|
Каспинфо декабрь 2001 |
|
Название: Экологические проблемы Каспия на англ. языке Главные Пункты: * Р.Биддл, менеджер по безопасности и охране окружающей среды ТШО, считает, что сера, накапливающаяся на месторождении Тенгиз, не оказывает серьезного воздействия на здоровье людей. Экологи утверждают, что повышение уровня смертности среди работников ТШО и местного населения связано с огромным количеством сухой серы на Тенгизе. * Основные проблемы современного экологического законодательства Казахстана: - Закон о защите окружающей среды дозволяет нефтедобычу в заповедной зоне Северного Каспия без ограничений ; - В существующем законодательстве не предусматривается права граждан и НПО требовать возмещения ущерба, нанесенного природным объектам; - В законодательстве не проработаны вопросы расчета ущерба, наносимого окружающей среде. * В целях устойчивого развития Каспийского региона объем добычи нефти на Каспии должен быть ограничен. Способы ограничения добычи нефти: - каждая страна добывает столько нефти, сколько может переработать сама; - недопустимо увеличение грузоподъемности нефтяных танкеров на Каспии; все морские и прибрежные сооружения, связанные с добычей и транспортировкой нефти, должны контролироваться, в т. ч. общественностью; - необходимы трансграничные механизмы борьбы с разливами и возмещения всех ущербов по принципу "загрязнитель платит", в том числе через создание международного фонда экологического страхования для Каспия. * Из-за сокращения поставок осетровой икры из стран Прикаспия все больше эксплуатируются североамериканские ресурсы осетровых, заявил К.Хувер (TRAFFIC - Северная Америка), поэтому они сейчас нуждаются в дополнительной защите. В связи с этим WWF призывает потребителей не покупать браконьерскую черную икру. (20.12.2001) Полный Текст Экологические проблемы Каспия на англ. языке Экологические проблемы Каспия на англ. языке *** Kazakstan accused of sacrificing health, environment to boost oil earnings Monday, December 10, 2001 By BRUCE STANLEY, AP Business Writer TENGIZ OIL FIELD, Kazakstan--As production surges at Kazakstan's biggest oil field, so too does an incongruous eyesore -- 35-foot-tall slabs of yellow sulfur next to the field's pipelines and storage tanks. The sulfur is a byproduct of the poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas found along with the oil pumped at Tengiz, an area of semi-desert where this former swath of the Soviet Union meets the Caspian Sea in central Asia. TengizChevroil, the company operating here, insists the sulfur -- all 4.5 million tons of it -- is at worst an irritant to the eyes and skin. "It is not a long-term health risk," said Rick Biddle, safety and environment manager for the joint-venture, in which U.S. energy groups Chevron Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. have a combined 75 percent stake. But some of the country's small band of environmentalists argue that mortality rates are unusually high for people working at Tengiz and living nearby. They suspect the sulfurous monoliths and see them as one more reason to worry about the dangers Kazakstan faces in maximizing output of crude, its main money earner. "Only an illiterate person or a soulless criminal can speak about the harmlessness of huge piles of dry sulfur at Tengiz," said biologist Andrei Scheikin of the EcoBioMed Center, a Kazak non-governmental group that monitors public health and the environment. The stakes have risen since the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States, the world's biggest consumer of oil. Concerns about the stability of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern crude suppliers have reinforced Washington's interest in the Caspian region as a potential supplementary source. Kazakstan's estimated 15 billion barrels of proven oil reserves are second only to Russia's among former Soviet nations. TengizChevroil pumps 270,000 million barrels of oil a day at Tengiz and aims to produce 700,000 barrels a day by 2010. A pipeline connecting Tengiz with the Russian port of Novorossiisk formally opened Nov. 27, providing much-needed access to European markets. Environmentalists say the oil industry endangers the Caspian Sea itself, where at least one spill at the newly discovered Kashagan field has threatened wild seals and sturgeon, the ancient fish famed for its caviar. Among the foreign companies drilling at Kashagan are Phillips Petroleum Co., Exxon Mobil and Italy's Agip SpA. "They know well what powder keg they are on," said Makhambet Khakimov, head of Caspian Nature, a local environmental group. Khakimov said a blowout in 1986 at an oil well in the area near Tengiz killed about a million birds, and he alleged that workers here have died at twice the rate for the rest of the region since TengizChevroil took over the field eight years ago. The government plans to relocate residents of a nearby town, Karaton, as a precaution against a possible accident at Tengiz, said Kazakstan's deputy energy minister, Bulat Elamanov. However, TengizChevroil's general director, Tom Winterton, defended his company as a model investor and employer. He cited a government study suggesting the death rate among his company's employees is just one-fourth that of Kazakstan's national average. The 3,000 workers receive good food and free medical care while at Tengiz, and are restricted in their consumption of alcohol. Winterton said his company closely monitors air pollution and argued that its emissions, while high, have caused no harm to nearby residents. Biddle, the company's safety manager, rated the company's impact on the environment as "insignificant." Some activists say the government is wary of stifling growth in its most lucrative industry and has suppressed data showing the true extent of the problems. Kazakstan's record of environmental blight reinforces their concerns. A Soviet-era project to irrigate cotton fields with water from the Aral Sea is turning the inland sea on Kazakstan's border with Uzbekistan into a crater. The Soviet Union had its biggest testing ground for nuclear weapons at Semipalatinsk in eastern Kazakstan, where residents and their descendants have suffered extremely high rates of cancer and other illnesses. The country was also home to the world's biggest factory for making anthrax bacteria, until the early 1990s. Some Kazaks fear the Caspian region, with its potential wealth of oil and natural gas, could already be paying a steep price for relentless exploitation. Post-mortem examinations of the bodies of people who lived close to Tengiz in western Kazakstan reveal a "chronic impact of toxins" in the liver, kidneys, lungs and brain, said Scheikin at the EcoBioMed Center. Life has become "impossible" for those who remain in the area, he said. Stephen Mitchell, a toxicology expert at Imperial College in London, is skeptical the sulfur slabs of Tengiz are to blame. He said prolonged exposure to dry sulfur probably would be cause only irritations of the skin, eyes and lungs. Even so, the slabs present a peculiar monument to the boom in Kazakstan's oil patch. TengizChevroil extracts the sulfur from hydrogen sulfide to neutralize the toxic gas. It liquefies the sulfur and then lets it harden into neat, rectangular mounds, some of them larger than a football field. The result is a canary-yellow ghost town -- ersatz office blocks on a grid of empty streets. The slabs grow a little bigger with every barrel of crude pumped at Tengiz. Copyright 2001, Associated Press All Rights ReservedMore ENN news ENN is a registered trademark of the Environmental News Network Inc. Copyright © 2001 Environmental News Network Inc. *** Point of View Why has the Law not Become a Instrument for Environmental Protection? by Galina Chernova, NGO "Kaspii Tabigati" Atyrau, Kazakhstan As new players (primarily oil companies) move into the Caspian region, the need to resolve environmental issues surrounding the Sea is heightened. In the Caspian the rules of the game have not been established and no mechanisms of control and regulation over oil companies working in the region exist. The complex and controversial issue of the legal status of the Caspian Sea results from the North Caspian's historical ties to the fishing and agricultural industries. Until recently, these two industries etablished nature conservation legislation in this region. In the 1930s, the fishing industry was developed in the Caspian. The first 50 years of which produced regulations protecting sturgeon spawing and reproduction. In addition, in 1958-65, a moratorium on sturgeon catches was established which continues today. In 1971, at the Ramsar Convention on Wet Lands, the Soviet Union and Iran signed an agreement pledging responsibility for the protection of these lands. This agreement continues to possess international significance today. During the 1970s, the Northern Caspian, including the highly productive Volga delta and Ural River regions, was declared an economic priority zone in anticipation of heavy aquaculture development and transportation. As a precaution, authorities banned the exploration and extraction of raw materials in this region. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, every country located in the Caspian basin adopted their own environmental laws. After claiming independence in 1991, Kazakhstan was one of the first countries to reform its environmental legislation. The protection these laws provide for the average citizen will be analyzed in this article. Since 1991, the original Environmental Protection Law for the Repulic of Kazakhstan, has been reviewed twice by Parliment, yet it is still difficult to understand the working language of the law. Though the underlying principle of the law holds that every person who resides in Kazakhstan has the right to a healthy environment, the revised edition of the Environmental Protection Law from July 15, 1997, does not articulate a mechanism for securing these rights. However, the original law of 1991, anticipated this and therefore assigned the responsiblity for "implementing environmental politics and programs for Kazakhstan and securing the environmental rights of all citizens" to a local Council of Citizen Deputies. After the revised edition of the law was approved in court, no one took responsiblity for the quality of the environment or the rights of citizens; no one took responsibility for the deaths of the Caspian seal, the presence of heavy metals in drinking water, supranormal emissions of polluted substances in Tengiz, etc. Ultimately, this law does not ask for anything from anyone! The 1991 Environmental Protection Law was the first in the country to introduce the concept of "crimes against the environment." In principle, Parliament clearly outlined and forbade such crimes, though in practice their actions did not reflect these sentiments. Consider those additions and changes to the Environmental Protection Law, which are currently being carried out by the Parliament in Kazakhstan. Today the implementation of the law is outlined in article 48, regarding protected zones in the Northern Caspian. This article allows oil companies to carry out exploratory drilling in these zones and produce raw hydrocarbons without compliance of special environmental regulations made by the Ruling Government July 3, 1999. These regulations address issues of marine exploration, use and conservation of resources, filtering emissions, bioresource protection, envirnomental monitoring, community participation and environmental assessment, liquidation of hydrocarbon spills, and production standards and regulations. It is understood that disregarding the status of protected territories can lead to the following: the hazardous conditions already mentioned in this article; a weakening legal mechanism for the protection of the north-eastern part of the Caspian Sea; and the abolition of the North Caspian's protected status, allowing for oil production in the region to go unchecked. This would also leave the region's vulnerable wildlife species without protection from TNCs. The lack of adherance to and enforcement of these laws and regulations will result in the complete disappearance of the Caspian's unique ecosystem. The real issue in this case is how nature and the population can be appropriately compensated for the environmental damage they have experienced and how that value can ever be calculated. The law, "On Damaged Natural Territories" has separate articles that regulate "compensation from environmental damage" to citizens' health and property. However, this law does not include the rights of citizens and NGOs to demand compensation for harm done to nature. NGOs who support the protection and conservation of natural resources and national parks, are only able to file for compensation in the case of immediate harm to people, not the environment itself. In the case of removing protected zone status from the North Caspian, it is difficult to determine exactly what is stated in the law. It is obvious that if production is hazardous and may result in oil spills, accidents, and ultimately the distruction of flora and fauna, the law insures citizens against environmental damage. However, no law establishes such insurance and financial compensation in the case of distruction or harm done to the environment. How can legislation providing for damaged territories be effective in a country that has no official environmental policy or legislation protecting the environment? *** May 2001 Topic of Focus Caspian for Everyone It is important to note right away that there may be different understandings of the word "everyone" for the Caspian. Everyone could refer to the Transcaspian governments, everyone could mean the potential consumers of Caspian oil, everyone might refer to the residents of the Transcaspian countries. We propose that "Caspian for Everyone" refer to future generations. Our suggestion is based on one of the fundamental principles of sustainable development: "Today's development should meet current needs, while not jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs." (UN Declaration on the Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 1992). The concept of sustainable development is only now beginning to have resonance for the countries of the Caspian basin. Today there is much talk of the "Caspian Alternative;" the choice between utilizing oil and gas extraction or "other resources of the Sea" for regional economic development. The latter choice includes development of the fishing industry (especially sturgeon for caviar) and "recreational resources" such as ecotourism. Few argue with the opinion that the unique Caspian environment is in and of itself the greatest resource but throughout the entire world, people from various political, social, and economic backgrounds act primarily on material interests. In this context, ecologists are obligated to prove the economic inadvisability of environmentally hazardous projects. Therefore, it is necessary that we address not only the environmental, but also economic problems we face when selecting a path of development for the Caspian region. Everyone understands that "Big Oil" eliminates the remaining paths of development for the Caspian, due not only to environmental, but also economic reasons. Only those involved in the oil extraction business, including the energy monopoly and transnational corporations (TNCs), fail to see the situation this way. Using the following examples, we will demonstrate our environmental position: 1. The cost of constructing pipelines to deliver reserves to the world market amounts to billions of dollars (for example, the Turkmenistan Transcaspian gas pipeline to Turkey costs $2.5 billion; the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline between $3.3 and $3.5 billion). The pipelines may be built on credit, which will need to be repaid or at the expense of the companies that construct the pipelines, who will calculate this sum from the value of the oil pumped. 2. In order for such a project to pay for itself over 5-8 years (this occurs when credit debt is paid off and the project begins producing a profit), the pipeline needs to pump approximately 50 million tons of oil per year; that is five to eight times more than is currently being extracted in Turkmenistan and three to four times more than is presently being extracted in Azerbaijan. (Despite the widespread advertising of Azerbaijan's oil fields, it is already clear that such volumes are realistic only for Kazakhstan, in otherwords the north Caspian). 3. Such examples can mean only one thing--all efforts must be thrown towards attracting large-scale investment to increase extraction. In this process, reducations in the pace of drilling for the development of the fishing, recreation or ecotourism industries will not be accepted. Too much money has already been invested in oil projects. At the same time, it is important to address the question of whose money is being invested and and whose interests these projects serve. There are very simple arguments for why Caspian oil development needs the West: 1. The primary consumers of oil are the wealthy western countries (as defined in the economic, rather than geographic, sense, therefore including Japan). 2. The majority of the oil extracted in the East (again, in the economic sense) is produced by the OPEC member countries, chiefly in the Persian Gulf. 3. The East is an unstable region, a fact that had a significant impact on the West during the energy crisis of the 1970s. A combination of regional conflict and early attempts by oil extracting countries to unite has led to a sharp increase in the price of oil, global economic crisis, etc. 4. Since then, the West has worked to decrease its dependence on the East. This has led, in particular, to increasedoil production in the West itself (Alaska, the North Sea, etc.), the escalated role of atomic energy, and a warming trend in the West's relations with socialist countries. 5. A secondary consequence has been the intensified influence of TNCs involved in oil extraction, several of which rank on par with various governments in terms of economic power. As a result of these trends, the following scenario exists today in the Caspian: oil is being extracted at the maximum potential volume and, in its crude form, is being pumped into pipelines via "loyal" Western countries. There are generally few export pipelines in operation today (the CPC pipeline from Baku to Novorossisk and the as of yet low-volume Baku-Supsa). Once new pipelines are laid, a pyramid structure will be created, in which control over regulation and management will be located not in the oil extraction regions and not even within the Transcaspian governments, but somewhere in the offices of TNC executives. The West will have the power to lower the global price of oil. In fact, we have been invited to participate in projects, which would lower our own percentage of revenues from oil extraction and take control of our natural resources. In return, they promise us certain illusory revenues. In this scenario, the economy of every Transcaspian country will depend on the status of the global oil market. This market is controlled by many factors, for example, the quantity of automobiles sold in the world, the development of energy conservation technologies, stock market speculation, etc. An examination of the economic situation in the Caspian from a transboundary perspective reveals that practically the entire northern portion of the Sea is impacted by the Volga, with its freshwater, shallow depths and distinct north-south flow. In addition to freshwater, the Volga brings all the pollutants it has accumulated upstream to the Sea. Furthermore, in the north Caspian, the river splits divides; one arm flows toward Kazakhstan's shores, while the other travels along the coast of Azerbaijan, moving south to Iran and then turning towards the shores of Turkmenistan. Therefore, a major accident or a series of smaller oil spills in any portion of the Caspian will inevitably lead to pollution transcending borders and ceasing to be a "domestic matter." As one of the principles of the Rio Declaration reads, "Governments have the sovereign right to develop their own resources, but without threat to the environment beyond their borders." Accepting the fact that any pollution in the Caspian has an impact on the entire basin, we understand that the environmental threat of a project should be calculated to include the entire Caspian ecosystem. And this inevitably leads to the sharp rise in cost of any oil extraction project in the region, and renders many of them unacceptable according to socio-ecological criteria as well as economic parameters. Here are just a few examples of the environmental factors contributing to this "rise in cost," which elevates Caspian issues to the global level: the paths of millions of birds that migrate through the Caspian, their nesting habitats in the Caspian's shallow waters, and the unique sturgeon population have all been subject to negative influences. It is clear that for the Caspian region to embrace the concept of "sustainable development" oil extraction must be sharply curtailed. The first step towards such a reduction may be regional market capacity for oil production. Simply put, this means that every country extracts only as much oil as it can refine. In a more complex scenario, oil exchange is allowed between countries. In a best-case senario, the "no transportation" method is applied, in which delivering oil to the global market costs practically nothing and has minimal impact on the environment of the Caspian or Black Seas. Moreover, it would be highly desirable for oil extraction in the Caspian to be limited by the following types of environmental factors or minimal risk indicators: 1. An intolerable increase in the carrying capacity of oil tankers in the Caspian (a large tanker accident could result in an environmental catastrophe for the entire Sea). 2. All offshore and onshore equipment related to the extraction and transportation of oil needs to be strictly controlled. 3. Hydrocarbon drilling and extraction in the Sea must be minimized and conducted with maximum safety precautions, including employing the best technology. 4. In the most environmentally vulnerable portions of the Sea, oil development must be stopped. Ideally, it would be desirable to calculate and introduce maximum permissible quotas for oil extraction and transportation throughout the entire Sea and for its individual parts. This calculation should be based on the maximum allowable concentrations of hydrocarbons in the water, the maximum quantity of "expected" wastes, and risk evaluations of spills and accidents. In accordance with generally accepted calculations, for every million tons of oil extracted, an average of 131.4 tons of waste are produced (this figure is currently significantly higher in the Caspian). In the event of any "unexpected" spills, there needs to be a rapid decrease in the number of "expected" leaks, meaning that extraction and transportation must be curtailed. A transborder mechanism to liquidate spills needs to be created and included with all threats under the "polluter pays" principle, including the creation of an international Caspian fund for environmental compensation. The preservation of the Caspian Sea's unique ecosystem and the environmentally sound use of its natural resources should underlie the concept of sustainable development for the Caspian. The Sea and all its wealth will be preserved for everyone, only if the residents of the Transcaspian protect it for themselves. Timor Burkeliev, representative of ISAR-Central Asia, Turkmenistan Aleksey Knizhnikov, ISAR-Moscow *** CAVIAR NOT ON GREEN GIFT LISTS WASHINGTON, DC, December 21, 2001 (ENS) - Overfishing and illegal trade in sturgeon eggs have combined to make caviar a poor choice for holiday gifts and gatherings, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) says. The conservation group notes that sturgeon stocks in the Caspian Sea, the principal source of the world's caviar, have experienced serious declines. The caviar trade is also placing increasing pressure on North American sturgeon species, WWF says. The majority of the world's caviar comes from the Caspian Sea - a landlocked water body surrounded by Iran, the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. As sturgeon populations in the Caspian Sea plummet, they are being fished in other waters - including in North America, home to several sturgeon species. Most sturgeon species are threatened to some degree, and some species are considered critically endangered. Since April 1998, all sturgeon worldwide have been listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the principal regulatory body for global trade in threatened species. Despite this protection, caviar is still traded on a lucrative black market. The Caspian Sea has accounted for 95 percent of world caviar production, but harvest has fallen in recent years as supplies have dwindled. Catch levels peaked at about 30,000 tons in the late 1970s, but have now fallen to less than one-tenth that volume. As a result of international pressure to control overexploitation of sturgeon stocks, the five countries agreed in June to halt all sturgeon fishing in the Caspian for the rest of 2001. Only caviar produced prior to June is allowed for export this year, and only Iran, whose sturgeon management program and CITES enforcement was found adequate, is exempt from these new requirements. The United States has imported between 82 and 125 tons of caviar in each of the last three years, primarily from the Russian Federation. "Because global demand outstrips the current Caspian supply, North American species such as paddlefish, Atlantic and shovelnose sturgeon are increasingly exploited for their roe, which are also sources of caviar," said Craig Hoover, deputy director of TRAFFIC North America, WWF's wildlife trade monitoring program. "Like the Caspian Sea species, North American sturgeon are currently under review by CITES to determine whether or not their populations are being harmed by overfishing and trade. We don't want to repeat past mistakes," Hoover added. WWF urges consumers to use caution when buying imported caviar, as it is difficult to distinguish between illegal and legal products. Consumers should ask where the caviar comes from and if the trader does not know, they should not buy it, WWF says. "Consumers play a key role in protecting sturgeon and ensuring that there will be caviar available for special occasions well into the next century," said Ginette Hemley, WWF's vice president for species conservation. http://ens-news.com/ens/dec2001/2001L-12-21-09.html |