Lithuania: Let the CBSS die

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?

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.

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

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)