M.. 1997. Germany. ISBN 3-7819-0590-X
[2] Noarootsi will be incorporated into one of eight Nature and Environment Districts, each of them with a Regional Office. The Regional Office for Noarootsi will be 50 km away. To maintain, nevertheless, the local ties, it is envisaged to keep a local Liaison Centre at Noarootsi. Projects will no longer be executed directly by the authority but delegated to suitable NGOs, such as the Foundation. It may well be that also such undertakings which started, ahead of the reform, and which are already financed out of State ressources, will be included in this transfer. The foundation would like to apply for such projects, or as commissioned body, or for their execution under its own responsibilty.

Meeting of German NGO-Initiative for Baltic Sea Cooperation in Hamburg, 29.10.2005

2005-11-03T14:03:00.000+01:00

Fruitful meeting
On Saturday, 29th of october, the German NGO-Initiative for Baltic Sea Cooperation came together for an annual meeting. 14 participants met in the house of the Lawaetz-Foundation, Hamburg.

Our meeting was attended by 14 people, including Mr Jan-Axel Voss, advisor on Baltic Sea Cooperation at Federal Foreign Office, Berlin.
(contact: Jan-Axel Voss, Auswärtiges Amt, Ref. E 07-9, Berlin, e07-9[ät]diplo.de)

The participants:
Albert Caspari, Verein INFOBALT, Bremen, post[ät]infobalt.de
Stefan Hansen, Hohe Tied e.V., Kiel, greenbalt[ät]aol.com
Lutz Hüttel, FIDEA e.V., Hamburg, webmaster[ät]fidea.de
Burkhard Luber, Stiftung DIE SCHWELLE, Bremen, luber[ät]dieschwelle.de
Gerhard Maschack, Kulturzentrum Lagerhaus, Bremen, gmaschack[ät]web.de
Frauke Rubart, Kulturzentrum Lagerhaus, Bremen, fraukerubart[ät]aol.com
Bernd Scheda, Kulturzentrum Lagerhaus, Bremen, info[ät]kulturzentrum-lagerhaus.de
Maik Schulz, Verein BaltiCult, Neustadt-Glewe/Ortsteil Tuckhude, maik.schulz-2.vorsitzender[ät]balticult.de
Karin Schmalriede, Lawaetz-Stiftung, Hamburg, schmalriede[ät]lawaetz.de
Alicja Skodowska, Deutsch-polnische Gesellschaft, Hamburg, alchemikde[ät]yahoo.de
Hans-Joachim Tiefensee, Verein INFOBALT, Bremen, joachim[ät]infobalt.de
Christian Wellmann, Schleswig-Holstein Institute for Peace Research (SHIP/ Kiel), wellmann[ät]schiff.uni-kiel.de
Hartwig Zillmer, Deutsch-Polnische Gesellschaft, Hamburg, ha.zillmer[ät]web.de

In the first part of the meeting we gave some time to everybody to introduce each NGOs work and projects. Participants came together from four different Federal States: Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Bremen.

Later we continued our meeting with a short review on the BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM in Gdynia/Poland. All participants of NGO FORUM 2005 regarded the Forum as very useful for better cooperation with especially polish NGOs, as it was a good chance for meeting and discussions. Some new projects were born at the NGO FORUM, and part of them even realised already in 2005. Especially positive reports came from Kulturzentrum Lagerhaus, Lawaetz-Stiftung, INFOBALT and from FIDEA. Many German participants felt the FORUM as being one day too short - not much time to really get to know people and finish discussions. Other remarks were, that it was, as always, important to get a picture also of the meeting place outside the conference-halls (to get an impression of the atmosphere at the spot). Some people expressed their wish to have a place for introducing their projects at future NGO FORA, others wished to have more young people involved into Baltic Sea NGO Networks activities.

Mr Voss told about his experiences in his new job as advisor for Baltic Sea Cooperation at the German Foreign Office. It was an open and friendly discussion of different views and experiences. Mr Voss told about some topics raised by the Islandic presidency during recent meetings of CBSS-officials: measures against traficking, for energy-networking, Baltic Sea as PSSA - particular sensitiv area, Baltic Sea wide radiation-measuring, and the willingness of CBSS for more cooperation with Ukraine.
During the discussion a question came up on experiences of "NGO-support-offices" in East-European countries. As German NGOs don't have such offices, they are not able to hold a constant contact and propose more cooperation. Many of German NGOs believe that they do not know much about the situation of NGOs in other countries and lack a constant contact to "NGO think tanks" in Baltic Sea countries. The communication inside the Baltic Sea NGO Network seems to be too sporadic and changeful for getting a constant input on the situation in CBSS-countries, but of course we hope for improvement in future.

Some decisions of our meeting:
1) As the update of our webpage www.cbss-ngo.de would cost too much money (which we don't know where to get from), we open another common (english language) webpage, which es easier to handle, and cheaper.
The adress is www.baltic-ngo.blogspot.com , and contributors of Baltic Sea NGO Network are also invited to participate.

2) We continue to inform all members of German NGO Initiative for Baltic Sea Cooperation by an Email-Newsletter. It is open to every NGO interested. Contact: post[ät]cbss-ngo.de

3) We continue to hold annual meetings of our NGO Initiative. We will try to change meeting places, for holding travel costs acceptable for all participants. After having had meetings in Kiel, Berlin and Hamburg the next annual meeting in 2006 will be held in Rostock. We will decide about the date after getting to know the date for BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2006 in Sweden.

4) We discussed possible speakers for thematic networks of the Baltic Sea NGO Network.

Environment - Annelie Ehlers (CCB-network) or Stefan Hansen (Hohe Tied) greenbalt[ät]aol.com - further information can be asked from Stefan Hansen

Culture - Lutz Hüttel, FIDEA. webmaster[ät]fidea.de Lutz will write a paper on his interpreation of the activities on this field.

Human Rights - Burkhard Luber luber[ät]dieschwelle.de. Burkhard already wrote a paper on the issue and put it on our new Website www.baltic-ngo.blogspot.com

Social affairs - Karin Schmalriede (schmalriede[ät]@lawaetz.de). Karin regards the field of all possible social activities as too broad and general, and will write an own paper on what she can do.

Voluntary work - Stephan Malerius, "German-Russian Exchange", Berlin, stephan.malerius[ät]gmx.net . Stefan is ready to tell about many experiences with voluntary projects of "German-Russian Exchange", also in Ukraine.

Civil security - no one of us acitive on this field.

Regional development (possibly together with culture, Lutz Huettel will write a paper on the topic)

5) We decided on a new version of common paper on the aims of our German NGO-initiative. The German version of this new paper (which will renew the "Berlin declaration" of 2001) will be possible to access at our common webpages soon.

6) We will collect proposals from different NGOs regarding the 1.preparatory meeting for BALTIC SEA NGO FORUM 2006, which is planned to be arranged in Copenhagen 27.-29.1.2006.
Some first proposals are: Fishery, discussion between social NGOs/Trade Unions/fishery associations/environmental NGOs, traffic in the Baltic Sea region, alternative journalism, NGO capacity building, conversion.

7) We discussed possibilities to have an "Baltic Sea Office" for the German NGOs. Since we did not see realistic sources for financing, this option seems to be still an illusion. But on the other hand activities of the German NGO-initiative for Baltic Sea Cooperation can not be arranged only on voluntary base (as from 2001 until now). The government of Hamburg offered support and consulting for EU-programmes, but condition is that it should fit into the interests of Hamburg town (as we do not concentrate on one Federal State only, this condition is difficult). In Bremen the "Culture Center Lagerhaus" offers rooms for such Baltic Office, but still some money is needed to cover the costs. We will continue in evaluating the possibilities.

Albert Caspari
INFOBALT e.V. www.infobalt.de / post[ät]infobalt.de
NGO Initiative Ostseekooperation www.cbss-ngo.de

Human Rights, NGOs and the Baltic Sea Region

2005-11-01T13:24:00.000+01:00

On a meeting of the German Baltic Sea NGO Initiative at Oct 29, 2005 in Hamburg I have been asked to act as the German contact person for the NGO Baltic Sea Network on the issue of Human Rights. The subsequent paper lists some aspects of the Human Rights topic and deals with the question how NGOs generally and NGOs in the Baltic Sea countries specifically can promote that topic. Comments are welcome!

Contact: hubluber@web.de * Work: http://www.dieschwelle.de/ *
Blog: http://www.nienburg44.blogspot.com/

Dr Burkhard Luber
The Human Rights, Non-Governmental Organizations
and the Baltic Sea Region
- An initial navigation of uncharted waters -

Making the Human Rights universally was an act of the Western Allies against German Fascism in the mid of the 20th century. That it has been a Western concept is symbolized in choosing New York as the United Nations headquarter. Launching the Declaration of Human Rights demonstrated what the WW II winners thought to become world-wide standard. For more than five decades this concept did not face major problems (Cynics might say: It had not much genuine impact on the international community either). References to Human Rights worked well for inauguration speeches, sometimes it was a tool of reciprocal reproaches in the East-West Conflict. But it never underwent the major test, whether the UN countries would take the concept earnest and work with emphasis against countries violating Human Rights on a major scale.

Three events at the end of the last and the beginning of the current millennium changed this situation:

First:
The disintegration of Yugoslavia with its broad-scale violating of human rights showed the sensitivity of the Human Rights concept and its application in conflicts of multi-ethnic countries.

Second:
The development of religions in the world has two contrasting spiritual tendencies. On the one hand you see an impressive secularization. Religion becomes less and less a decisive reference point for the population. It is merely an individual attitude not having a societal impact. On the other hand we see the renaissance of religious intolerance and fanatism.

Third:
The 911 terrorist attacks in the USA changed the dealing with the HR concept in three ways:

First it marked the long lasting universalism of the Human Rights concept. More and more people and countries are challenging this Human Rights universalism by ranking religious values higher than observing Human Rights standards. That has even lead to an increasing disqualification of the Human Rights concept as a “Western imported product” to dominate the world. For an increasing number of countries the universalism of Human Rights is no longer valid, though so far none of those countries has acquitted its UN membership.

But 911 has also another 2nd consequence for the weakening of the universal Human Rights concept: Since the Bush administration narrowed its policy guidelines to concentrate more or less totally towards the war against terrorism, the universal observance of Human Rights became obsolete. Bush became more and more insensitive towards the Human Rights account of the allies he chose in his anti-terrorism strategy. That is at least evident for such authoritarian regimes like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Third consequence: Countries beside the USA took Bush´s anti-terrorism strategy as a welcome chance to claim membership in this anti-terrorist alliance. That gave them the chance to declare as "terrorists" also in-house freedom-fighters, seeking secession minorities and other counter-government actors on their own territory. Prominent example is Russia´s stance against Chenya and other independence movements in the Caucasus, but other governments in Africa and Asia are taking that chance of political rhetoric too and more might take it in future. So Bush´s crusade against terrorism generates a severe decrease of relevance for the Human Right concept.

The Relevance of the Human Rights concept for NGOs
NGOs are natural partners of the Human Rights concept, since their specific contributions to a civil society - like: gender issues, lobbying for minorities and free media - can mostly take their justifications from the “Declaration of Human Rights”. NGOs can be watch dogs, which monitor the Human Rights account of their own government and society and - based on the universalism of the Human Rights concept - also internationally. NGOs are also suitable Human Rights monitors, since they are closer to the societal reality and the needs and wishes of the population than higher ranking administration and governments. And due to their small organization profile and well elaborated information exchange and brainstorming capacities, NGOs can better formulate designs for addressing and solving single Human Rights deficiencies than large government ministries and agencies.

When addressing the question whether there are there specifics for the Human Rights work for NGOs in the Baltic sea region one has to make a short political assessment of that region. Its political changes since the end of the Cold War are significant: Beside Sweden, Finland and Russia all the Baltic Sea region countries are now NATO members and beside Norway and Russia all are EU members too. However simultaneously to the membership expansion of NATO and EU in the Baltic Sea Region the relevance of both these GOs has dramatically decreased. NATO (at least as an independent military factor of itself, i.e. more than a mere logistic contributor to the US worldwide military strategy) does not play an important role in all curren$t major military events (Wars on the Balkan, Iraq War, War against terrorism). NATO´s irrelevance is matched by an EU being in a major crisis due to growingly irritations from the consequences of its recent expansion, its failed constitution ratification process and the looming danger of not having a properly approved budget in 2007. This is the broader international political context in which NGOs in the Baltic Sea Region are acting and the question is whether specific fields of NGOs work in that region can be defined. Here are some proposals:

Minority issues
which are relevant for the Russian minority in Estonia and Latvia. Here NGOs can contribute to stabilize a fair and just minority regime which can also have relevance to other European regions of multi-ethnicity (like SO-Europe and the Roma in Central Europe).

Work Employment Issues
which are relevant for all Baltic Sea countries be they tigers (Estonia) or trailers (Germany). Based on Article 23 of the Declaration of Human Rights, NGOs can contribute with proposals how to implement the Human Right for employment in economies, in which profit increase and work force decrease are complementary to each other. NGOs should publicly brainstorm the issue of unemployment much more ambitious than their governments do it, since governments for decades are unsuccessfully waiting for more economic growth with the vague hope that this would generate new jobs. Employment concepts drafted by NGOs could contrast that blind road thinking of governments by emphasizing that unemployment is no longer a temporary event but is the structural consequence of growing digitalisation and miniaturization of more and more economic processes which demands less and less human work force. NGOs can contribute to the current debate about the future of global economy and work force by shifting the focus of this debate from helpless seeking for government assistance programs. NGOs can emphasize that large areas of the economy do not need full employment of the available working force, which means that the employment issue is no longer a technical task, but has become an issue of justice and just distribution of the continuously decreasing number of necessary work forces in the production field.

Human Rights Issues which have a latent relevance
for all societies in the Baltic sea region like: Gender equality, protection of children, decreasing of violence in the mass media and the entertainment industry, right for conscientious objection against military service, protection against unjustified surveillance of the state against its citizen, freedom of mass media.

If NGOs in the Baltic Sea Region will deal with such Human Rights issues above, they will have sustainable relevance for this region as constructive and critical partners of governments and other major players in that area. Thus they can play an important role for the civic societies in their countries and the Baltic Sea Region.

To fulfil their monitoring roles adequately, NGOs should especially use all relevant electronic information and online publication tools (like emailing lists, blogging, podcasting etc), since their ease of use, low price level and quick public impact makes them highly appropriate tools for the NGO community, thus favoring their aims and work more than the traditional tools of NGO-commitments. Thereby NGO have the chance to act towards governments and big players in the society and internationally on an equal level of competence and efficiency.

EU-Russia agreement on cod-fishing 230% over scientific advice

2005-09-13T12:38:00.000+02:00

2005-09-09 CCB Press-release on the outcome of the 31st Session of the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC), 5-7 September 2005, Visby, Sweden

EU and Russia agreed on fishing quota 2006 for the threatened eastern cod stock, at a level 230 % higher than the scientific advice. Overexploited Baltic cod stocks are still at risk for the long-term survival.
Now the Baltic cod stocks management for 2006 are in the hands of EU Ministers of Fisheries that have a chance to agree on a more precautionary management and lower the quota for Baltic cod in the autumn.
2/3 of all wild Baltic salmon river populations are threatened, but IBSFC’s recommendations still allow for extensive catches of the salmon in mixed open-sea fisheries.

Eastern cod stock (east of Bornholm)
In the last session in the history of the IBSFC (the European Community and the four accession countries have declared their withdrawal from the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources in the Baltic Sea and the Belts, also called Gdansk Convention) EU and Russian delegations agreed on a fishing quota of 49 220 t for the threatened eastern cod stock for next year, which is 230 % higher than the scientific advice from International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (14 900 t for 2006). The ICES advice for quota corresponds to a fishing mortality that could ensure a spawning stock biomass (SSB) of minimum 160 000 t in 2007. If the quota is higher than 15 000 ton for 2006, it is not consistent with the precautionary approach.
The agreement also means that the 2006 fishing quota for eastern cod stock is 15 % higher than in this year (42 800 t for 2005).
The political discussions on cod fisheries have not resulted in any major reduction of the fishing effort and cod fishing quotas. The concept of "business as usual" will go on.
We wonder how long this policy of Baltic Sea governments and EC can continue. The Baltic cod stocks are still at risk for long-term survival, and we are coming closer and closer to a situation when the cod stocks may collapse, which will heavily affect the whole Baltic Sea ecosystem. A collapse of the cod stock would also destroy the fishing industry. A change for a responsible Baltic cod fisheries cannot wait. The EU Ministers of Fisheries still have a chance to agree on a more precautionary management and lower quota for Baltic cod in autumn.

Baltic salmon management
Many Baltic wild salmon river populations are threatened. Wild fish, predestined to return to their home rivers, are caught in a mixed (reared and wild) salmon fishery in the open sea. Salmon fishery rules must be changed to secure a safe return of spawners to all wild rivers.
The agreed catch levels for salmon in the Baltic (without Gulf of Finland) for 2006 are 460 000 fish and 17 000 fish for the Gulf of Finland (same level for both areas as in 2005).
The high ongoing salmon exploitation rate, will threaten the survival of many weak salmon populations, especially in the Gulf of Finland where the situation of the wild salmon is extremely serious.

For more information contact:
Mr Gunnar Noren, CCB International secretariat, phone +46-18-71 11 70, mobile +46-70-560 53 52
Mr Piotr Gruszka, Green Federation GAJA, Szczecin, Poland, mobile +48 601 77 4543

Youngsters still do not trust politicians, but interest in NGOs grows

2005-08-25T00:38:00.000+02:00

8030 young Europeans between the age of 15 and 25 have been interviewed face-to-face: What do you think about politics? How do you see your opportunities in participation? Do you believe in success of such your activities?

"Political Participation of Young People in Europe - Development of Indicators for Comparative Research in the European Union" (EUYOUPART), this was the title of a study undertaken in 2003 and 2004. The results were recently published.
The wide spectrum of participating countries (Austria, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Slovakia, United Kingdom) contributed to the identification of relevant and valid indicators for young people's involvement in politics.

As main findings and tendencies the authors of the study listed the following:

"The interest in politics among the interviewed youth varies greatly. The most interested youth live in Germany with 51%, whereas young people in the UK (30%), Estonia (29%) and Slovakia (28%) are least interested. Italy comes second with 43% closely followed by Austria with 42%, and France and Finland rank next with 36% and 35% respectively.
The study clearly shows that a majority of young people is not interested in politics (37% interested vs. 63% disinterested in total). This study, however, gives rise to the hope that the young Europeans´ interest in politics might increase with the age. The overall majority believes that voting is the most effective form of political participation, and a comparatively high percentage also makes use of their right to vote.

Although the European youth shows little trust in political parties, many feel close to a certain party. NGOs seem most trustworthy to the youth, they gain more and more importance. The young people believe working for NGOs to be more effective than working for political parties. The youth´s perception of the future, however, differs widely: whilst young Estonians prove themselves to be optimists and their peers in the other participating countries have a mostly positive picture of their future, the Austrian and German youth fears deprivation and has an overall pessimistic attitude.

Finally, there is to say that whilst the youth shows an increasingly more critical attitude towards the prevalent political system, they still make use of their participative rights and duties within the representative democracy. As a social and political form of expressing their opinion, protest is becoming increasingly important for them. New social movements and new political organisations are well considered and are more attractive than the traditional ones. Participation in these new forms is growing."

Single country reports are ready for download (PDF-files) at the Website of German Youth Institut.
Austria
Germany
Slowakia
Finland
Estonia
Italy
France
United Kingdom

Halonen defends NGOs and Baltic Countries

2005-08-05T14:24:00.000+02:00

Halonen defends Baltic Countries at press conference with Putin

source: HELSINGIN SANOMAT, Friday 5.8.2005

President Tarja Halonen gave an exceptionally strong defence of Estonia and Latvia during an outdoor press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Finnish President’s summer residence Kultaranta in Naantali.
Putin had lamented what he saw as the poor treatment of Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic Countries. Halonen said that the legislation of Estonia and Latvia are acceptable, and that she would have hoped that Russia would have ratified the border treaties Estonia and Latvia.

There was also some disagreement on the roles of non-governmental organisations. A few weeks ago Putin hinted that various Russian environmental organisations had received funding from Finland to prevent Russia from building oil terminals on the Gulf of Finland.
At a press conference late Tuesday morning, Putin said that he takes a positive view of cross-border cooperation of NGOs - with certain reservations.
"I oppose the financing of political activities... I oppose the use of environmental protection as a means of competition", Putin said.
President Halonen saw the new sewage treatment plant in St. Petersburg, and the Vuosaari Harbour in Helsinki as good examples of what can be achieved by cooperation between states and among NGOs.
"Naturally it is not possible to co-opt the NGOs, nor is it a good idea to try to do so, but friendly support, also on the side of government, for the activities of such organisations is part of today’s Europe", Halonen said.

Putin said that he hoped that Halonen could attend the opening of the new sewage treatment plant in St. Petersburg in September. Halonen said that she probably would attend.

In spite of their disagreement on certain issues, both presidents insisted that relations between Finland and Russia are in good shape.
"A desire to cooperate was the clear message", Halonen said, summing up the significance of the visit, after seeing her guest off to Turku Airport on Tuesday evening.

CLEAN DVINA - CLEAN BALTIC / Summer Camp

2005-06-29T15:14:00.000+02:00

"Clean Dvina - Clean Baltic" Summer Camp

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS ARE AGAINST THE POLLUITION OF THE WESTERN DVINA AND BALTIC SEA.
From 28 of July to 4 of August the international environmental camp "Clean Dvina - Clean Baltic" will take place in the area of Novopolotsk city. The participants of the camp will focus on the problem of the obsolete pesticides disposal dump and its influence on the ecosystem of the Western Dvina and the Baltic Sea. One of the largest pesticides disposal dumps in Belarus is situated in the area of Verhnedvinsk city, within some kilometers from the Western Dvina inflow. According to the official information there were buried 455 tones of about 47 types of pesticides, including chlorine-organic. It is quite possible that the amount of pesticides as well as a number of types is higher. The present conditions of the disposal dump causes alarm among the environmental activists.

Activists of different environmental NGO's from Belarus and other countries are coming to the international environmental camp "Clean Dvina - Clean Baltic" to express their solidarity in the cause of water protection and solution of the dangerous pesticides disposal dump. Among the organizers of the international environmental camp "Clean Dvina - Clean Baltic" international environmental camp "Clean Dvina - Clean Baltic" are:Environmental group Foundation for Realization of Ideas, Minsk, Belarus;International Environmental Group Ecodefence! Kaliningrad, Russia;Latvian Green Movement, Latvia.Supported by Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB).

Why is it important?
Western Dvina is one of the most polluted rivers in Belarus.. Baltic is a region of the utterly varied flora and fauna, a region which is threatened by the pollution of chemical substances - pesticides. . Pesticides are the extremely toxic pollutants which pose a real threat to the environment and human health. . The Verhnedvinsk pesticides disposal dump is one of the largest disposal dumps of the dangerous chemical waste products in Belarus.. There is a real threat of releases of high toxic chemicals to the environment in the water area of the Western Dvina and the Baltic Sea. . Health consequences from pesticides impact are very considerable. Such pesticides are capable to cause embryotoxic and mutagenic effects. The health injury usually doesn't appear in the exposed adult population, but rather, in the offspring. . Officially, this pesticides tomb has no owner. None official structure accounts this dump, the verifications are irregular.. The population of the neighbouring villages and settlements is not informed on the health consequences from pesticides impact and does not emphasize the real threats. The local authorities don't inform citizen about the imminent danger.. There is an idea to burn these obsolete pesticides from the tomb in special incinerator as a solution of this problem. Incineration of these chemical substances can be a source of other dangerous substances. Organizers of the camp advocate:. Conducting of a complex independent environmental monitoring on the territory of Verhnedvinsk hot spot.. Preventing usage of incinerators or cement kilns as a solution to the obsolete pesticides problem.. Dissemination of the information about the present condition of the disposal dump and the fatal consequences of the pesticides usage. Actions planned during the international environmental camp "Clean Dvina - Clean Baltic 2005": The summer camp activities can be divided into two constituents: educational and informational:Educational part includes trainings, workshops, and lectures for the participants on the problem of chemical pollution and toxic chemicals management, water resources protection and chemical safety, effective public work of NGO. Informational part includes actions and events directed on attraction of the attention of the local population, local authorities and Mass Media to the problem of the disposal dump; elaboration of the possible problem solving; discussion on the possible cooperation among different NGO's on the issue of water protection. How to take part: . Make sure that you are definitely incited to take an active part in the activities of the international environmental camp "Clean Dvina - Clean Baltic", get into gear, and participate in actions, trainings, lections.. Make sure that you are able to spend a week in very modest conditions. . Fill the registration form, send it to the headquarters of the Camp and wait for the prompt reply. BE ATTENTIVE! Those who wish to take part should send the fulfilled form to the Headquarters of the Camp before the 17 of July 2005!The Headquarters of the Camp provide accommodation, food for all participants for the whole period of the camp; travel reimbursement is available only for participants from Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Russia.

Headquarters of the Camp
Please send the registration forms, questions and suggestions to the underwritten address:info@friby.org

For further information please contact the Headquarters:

In Belarus: +375 29 685 81 44, +375 29 658 74 45, e-mail: info@friby.org

In Russia (Kaliningrad): + 7 911 45 20 412, e-mail: gruzdi@gmail.com

In Latvia+3719173047e-mail: alda.ozola@zalie.lv

Kaliningrad NGO honoured with award

2005-06-10T01:43:00.000+02:00

Russian NGO ECODEFENSE! in Kaliningrad was awarded with the “ENVIRONMENT FOR PEOPLE” Prize for the protection of the Baltic environment and environmental education of students, teachers and politicians.
On the 8th of June letter from International Department of the City of Kalmar (Sweden) has reached the office of environmental NGO Ecodefense! In Kaliningrad. “We are very glad to inform you that the City of Kalmar has decided to give you the environmental prize “Environment for people”, - writes its author, Anders Engstrom, International Department official. As it is stated in motivation part of the prize’s evaluation committee, Ecodefense! was awarded with this honorary prize for its directed actions carried out with the aim to reduce pollution in the Baltic Sea. Also committee members specially note Ecodefense! environmental training activities for teachers, pupils, politicians and the public.
“The comprehensive training and campaign work has become a model method in encouraging people to become active in environmental matters for sustainable development on local, regional and international levels”, - says evaluation committee in the awarding decision. Significant factor for the final decision of the committee was active cooperation of Ecodefense! with different structures, state and private, municipal and public in most countries around Baltic Sea.
Such campaigns as “Clean river – clean Baltic”, that has resulted in starting of wastewaters treatment facilities construction on pulp-and-paper enterprises of Kaliningrad region of Russia and “Stop D6!” that has united environmentalists from Kaliningrad, Lithuania and Poland in the effort to prevent oil pollution of the Baltic Sea through oil drilling; support of the Svetly town citizens in their struggle to prevent construction of the oil terminal nearby by means of first environmental referendum in Kaliningrad region;
environmental information agency that includes press-service and publication environmental magazine; legal rights’ protection campaign; environmental education projects and other Ecodefense! activities were truly appreciated by Council of City of Kalmar.

The prize will be graced to Ecodefense! representatives during celebration of Hanseatic Days in Tartu, Estonia on July 2nd. “Environment for people” awards are made by DIE HANSE network to individuals or organizations that have contributed in some way to improving the environment of the Baltic Sea and the shipping waters of the Hansa League. DIE HANSE is an active network of towns and cities that historically belonged to the association of merchant towns known as the Hanseatic League, or had lively trading exchanges with it. The new HANSE (www.hanse.org) was founded in 1980 in the Dutch town of Zwolle and since then it has become the world's largest voluntary association of towns and cities.

For additional information, and direct contact: Ecodefense! phone +7 911 4520412, +7 0112 580286; ecodefense@ecodefense.ru

The Corrupted Nuclear Industry Is Mortally Dangerous for Russia

2005-06-06T10:06:00.000+02:00

Declaration of non-governmental organizations concerning the arrest of the former Atomic Energy Minister Adamov

On May 2, 2005 in Switzerland the former Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Evgeny Adamov was detained on suspicion of diverting money intended to improve Russian nuclear security. The former minister is accused of embezzlement of several million dollars of American taxpayers' money.

Actually, corruption, embezzlement and misappropriation in the nuclear industry are much more serious.

From 1998-2000 Minatom (the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry) received as international assistance more than $270 million for a waste management program – funds that, according to the Russian Court of Auditors, “were not registered and reported”. As officials from the General Prosecutor’s Office reported in 1998, the top management of the largest nuclear industry plant, Mayak, used forged documents to smuggle radioactive materials. Thefts of high tech equipment became an ordinary practice at national nuclear power plants: in 2002 alone at the Leningrad NPP the theft of hundreds of water flow meters and machinations with servo-motors were exposed. This is just one aspect of the problem.

Most accidents at nuclear plants are caused by human error. When the attention of nuclear industry workers, irrespective of their position and status, is focused on commercial machinations, while neglecting safety of the country, which causes threat of new accidents similar to the one in Chernobyl.
Therefore we, Russian non-governmental organizations, call on President Putin and Prime Minister Fradkov to urgently reconsider the energy strategy of the country, to reject plans to construct new nuclear reactors and other dangerous projects, proposed by the head of Rosatom (construction of floating NPPs, plants for reprocessing irradiated nuclear fuel, construction of international radioactive waste repositories).
Today in Russia, it is possible to produce 30% of the total energy requirements of the country using technically and economically available renewable energy sources (while the share of nuclear energy in the total energy balance is less than 4%!). The potential of energy saving in the total energy balance is at least 40%. Expenditures to develop these environmentally friendly energy sources will be considerably less than expenditures for nuclear industry development. At the same time, available uranium stocks for the thermal nuclear energy industry are exhaustible, as oil and gas are.

We call on the top authorities of the country to show their political will in order to create conditions for investing scientific, labour and financial resources in energy saving and development of renewable energy sources.

V.A. Chouprov, Greenpeace Russia Energy Department Coordinator
A.V. Yablokov, President of the Centre for Ecological Policy of Russia
M.A. Piskunov, Board Chair of the Center for Assistance to Citizen Initiatives, Dmitrovgrad.
A.M. Vinogradov, Chair of the Balakovo Division of the All-Russian Environmental Protection Society
N.I. Mironova, Chair of the NGO “Movement for Nuclear Safety”, Chelyabinsk
S.I. Zabelin, Co-Chair of the Council of the International Social-Ecological Union
A.V. Toropov, Siberian Environmental Agency, Tomsk
L.V. Popova, Director of the Centre for Nuclear Ecology and Energy Policy, Co-chair of the Council of the International Social-Ecological Union
A.A. Talevlin, Vice-President of the Chelyabinsk NGO “Pravosoznaniye”
E. Murzakhanov, Board Chair of Tomsk Environmental Student Inspection (TESI), Tomsk
V.Slivyak, Ecodefense
M.P. Rikhvanova, Co-Chair of Baikal Environmental Wave, Irkutsk
V.S. Vedenkov, Chair of the Krasnoyarsk Division of the Movement “For Human Rights”
B.V. Nekrasov, Siberian Environmental Alliance, Tomsk
V.T. Semyashkina, Save Pechora Committee, The Republic of Komi
N.V. Kalinina, Board Chair of the Amur Ecological Club “Ulukitkan”, Blagoveschensk
G.B. Anosova, Director of the Baikal Centre for Public Environmental Assessment
A.V. Lebedev, the Bureau for Regional Outreach Campaigns (BROC), Vladivostok
P.E. Osipov, Director of the Amur Regional NGO “AmurSEU”
I. Shaidullin, Board Chair of the NGO “Chisty Gorod”, the Republic of Tatarstan
A.S. Gorelik, Public Committee of Human Rights Protection, Krasnoyarsk
O.L. Podborskaya, Coordinator of the Coalition “Zhivoe Pravo”, Krasnoyarsk
A.A. Babiy, the International Society “Memorial”, Krasnoyarsk
S.G. Shapkhaev, Buryat Regional Baikal Association
S.V. Pogozhev, “Respectable Citizens’ Society”, Krasnoyarsk
A.A. Polkovnikov, “The Union of the Unemployed in the Krasnoyarsk Krai”, Krasnoyarsk
O.V. Khristolyubova, Regional Rights Protection Committee, Krasnoyarsk
D.A. Puntus, All-Russian Society “Znaniye”, Krasnoyarsk
O.V. Bodrov, Board Chair of Zeleny Mir, Sosnovy Bor – Saint Petersburg
N.A. Zubov, Executive Director of the NGO “Krasnoyarsk Regional Ecological Union”, Krasnoyarsk
O.G. Likhtina, Chair of the Non-Governmental Rights Protection Organization, Krasnoyarsk
E.V. Spirin, Chair of the Sosnovoborsk Representative Office of the NGO “Krasnoyarsk Regional Environmental Union”, Sosnovoborsk
L.Ya. Zubova, Chair of the NGO “Academy of Russian Medicine”, Krasnoyarsk
D.N. Levashov, Deputy Chair of the Regional Environmental NGO SPES (Social Legal Ecological Community), Nizhny Novgorod Region, Dzerzhinsk
V.I. Dmitrieva, ISAR, Far East
A. Kozlovich, Ariston, Karelia
M.A. Shingarkin, Public Foundation “Grazhdanin”
E. Kruglikova, Apatity Ecological Centre “Gea”, Murmansk Region
A.P. Laletin, “Siberia Forest’s Friends”
O.A. Chernyagina, President of the Kamchatka League of Independent Experts
N.L. Kutepova, the Ozersk Social Ecological NGO “Planeta Nadezhd” (Planet of Hopes), Chelyabinsk Region
T.I. Savchenko, Magadansky Environmental Centre
O.Ya. Moskvina, “SoDeistvie tw”, Magadan
G. Smirnov, Chukotka Ecological Association “Kaira-Club”
A.E. Kaplin, President of Volga interregional public foundation of collaboration
R.G. Miniahmetov, Director of Institute of social ecology and sustainable development
I.B. Shafrutdinova, Chairman of Council of Ulianovsk regional branch of Allrussian movement “Green Planet”
V.V. Zaharov, Chairman of “Russian Green Movement”
Y.A. Fedorin, Chairman of Council of “Green Wave” movement, Chelyabinsk
F.G. Kobzhasarova, “Fatiha” movement, Chelyabinsk
A.V. Zimenko, Biodiversity conservation center
A. Arbachakov, AIST, Mezhdurechensk

Baltic Sea NGO Forum 2005 in Gdynia / Poland - THE FINAL DECLARATION

2005-05-30T16:56:00.000+02:00

The Baltic Sea NGO Network gathered to the V Baltic Sea NGO-Forum in Gdynia in Poland 12-13.5.2005 and brought together 190 civil society representatives from all the Baltic Sea countries.

The Forum is convinced that civil society is based on active public participation. We believe it strengthens citizens capacity to take part actively in democratic processes. Civil society facilitates public discussions and is a meeting place for people to define and formulate common interests in relation to the state, local authorities and the market forces. Civil society will have an increasing role to play in the region by enhancing peoples will to take part in their respective communities.

The Baltic Sea NGO network was established in Copenhagen 2001 and have since that developed cooperation for strengthening civil society in our common region. Forums in Lubeck, S:t Petersburg, Turku and Parnu have developed and stabilized the process and created networks in several fields. During the V Forum in Gdynia items like Baltic Sea state citizens – Third Sector contribution to Baltic Sea cooperation programs, EU financial policy and civil society development and Third Sector as a Bridge over Borders have been dealt with.
National platforms, thematic cooperation networks and other structures, like NGO-and information centers, of Baltic Sea region have been exchanging experiences in regional cross-border and cross-sector cooperation.

The Forum has with satisfaction noticed the report " The NGO Legislation in the countries in the Baltic Sea Region" by MP Mrs. Outi Ojala for the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference dealing with the situation of NGOs in different Baltic Sea countries.

Forum received reports and suggestions from four workshops:
Ecology and environmental protection,
Culture and education,
Human Rights and socially excluded groups,
Local and regional development.

The V NGO Forum agreed upon:

- the necessity of continuing the work of the Network based on the four previous Forum recommendations, with a view to further create closer contacts with the governments and increase information exchange.
- supporting the main suggestions expressed in the report " The NGO Legislation in the countries in the Baltic Sea Region", especially the need to create, in mutual cooperation, suitable infrastructure for NGOs and guarantee financial assistance and support systems for civil society development as a means of enhancing democracy
- readiness to cooperate with Council of Baltic Sea States and its working bodies, Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, Nordic Council of Ministers, Nordic Council and other public institutions in Europe and the Baltic Sea Region,
- to continue the efforts in gaining Special Participants Status in CBSS- Council of the Baltic Sea States,
- the importance of finalizing the work to increase cooperation with EU through INTERREG and other programs.

CHERNOBYL LESSONS FORGOTTEN?

2005-05-03T20:25:00.000+02:00

April 26, 2005: 19 years have passed since the day of the catastrophe at Chernobyl NPP. The economic damage from it was three times larger than the economic benefit from the operation of all NPPs of the Soviet Union during 1954 - 1990. The radioactive fallouts of Chernobyl have been registered in 22 countries of Europe, America and Asia. Hundreds of thousands people had to move from the contaminated territories. Tens of thousands were killed by diseases caused by the Chernobyl contamination.

Have the Chernobyl lessons been learned in the Northwest Russia?

FORGOTTEN CHERNOBYL LESSON 1 –

JUST LIKE BEFORE CHERNOBYL, THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ENSURING SAFE OPERATION OF NPPS ARE VIOLATED:
In Sosnovy Bor, 80 km West of St. Petersburg, the following potentially hazardous projects are implemented illegally (without the state environmental examination (EIA), without alternative options, without public participation, which are prescribed by the RF legislation):

Spent nuclear fuel assemblies (SNF) are stored twice denser than they should in the temporary "wet" storage facility of Leningrad NPP. About 4000 t of the fuel assemblies (equals to 50 "Chernobyls") are kept in the overcrowded building 90 meters from the shore of the Baltic Sea.
In 2004 the service time of the world-oldest LNPP power unit was extended by 15 years. The 30-year design lifetime of this Chernobyl-type reactor has expired. In July 2005 another similar reactor, which reached the design lifetime limit, will be shut down. Likewise, ROSENERGOATOM is intending to extend its lifetime without the state environmental examination and participation of those who take a risk of living next-door to this nuclear facility. These are the direct violations of Russian legislation.

The construction of a "dry" storage of SNF produced by LNPP is completed (illegally, without the state examination and public participation). It is also located near the Baltic shore. It is planned to store the spent fuel in metal-concrete containers following the new "dry" technology.
90 meters from the Baltic Sea the construction of a unit for cutting SNF of LNPP is close to completion. There exists a real hazard of Baltic ecosystems’ contamination with extremely toxic plutonium from more than 30.000 spent assemblies, which will be cut when transferred from the wet storage to dry metal-concrete containers.

The largest in Europe plant for melting the contaminated metal, ECOMET-S, operates on the territory of LNPP, it takes radioactive scrap metal from different regions of Russia. The ECOMET-S reconstruction is planned in order to accept radioactive metal from the decommissioned submarines of the Russian Northern Fleet. The shipment of radioactive metal from Germany is discussed. By this the Baltic shore starts to be used as the radioactive dump for Russia. It can become the all-European dump too.

Funding of the project for building a new NPP has been started illegally, without the state environmental examination and public participation. The planned NPP will have a new VVER-1500 reactor; its capacity will be 1500 MW. The project completion is planned for 2013, and site for a new NPP will be either on the territory of natural reserve Kotelsky, 50 km from Estonia, or near the LNPP.

The seabed power transmission line is designed for the export of nuclear electricity from LNPP to Finland. Such export of energy generated by one LNPP unit equals to the annual import of several tons of highly toxic waste containing Pu-239 from Finland. It is a threat to all living on the Baltic coast, and its impact may last dozens of millenniums. A reliable long-term isolation for this nuclear waste has not been found. That will have to be paid for by the future generations.

FORGOTTEN CHERNOBYL LESSON 2. THE INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING IS NOT PROVIDED; THE SOCIETY HAS NO POSSIBILUITY TO INFLUENCE THE USE OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES, JUST LIKE DURING the time of CHERNOBYL NPP OPERATION:

The regional ecological laboratory was closed in 2003, for almost 30 years it had provided the independent radiological and ecological monitoring data on the situation around Leningrad NPP. The long-term programs for the habitat and environment monitoring were terminated. The possibility of having independent data on the environment quality and to forecast its changes has disappeared. Such questions as ‘why the seeds and needles of pine trees growing near LNPP and in Sosnovy Bor have three times higher occurrence of genetic malformations’ asked by the environmentalists has been left without answer. This signal of ecological ill-being has not been heard.

The NEWSLETTER of LNPP (Vestnik LAES) newspaper was closed in autumn of 2004, it had been a periodical published for 7000 employees of LNPP and for the citizens of nuclear town. The newspaper covered the social issues and LNPP safety. "By this even the small fraction of truth, which we managed to publish and which excited negative reaction of the plant "elite", won’t be available for the public anymore. LNPP has become an informationally-closed community» - comment on the newspaper closure made by its former editor-in-chief, LNPP employees, Igor Kiselev (14.09.2004).

The Public council under the Minatom of Russia was disbanded in 2005; it provided a platform for discussions of relevant atomic engineering safety issues between the public and nuclear experts. At this the representatives of the public were accused of the espionage, the allegations were not supported by any proofs.

The documents on the scale and consequences of previous accidents at LNPP and other nuclear facilities of Sosnovy Bor continue to be classified. Because of this the lessons of the made mistakes are not learned and similar events may occur again.

FORGOTTEN CHERNOBYL LESSON 3: FROM 2000 THE MEASURES OF STATE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE LIVING ON THE TERRITORIES NEAR NPPs ARE NOT taken

ROSENERGOATOM has stopped the planning of emergency protection measures for the residents of 30-km zone around LNPP. In particular, the people are not provided with potassium iodide tablets, as prescribed by the Russian legislation. In case of a radiological disaster the timely iodine prophylaxis can reduce the risk of thyroid cancer by one order. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of the citizens of Russia living in the vicinity of NPPs are the potential victims of cancer.

Most inhabitants of the atomic neighborhoods of Russia have no access to radiation shelters, as they should in accordance with the regulations; in the atomic town Sosnovy Bor the availability of such shelters is 25 % from the norm.
Majority of inhabitants living in the 30-km zone around NPPs have no usable gas masks for personal protection in case of radioactive emergency. This also contradicts the valid regulations.
Plans for the evacuation of population in case of a radiological accident have not been updated since the time of the USSR, they are obsolete.

The governmental bodies – Agency for the Ecological, Technological and Atomic Supervision (former Gosatomnadzor – Sate Nuclear Regulatory Body), Ministry of Emergency Situations, Public Prosecutor and local authorities are funded by the tax-payers, at the same time they do not take measures to ensure their safety, do not provide compliance with the Constitution and RF legislation.

The state policy for supporting the development of nuclear technologies, which disregards the market mechanisms and violates the democratic mechanisms of public participation, brings Russia to new "chernobyls".

Being aware of this hazard the active citizens of Northwest Russia have united for the promotion of the ideas about the inevitable and gradual decommissioning of old and most dangerous nuclear reactors and about most effective use of energy efficiency potential (the available unused reserve is 40%) and sources of renewable energy (wind, sun, bio-fuel and geothermal energy).

In accordance with public opinion, steps in this direction should be made taking into account social, ecological and economic safety, and they should provide the basis for sustainable and balanced development of Russia and the whole Baltic and Barents Sea regions.

Additional information can be found on the site http://www.decomatom.org.ru/ , you can get it by the telephone and fax in Sosnovy Bor (81369) 72991

Oleg Bodrov, Alexey Yablokov, Alexander Nikitin, Grigory Pas’ko
Chairman of the Corr. Member of the RAS, Chairman of the Board, Chief Editor, Magazine
GREEN WORLD, President, CENTER Ecological and Civil ECOLOGY and LAW
International Socio- of ECOLOGICAL Rights Center BELLONA Moscow
Ecological Union POLICY of Russia St. Petersburg
Sosnovy Bor, SPb. Moscow

Nordic Council discusses Environmental Problems of Baltic Region in Pärnu

2005-04-27T13:54:00.000+02:00

27.4.05
Contribution of NGO Green World, St.Peterburg
Unsustainable development of North-West Russia

Introduction to the problems:
(Material given as input for Meeting of NORDIC COUNCIL, April 27th 2005 in Pärnu, Estonia)
Russian state and Russian society has lost effective control over the development of nuclear complex in the North-West of Russia.
Mass violations of the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation take place. At the same time, the state regulatory bodies do not perform their functions on securing environmental safety. Attempts of the public to influence this situation are blocked or ignored.
The Federal Energy Commission of Russia made not legal decision December 26, 2003, No.110-E/11 about the financing in 2004-2005 the reconstruction of the old nuclear units and lifetime extension of the dangerous (first generation) reactors, and designing of the new generation of the NPP with the reactor VVER-1500. All this actions started without the Environmental Impact Assessment and the State Environmental Examinations.
The international infrastructure for shipment of nuclear and radioactive waste to Russia through the Baltic Sea ports has started to be formed: The government of Russia has announced [Decree # 1491-r, October 14, 2003] that the ports of Baltiysk (Kaliningrad), Ust-Luga and Vysotsk (Leningrad Oblast) have the status of ports suitable for the transshipment of nuclear and radioactive materials.
Deputies of the upper and lower chambers of the Russian parliament, which were elected from the constituencies of the South Coast of the Gulf of Finland, represent the interests of nuclear and port business. E.g. deputy Yuzhilin voted for the amendments to Russian legislation, which would permit import of spent nuclear fuel from Western nuclear power plants.
In this way, the political and business structure has been established, which is interested in the promotion of projects for the import of nuclear and radioactive waste to Russia.
Facts and processes, which necessitate public participation in order to promote sustainable development (SD) and preserve natural, historical and cultural, values of the North-West Russia as a part of the Baltic and Barents regions (BBR).

1. lifetime extension of the old nuclear reactors on Leningrad NPP (LNPP) beyond they design limit without the state environmental examination, public participation and consideration of feasible alternatives.
There are serious problems in ensuring safe operation of LNPP and safe management (long-term storage or disposal) of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, which have accumulated during 30 years of the plant operation.
In accordance with Russian legislation, the lifetime extension of old reactors requires the state environmental examination of the Project for a power unit lifetime extension. The procedure of such examination foresees the consideration of solutions alternative to the lifetime extension, and the projects for safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel, evaluation of the social acceptability of the NPP operation for the health of people and environment. It is necessary to establish mechanisms for the participation of stakeholder groups in the decision making about the future fate of NPPs in the North-West Russia as the part of BBR.
October 4, 2004: Andrey Malishev, Head of Federal Service for Environmental, Technical and Nuclear Control (former Gosatomnadzor), signed a license for further operation of the first unit (oldest existing RBMK-1000 reactor) of Leningrad NPP. This was done in violation of the Russian Constitution, without the state environmental examination, which is prescribed by the appropriate Act on State Environmental Examination, and with complete neglect of the procedure for issuing such licenses.
The concern RosEnergoAtom began the exploitation of the oldest and dangerous LNPP reactor October 7, 2004, but it was twice stopped during 2 month by the systems of the automatically safety control.
Rosenergoatom used the same strategy for the lifetime extension of the first generation of the old reactor VVER 440/230 in Kola NPP.
July 2005 the second unit of the first generation ‘Chernobyl-type’ reactor of Leningrad NPP (LNPP) will reach design limit. ROSENERGOATOM have planned to prolong the operation of this unit on 15 years too.
The lifetime extension of the old reactor on LNPP where undertaken after the "safety audit" by private company. There was no any public or local authority participation in decision-making process.
The participation of citizens of Russia and neighbors countries, who will be exposed to the impact from Leningrad NPP, which is regulated by the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, has not been arranged.
The electricity consumers, in fact, paid for this audit of old power units. The license will be valid for a limited period of time, after which the licensing procedure will be repeated. The same schema for lifetime extension of the old reactors will continue in 2005 for the second unit of LNPP.
Therefore, this strategic decisions important for the BBR will follow the scheme of business partnership between the State Agency for Ecological, Technological and Atomic Service and Concern RosEnergoAtom. At this both partners are economically interested in the lifetime extension of old reactors, and the society is forced to pay for this expensive process without having an opportunity to influence it.
The mechanisms for the support of lifetime extension of old NPP power units:
Tariffs for the sold electricity (now about 40% of the tariff is the investment component). And the investors (consumers of electric power) have no possibility to influence the energy policy.
Establishment of new power-intensive and environmentally-hazardous facilities like an aluminium plant or new plant for the melting scrub metal near Leningrad NPP.
The installation of the infrastructure for the export of the nuclear electricity from Leningrad NPP to Finland. The electrical cable (150 km via the bottom of the Baltic Sea) from the Russian village Kernovo (2 km to the west form Leningrad NPP) to Kotka (Finland) began to designing Russian Finnish company BaltEnergo with Siemens support. The project cost $200.000.
Closeness of the territory near Leningrad NPP and actual lack of possibilities for developing alternative business, not related to the development of nuclear (radiation) technologies, leaves only one option for the social development - lifetime extension of old reactors or building new ones. The atomic industry money makes up more than half of the budget of the nuclear city Sosnovy Bor (65.000 residents).
International programs for providing equipment to improve the LNPP safety do not improve the plant personnel safety culture, but are used by Rosenergoatom to create the "LNPP safety scenery" and justify the option of lifetime extension for old reactors. This happens in the conditions, when there is no real mechanism of public participation during the implementation of those projects. There are examples proving that the means of Western partners are used inefficiently and do not result in actual increase of safety level. It is necessary to create mechanisms of public participation involving Russian and non-Russian NGOs from the countries, which render help to the old reactors.
Obstacles to public participation:
Lack of socially-oriented analysis of lifetime extension necessity, possible alternative scenarios and mechanisms of public participation on the local and regional levels;
Closeness of the territories around NPPs for the free flow of information, social apathy of the inhabitants of the region, lack of financial resources for public participation (in the form of Public Alternative Environmental Examination) on the municipal level and on the level of the subject of the Russian federation.
Absence of a possibility for the consumers of electric power to choose energy suppliers using market mechanisms and to have an opportunity for real influence on the decision about the power industry development strategy.
The absence of the joint actions experience of the Russian, Finnish, Sweden, Norwegian and Estonian NGOs and to use Russian Federal Act "On environmental examination” of November 23, 1995 ? 174-FZ, Article 11, ”… application materials for licenses permitting the activities, which may produce an impact on the environment are subjected to the mandatory environmental examination of the federal level" (which fully applies to the activities, which are referred to as "Leningrad NPP operation") … «feasibility studies and project proposals for economic activities, which may cause environmental impact in neighboring countries, or the implementation of which will entail the use of natural resources shared by neighboring countries, or which affects the interests of neighboring countries defined in the "Convention on the environmental impact assessment in the trans-boundary context" (Espoo-Convention). This fully applies to the project on the LNPP power unit modernization. Its operation extended beyond the design lifetime will mean the continued use of dozens cubic meters of the Baltic Sea water per second for the power unit cooling. And the Baltic Sea is the natural water body shared by 9 countries of the Region.

The attempts to extend the lifetime of old reactors are taking place in the conditions, when for 30 years of their existence the problem of final disposal of spent fuel from the RBMK-1000 reactors has not been solved. Leningrad NPP keeps 4 000 t of spent nuclear fuel, the amount equivalent to 50 Chernobyls, in a temporary storage 90 m from the Baltic Sea.
According the estimation of the experts the potential energy saving in NW Russia is about 40%. It is equivalent of the total energy production of Leningrad and Kola NPPs.
The potential renewable energy production in NW Russia more than nuclear energy production in this region.

2. New harbor installations in the Eastern Gulf of Finland
Primorsk (north coast of the Gilf of Finland).
The oil transition continues in usual way. 42 million tones of oil were exported from Primorsk harbor in 2004.
Vysotsk(north coast of the Gilf of Finland).
Last year the new oil terminal (2.5 million tons a year) started in operation in Vysotsk port. Full designed oil turnover will be as much as 10.7 million tons a year.
Now a perspective plan of extention of the coal terminals in this harbor was declared. The year turnover of coal terminal will be as much as 10 million tons by 2008-2010.
The reconstruction of Vysotsk port is accompanied by bottom drugging to provive the access of big vessels (by 35 thousand tons deadweight) to the harbor.
Ust-Luga (south shore of the Gulf of Finland).
Now only coal terminal is operating. New ferry (Russia-Germany) and container terminal and port infrastructure are under construction.
Vistino – Logi (south shore of the Gulf of Finland).
On April, 28, 2005 Inter-departmental Commission for distribution of productive enterprises in Leningrad oblast (Government of Leningrad oblast) agreed to realise several investment projects, both national and international, including construction of new terminals and port infrastructure in "industrial site Gorki" (see the table below).
Among the investors both Russian and international companies present. For example "TNK-BP" (Tumen Oil Company & British Petroleum) – Russian-British joint company "Oiltanking GmbH" – German company.
According the project "site Gorki" is planned for oil, coal and liquid gas transportation. Also it is planned to construct a "Gas liquefaction plant" near Gorki Village. Gas supplies will be provided to the plant from the new 40 km branch gas pipeline Falileyevo - Gorki.
The "industrial site Gorki" is situated at the east coast of the Luga Bay near rural settlements Vistino, Logi and Gorki.
Now this region is famous for its sustainable fishery and low economical activities in comparison with east corner of the Gulf of Finland. Only one little fish processing plant in Vistino produces now canned fish, smoked sprats, herring, etc. using local fish catches from the Luga Bay and the Gulf of Finland.

Planned terminals and freight turnover in the port site "Gorki" (million tons a year)
terminals
Load character__________________________/_1st stage_/_Perspective turnover
"TNK-BP" Oil & oil products________________/_10_______/_18
Coal coal_______________________________/_10_______/_12
"North-west Alliance" Oil & oil products______/_10_______/_18
"Luga-Oil" Oil & oil products________________/_3,5______/_10
"Oiltanking-Vistino" Oil & oil products________/_7,5______/_7,5
"Gasprom" Liquid gas______________________/_10______/_15
"SG-trans" Oil gas_________________________/_1,2______/_1,2
Others Different cargoes___________________/_25_______/_25
Total___________________________________/_77,2______/_106,7

Consequences.
Most part of the Luga Bay is a shallow bottom area. Deep grounds present only along the easten shore of the bay. Two new port areas, Ust-Luga port area and industrial site Gorki, are situated in short distance each other. The international Ramsar Wetland Site "Kurgalsky Peninsula" is as far as 7 km from Ust-Luga terminals. Thousands swans and other migrating birds are under threat of possible oil spills and other contaminations!
Also the intensive exploitation of the Luga Bay and the coast area will destroy fish spawning sites and hinder salmon migration in Luga River and sea area.
The hard anthropogenic intervention will promote dramatic changes in the traditional life style of Russian and Finnish (Izhora) population in this area.
Another international Ramsar Wetland Site "Beryozovy Islands" and herring spawning grounds in the Gulf of Vyborg near the port area Primorsk-Vysotsk area are threaten from tanker navigation.

More information
www.greenworld.org.ru
www.decomatom.org.ru
Oleg Bodrov, Vladimir Zimin,
NGO GREEN WORLD Chairman, NGO Green World Council member
Bodrov@sbor.net zimin@sbor.net

Russia blocks new environmental guidelines in Baltic Sea Region

2005-03-04T23:38:00.000+01:00

COALITION CLEAN BALTIC (CCB) - Press release

Russia blocks new guidelines on requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for harmful installations in the Baltic Sea Region,
at the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) meeting 1-2 March 2005.
CCB requests HELCOM to assess the problem of Industrial hog rearing farms in the Baltic Sea Region.

HELCOM adopted a recommendation in 1996, with requirements for EIAs for new harmful installations, to inform HELCOM and neighbouring countries, when planning for such new installations. Such information would give neighbouring countries a chance to comment and influence on restrictions for new installations with a transboundry environmental impact on the Baltic Sea environment.

Because of unclear interpretation of this recommendation, HELCOM has
developed draft guidelines on how to conduct an EIA procedure in a harmonized way, to be adopted by HELCOM 1 March 2005. This would give more precise requirements for information to be presented to HELCOM countries, when a new potential harmful intstallation, e.g. oil-terminals, oil extraction etc, is planned for.
HELCOM has for more than one year tried to develop new guidelines, but Russia stemmed the attempt at the HELCOM meeting. New guidelines will be postponed, at least until the next HELCOM Heads of Delegation meeting in June 2005.

The reason for such Russian position to delay the decision might be to avoid any environmental transboundary considerations with planned new oil-terminals and harbours in the Russian part of Gulf of Finland and Kaliningrad region the coming years.

CCB asked HELCOM to convey an assessment in all Baltic Sea region countries to get a clear picture on the environmental conditions at all small- and medium-sized (<> 2000 pigs) animal farms. Such industrial farms contribute considerably to the nutrient run-off and eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.
The CCB member organisation, Green Federation Gaja in Poland, has performed a study on environmental conditions at industrial pig farms in Poland, especially related to the implementation of the EU directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) for industrial farms, and the EU Nitrate Directive. (Download the study, "Progress Report - Agricultural Pollution from Industrial Hog Rearing Farms in Poland")

The outcome of the study shows a bad implementation of the IPPC directive in Poland. Less than 50 % of the farms have applied for integrated permits and “fertilization plans” are missing for manure handling for many industrial farms.
-“The situation in Poland is disastrous. Most industrial pig rearing farms should be closed down immediately. They are operating only because regional environmental inspections tolerate this state and are still waiting for farms to adopt to the new regulations” - says Anna Roggenbuck, Green Federation Gaja

HELCOM accepted CCB's proposal and decided also to assess the implementation of existing regulations with regard to large scale animal farms in all Baltic Sea Region countries, and investigate the possibilities and need to develop BAT (Best Available Technology) description for smaller animal farms, not covered by the IPPC directive.

For more information contact:
Gunnar Norén, CCB Executive secretary,
phone +46-18-71 11 70, mobile +46-70-560 53 52; gunnar.noren@ccb.se

HELCOM announces Action Plan for Baltic Sea

2005-03-04T23:27:00.000+01:00

************************************************************************
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM)
************************************************************************

PRESS RELEASE:
HELCOM to develop Action Plan for the Baltic Sea

Dispatched March 3, 2005; for Immediate release

Helsinki, 3 March (HELCOM) – The Chair of the Helsinki Commission, Mr Arturas Daubaras announced today that HELCOM will begin to develop an Action Plan based on Ecological Quality Objectives in order to achieve a healthy Baltic Sea. This decision was unanimously adopted by representatives of all the Baltic Sea countries at the 26th annual Meeting of the Helsinki Commission, which took place 1-2 March in Helsinki, Finland. The draft European Marine Strategy, now being elaborated by the EU, foresees a separate action plan for each of the European seas. “HELCOM from now on will take the lead and play a key role, involving all stakeholders, in the development of the regional plan for the Baltic,” said Arturas Daubaras.

It was decided that the ongoing HELCOM work to develop Ecological Quality Objectives for the Baltic will provide the foundation for such an Action Plan. The Ecological Quality and associated indicators will be used to evaluate the efficiency of the existing environmental measures and to guide the future management measures for the region.

The Meeting adopted three new Recommendations on measures to prevent pollution in the Baltic Sea area.
The Recommendation on monitoring radioactive substance has been designed to support further efforts to protect the Baltic Sea against the possible harmful effects of radioactive substances by facilitating the compilation of reliable data on radionuclides in the different compartments of the marine environment.
The Recommendation on waterborne pollution load will require HELCOM countries to collect more reliable assessments of the waterborne loads of pollutants entering the Baltic Sea from land-based sources in order to facilitate concerted action to limit the pollution of the marine environment.
The third adopted Recommendation extends, as of 1 January 2006, the so called "no-special-fee" system, which has so far only covered oily wastes from machinery spaces, to also encompass garbage and sewage generated on ships. The no-special-fee system has the dual purpose of encouraging ships to dispose of their waste ashore instead of into the sea, while also encouraging that the waste burden is suitably shared, thus avoiding undesirable waste streams between ports. Such measures are vital in the implementation of the Baltic Strategy, which aims to substantially reduce the number of operational and illegal polluting discharges at sea.

One of the most important discussions at the Meeting focused on ways to enhance cooperation and coordination between the Helsinki Commission and the EU in order to ensure that hazardous substances threatening the Baltic Sea environment are adequately addressed at appropriate level. Representatives of the coastal countries discussed proposals for drawing the attention of the European Community to issues of specific concern to the Baltic Sea, such as dioxins. In addition, the Meeting emphasized the need to scrutinize whether proposed EU measures fully cover the needs of the unique Baltic Sea or if more specific hand-tailored HELCOM measures are required.

Representatives of the Baltic Sea States also discussed further measures to reduce airborne nitrogen based on a report identifying sources and assessing the adequacy of requirements for these particular sources of airborne nitrogen. About a quarter of the total nitrogen input to the Baltic Sea is coming from airborne nitrogen deposited directly on the Baltic Sea. As a significant share of the pollution entering the Baltic Sea originates in non-Contracting Parties, the Meeting also emphasized the importance of enhancing cooperation with Belarus, Ukraine and the Czech Republic.

The Helsinki Commission, or HELCOM, works to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental co-operation between the countries bordering the sea - Denmark, Estonia, the European Community, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden.
HELCOM is the governing body of the "Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area," more usually known as the Helsinki Convention.

For more information, please contact:

Nikolay Vlasov
Information Secretary
HELCOM
Tel.: +358 (0) 9 62 20 2235
Mobile: +358 (0) 50 56 34 932
Fax: +358 9 6220 2239
E-mail: nikolay.vlasov@helcom.fi
(Information source: Environmental Network "Coalition Clean Baltic" CCB, Östra ?gatan 53, SE-753 22 UPPSALA, SwedenPhone: +46 18 71 11 55Fax: +46 18 71 11 75 www.ccb.se)

Pressure on russian scientists - Additional information

2005-02-08T14:06:00.000+01:00

To: whom it may concern
Topic: Pressure to Russian scientists
February 8, 2005
Sosnovy Bor, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Russia

Open message from Russian NGOs,

Dears Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have written about our disturbances because of contacts of the Green Europarliament with director of Sociological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences A. V. Tikhonov in our previous letters.
He was invited by the Greens in Europarliament to Brussels to discuss the project "Investigating
Transboundary Pollutant Transportation in Baltic States: an Example of Integrated Assessment of the Environment and Predicting Possible Consequences of Extraordinary Natural and Man caused Situation in the North-West Region (Pskov, Novgorod, Leningrad, Kaliningrad) Russia and the Frontier Countries".
These were not “insinuations against the project and against the Mr. Tikhonov” which “might be more based on internal intrigues and academic and environmental micro cosmos in St. Petersburg than on other things”, as Mr. Frank Schwalba-Hoth writes in his return letter on February 4, 2005.
We only apply to our Western European colleagues to pay attention at dangerous political changes that happen in Russia and remind us events in Germany in the beginning of 1930s.

A wave of spy-mania has grown in Russia lately. A number of cases grow when scholars are
accused groundlessly of spying, disclosure of state secrets or illegal export of processing technologies.
More then 30 Russian NGOs made a special statement concerning such cases in January 2005.
And The Public Committee on Protection of Scholars was founded in Moscow.

Unfortunately, heads of some research institutions either are indifferent to persecution of their
workers by the Federal Security Service (FSB) or actively cooperate with FSB. In some cases
such positions of the heads helped FSB to fabricate cases when scholars were prosecuted and
got large terms of jail (cases of I. Sutiagin and V. Danilov who are imprisoned for 14 and 15 years correspondingly). On the one hand, such heads support secret services staying in Russia, and,
on the other hand, they speak about their adherence to democratic ideals when visiting Western countries and try to find their niches in international programs and projects.

Sending information on A. V. Tikhonov to the Greens in Europarliament, we only intended to pay attention of the deputies at an existence of such a problem and a necessity to be more careful choosing partners for cooperation in Russia. We do not have any doubt in high qualification and personal honesty of Mr. Frank Schwalba-Hoth who singed an invitation for A. V. Tikhonov to come to Brussels (look to the separate attach file). We just point out at a shortage of information on the contemporary Russian situation among Western public. And we had a goal to fill in this information gap.

Sincerely,

Oleg Bodrov, NGO Green World Chairman, member of International Socio-Ecological Union, Coalition Clean Baltic member, Sosnovy Bor – St. Petersburg, Russia, Phone/fax +7 81369 72991, mobile: +7 921 74 52 631,
e-mail: Bodrov@sbor.net , http://www.greenworld.org.ru/ , http://www.decomatom.org.ru/
Prof. Alexey Yablokov, President, Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, phone/fax: +7 095 9528019

Alexander Nikitin, NGO Bellona, Chairperson of the Russian office , St. Petersburg, Russia, phone/fax: +7 812 327 28 43

(a document, showing the invitation letter of Mr Schwalba-Hoth to Mr Tichonow has been attached to this message. It is available from Oleg Bodrov directly, or by request to post@infobalt.de)