WWW.KN.LIB-I.RU
БЕСПЛАТНАЯ  ИНТЕРНЕТ  БИБЛИОТЕКА - Различные ресурсы
 

Pages:     | 1 || 3 |

«К Третьему совещанию сторон Орхусской конвенции For the Third Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention The Ecological Society Green ...»

-- [ Страница 2 ] --

Письменные запросы – это наиболее длительный, но пока самый действенный способ получения экологической информации. Другие методы ее получения – электронная почта, Интернет – пока еще остаются неэффективными средствами распространения информации. Кроме того, письменные ответы, в случае возникновения споров или конфликтных ситуаций, На примере деятельности Экологического общества «Зеленое спасение».

являются документами, которые можно предъявить даже в суде.

Однако нужно учитывать, что и письменная информация часто бывает неполной и некачественной.

Основная тематика запросов Экологического общества «Зеленое спасение» касается:

- состояния особо охраняемых природных территорий;

- реализации различных проектов, в том числе, непосредственно влияющих на особо охраняемые природные территории;

- воздействия промышленных предприятий на окружающую среду, включая оценку воздействия хозяйственной деятельности;

- состояния окружающей среды в населенных пунктах (качества атмосферного воздуха, водных ресурсов, почвенного покрова);

- состояния здоровья и экологической безопасности людей;

- вопросов разъяснения природоохранного законодательства;

- нарушений природоохранного законодательства;

- действий государственных органов по решению тех или иных экологических проблем и др.

В соответствии с Орхусской конвенцией вся эта информация должна быть легкодоступной!



В течение 2005 года организацией было направлено 103 запроса в государственные органы. На большинство из них были получены ответы. В некоторых случаях чиновники отказались предоставить информацию или вовсе не ответили на письма.

В связи с этим, «Зеленое спасение» вынуждено было дважды обратиться в суд, чтобы добиться предоставления информации.

Иск к Комитету лесного и охотничьего хозяйства Министерства сельского хозяйства связан с непредоставлением информации по статистическому отчету формы № 1 учета лесного фонда по природному парку «Медеу». Иск был принят к рассмотрению. Информация получена до начала судебного разбирательства.

Другой иск – к прокурору Алмалинского района города Алматы – вызван тем, что районная прокуратура проигнорировала запрос, касающийся разъяснения статьи закона «Об экологической экспертизе». Необходимая информация получена в процессе судебного разбирательства.

В течение 2006 года организацией было направлено 66 запросов на экологическую информацию в государственные органы и международные финансовые институты. По сравнению с 2005 годом ситуация практически не изменилась.

Переписка часто приобретала затяжной характер. В четырех случаях пришлось обращаться в суд.

Республиканская Санитарно-эпидемиологическая станция, ссылаясь на конфиденциальность, отказалась предоставить копию заключения санитарно-эпидемиологической экспертизы на проект «Предварительная оценка воздействия на окружающую среду к ТЭО строительства Мойнакской ГЭС на реке Чарын». Строительство водохранилища и ГЭС может оказать отрицательное воздействие на экологические системы Чарынского государственного национального природного парка и привести к деградации уникального памятника природы республиканского значения – «Чарынской ясеневой рощи».2 Комитет водных ресурсов проигнорировал запрос о предоставлении некоторых материалов проекта строительства Мойнакской ГЭС на реке Чарын, направленных на государственную экологическую экспертизу.3 Акимат города Алматы не ответил на запрос о мерах, принимаемых в связи с многочисленными жалобами жителей микрорайона Горный Гигант. Они требуют демонтировать ВЛ 110 кВ.





Акимат города Алматы не выдал организации решение акима о предоставлении земельного участка под строительство частного жилого дома в водоохранной полосе реки Есентай.

Информация требовалась для рассмотрения жалобы жителей микрорайона Горный Гигант и предотвращения незаконного строительства в воодохранной полосе.

Надо отметить, что все иски были удовлетворены, действия госорганов признаны неправомерными и запрашиваемая информация предоставлена.

В 2007 году было направлено 125 запросов. В шести случаях пришлось обратиться повторно. Не все представители государственных органов ответственно подошли к своим обязанностям. По нескольким запросам получить информацию http://www.greensalvation.org/old/Russian/Facts/H_rights/isk_ rses/isk_rses_13.04.06.htm http://www.greensalvation.org/old/Russian/Facts/H_rights/isk_ vod%20komitet/zaiavlenie.htm так и не удалось, поэтому в суды было подано шесть исков.

Управление статистики Западно-Казахстанской области, ссылаясь на конфиденциальность, отказалось предоставить информацию по выбросам загрязняющих веществ в атмосферу предприятием «Карачаганак Петролеум Оперейтинг Б.В.».

Специализированный межрайонный экономический суд (СМЭС) и вышестоящие судебные инстанции ЗападноКазахстанской области в удовлетворении исковых требований отказали. Верховный Суд удовлетворил надзорную жалобу, информация получена.4 Управление статистики Карагандинской области, ссылаясь на конфиденциальность, отказалось предоставить информацию по выбросам загрязняющих веществ предприятием АО «Миттал Стил Темиртау». Все судебные инстанции в удовлетворении исковых требований отказали.

Акимат города Алматы не предоставил информацию о строительстве новой канатной дороги для доставки отдыхающих от «Медеу» до горнолыжной базы «Шымбулак» (другое написание – Чимбулак). Ответчик передал информацию на судебном заседании.

ТОО «Центрбетон» не предоставило данные по производственному экологическому контролю, в том числе, сведения по воздействию предприятия на здоровье населения.

Суд вынес решение об удовлетворении иска. Информация предоставлена.

Дочернее государственное предприятие «АлматыгорНПЦзем»

не предоставило копию государственного акта на право частной собственности на земельный участок, выделенный в водоохранной полосе, а также информацию о регистрации участка в «Центре по недвижимости по городу Алматы». СМЭС отказал в удовлетворении исковых требований. Надзорная коллегия Алматинского городского суда частично удовлетворила жалобу. Информация получена.

Акимат города Алматы не предоставил информацию о планируемом строительстве курортно-горнолыжной базы «Кокжайлау» на территории Иле-Алатауского национального парка.5 Суд вынес заочное решение об удовлетворении иска, но информация предоставлена не полностью.

http://www.greensalvation.org/index.php?page=VSpostanovlenie http://www.greensalvation.org/index.php?page=kokzhaylau Опираясь на опыт «Зеленого спасения» можно сделать следующие выводы.

1. Государственные чиновники порой произвольно трактуют положения национального законодательства, например понятие «конфиденциальная информация».

«Зеленое спасение» обратилось в Министерство охраны окружающей среды, к акиму Западно-Казахстанской области и в международный консорциум «Карачаганак Петролеум Оперейтинг Б.В.» с просьбой предоставить копию меморандума о взаимопонимании, заключенного ими. Министерство и консорциум отказали в предоставлении информации, ссылаясь на ее конфиденциальность, а Акимат предоставил документ.6 Аналогичная ситуация сложилась, когда организация направила запрос о предоставлении меморандума о взаимопонимании и взаимодействии между Министерством охраны окружающей среды, Акиматом Карагандинской области и АО «Миттал Стил Темиртау». Министерство – отказало, компания запрос проигнорировала, Акимат текст меморандума предоставил.

На наш взгляд подобная информация должна быть легко доступна. Например, ее можно разместить на веб-сайте Министерства охраны окружающей среды (http://nature.kz/).

2. Сайты государственных органов не всегда располагают информацией, достаточной для принятия решений, поэтому приходится готовить большое количество запросов.

3. Чаще всего запросы на информацию игнорируют органы местной исполнительной власти, особенно в крупных городах.

4. Ответы часто не содержат исчерпывающей информации, что вынуждает направлять дополнительные запросы.

5. Обращения в судебные органы часто позволяют добиться получения информации, но не гарантируют ее полноту и качество. За счет обращения в суды процесс получения информации затягивается на долгие месяцы, что мешает оперативному принятию решений и затрудняет деятельность организации.

Материал подготовила Светлана Спатарь.

http://www.greensalvation.org/old/Russian/Facts/Documents/ memor_karachag_rus.htm;

http://www.greensalvation.org/old/English/Facts/Documents/ memor_karachag29.06.05.htm Приложение 4.

Прощай, всемирное наследие, или Экоцид в целях личной наживы.

Экоцид – преднамеренное интенсивное разрушение и загрязнение природной среды, создающее угрозу экологической катастрофы. Именно так можно охарактеризовать ситуацию в Малом Алматинском ущелье (рядом с городом Алматы), которая сложилась в результате отсутствия последовательной политики охраны наиболее ценных природных территорий в Республике Казахстан.

В 1996 году в целях сохранения и восстановления уникальных природных комплексов Заилийского Алатау, имеющих особую экологическую, историческую, научную, эстетическую и рекреационную ценность, правительство Казахстана приняло постановление о создании Иле-Алатауского национального парка (22 февраля 1996, № 228). Правда, не была установлена буферная зона вдоль его границ, не был утвержден порядок вынесения посторонних землепользователей с территории парка. Но и «Москва не сразу строилась». Главное – многолетние усилия специалистов, ученых, общественности увенчались успехом и, казалось, что появилась реальная возможность надежно защитить красоту и богатства природы… Но, как известно, «благими намерениями вымощена дорога в ад».

Уже через два года, в 1998 году, указом президента (29 апреля 1998, № 3929) «Об изменении границ города Алматы» 57,9 гектаров Иле-Алтауского национального парка в Малом Алматинском ущелье были переданы в административное подчинение городу. Эти земли не утратили статус природоохранной территории республиканского значения. Поэтому внешне все выглядело как оптимизация административного управления. Лишь позже стал понятен истинный смысл этих метаморфоз.

1 октября 1999 года в целях сохранения особой ландшафтноэкологической, рекреационной и научной ценности урочища Медеу, а также снижения антропогенного загрязнения и нагрузок на его территорию аким города Алматы принял решение о создании природного парка «Медеу» (1 октября 1999, № 906). Для этого шага было подготовлено хитроумное обоснование: «Создание парка «Медеу» является мерой, направленной на защиту национального парка «ИлеАлатау» от чрезмерного пресса рекреации, «оттягивания»

от естественных природных территорий рекреационных потоков…» (Естественно-научное обоснование…, с.144).

Вспомнили и о буферной зоне национального парка. Нет, ее не установили. По задумке разработчиков именно такую функцию в Малом Алматинском ущелье должен выполнять парк «Медеу», создаваемый на городской территории и узкой полосой вклинивающийся в Иле-Алатауский национальный парк.

31 января 2000 года на общественных слушаниях обсуждался план создания парка «Медеу». Специалисты «Казгипролесхоза», «Леспроекта», руководство Иле-Алатауского государственного национального природного парка и представители НПО (в том числе Экологического общества «Зеленое спасение») выразили отрицательное отношение к идее его создания. Они заявили, что организация данной структуры нецелесообразна.

Это приведет к увеличению антропогенных нагрузок на территорию национального парка и снижению эффективности природоохранных мер в урочище Медеу в целом.

Опасения общественности усилились после ознакомления с результатами работы совместной коллегии Министерства природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды (МПРООС) и Генеральной прокуратуры, посвященной анализу соблюдения законности на особо охраняемых природных территориях (Справка и решение…). Коллегия признала многочисленные факты нарушения законодательства, в том числе и в ИлеАлатауском национальном парке.

Общественность, озабоченная ухудшением ситуации в урочище Медеу, пыталась привлечь внимание руководства страны к проблеме. В сентябре 2000 года участники Второго экологического форума неправительственных организаций Казахстана обратились к президенту, членам парламента, министру природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды с требованием прекратить разрушение территориальной и экологической целостности Иле-Алатауского национального парка (Обращение…). Защищая парк, общественность получила еще более веские аргументы, когда в декабре 2000 года он был внесен в перечень объектов, номинируемых Республикой Казахстан в Список Конвенции об охране всемирного культурного и природного наследия (Решение заседания…).

Реагируя на обращение общественности, в феврале 2001 года Министерство природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды также высказалось против создания парка «Медеу» (Ответ МПРООС №03-05-10/507). «В территорию парка (имеется в виду парк «Медеу» – автор) фактически предусматривается включение буферной зоны Иле-Алатауского государственного национального природного парка и защитных лесов вдоль русел рек Малая Алматинка и Бутаковка, в которых под мощным антропогенным прессингом произрастают расстроенные, угнетенные насаждения яблони Сиверса, абрикоса обыкновенного, редины каркаса и 14 других реликтовых видов растений, занесенных в Красную книгу Казахстана… Создание парка города в границах нацпарка и его буферной зоны будет иметь крайне негативные последствия… Учитывая вышеизложенное, Министерство природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды Республики Казахстан считает, что в создании городского природного парка «Медеу» нет необходимости». Министерство не утвердило заключение экологической экспертизы на его проект, проведенной Алматинским городским территориальным управлением охраны окружающей среды (Ответ МПРООС №03-05-10/507).

Тем не менее, парк был создан. В него включили и часть земель Иле-Алатауского национального парка – особо охраняемой природной территории более высокого уровня. На такое могли решиться только отечественные чиновники.

Почти одновременно с созданием парка «Медеу» на его территории начинается хаотичное строительство частных коттеджей. Вырубаются дикоплодовые леса, застраиваются водоохранные полосы, засыпаются мусором реки и их берега, возводятся мощные заборы, появляются надписи «частная собственность»… и охранники с автоматами!

«Природа в наших руках!» – щит с такой двусмысленной надписью долгое время встречал посетителей на въезде в парк «Медеу». Не в этом ли заключается основная идея его создания – приватизировать, а попросту, растащить территорию урочища, которая теперь находится в распоряжении Акимата Алматы.

Несмотря на отрицательное заключение МПРООС, в 2001 году, под благовидным предлогом «исполнения «Комплексной программы развития и размещения особо охраняемых природных территорий Республики Казахстан до 2030 года» и в целях сохранения и восстановления уникальных природных комплексов» Заилийского Алатау, Акимат города переименовал государственное учреждение «Медеу» в Государственное учреждение «Государственный природный парк «Медеу» и придал ему статус природоохранного учреждения! (10 декабря 2001, №3/332). Нет порядка в нашем отечестве!

Дальнейшие события можно кратко описать как межведомственную битву за длинный тенге, вернее за длинный доллар, победителем из которой вышел… Акимат.

6 февраля 2002 года. МПРООС продолжает настаивать на том, что «решение акима г.Алматы о создании государственного природного парка «Медеу» принято с нарушением норм, установленных законодательством Республики Казахстан, и подлежит отмене в установленном порядке» (Ответ МПРООС №02-05-10/375).

Тем не менее, 15 июля 2002 года выходит постановление правительства «О переводе отдельных участков земель особо охраняемых природных территорий в земли других категорий»

(15 июля 2002, №780), в том числе и из Иле-Алтауского национального парка.

Январь 2003 года. Акимат Алматы вынужден признать, что ситуация в урочище продолжает ухудшаться: увеличивается поток автотранспорта, продолжается самовольное строительство, остаются нерешенными проблемы водоснабжения и удаления канализационных стоков.

Увы, специалисты и общественность оказались правы. Передача части земель национального парка в административное подчинение города и создание парка «Медеу» не только не способствовали улучшению экологической ситуации в урочище, а наоборот усугубили ее. Какой же выход предложил Акимат?

Акимат принимает постановление «О мерах по оздоровлению экологической обстановки в Государственном природном парке «Медеу» и горнолыжном комплексе «Чимбулак» [другое написание – Шымбулак (24 января 2003, № 1/41)]. Среди прочего в нем говорится о строительстве канатных дорог и многоярусных стоянок для тысяч машин как об одном из путей улучшения экологической ситуации!?

По всей видимости, постановление Акимата было подкреплено вескими аргументами, которые убедили даже Министерство охраны окружающей среды (МООС – прежнее Министерство природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды). 20 августа 2003 года на очередной запрос общественности министерство ответило, что согласно статье 41 закона «Об особо охраняемых природных территориях» 1997 года государственный природный парк является аналогом государственного национального природного парка, ставящим те же задачи и выполняющим те же функции. Различие состоит лишь в том, что это – особо охраняемая территория местного значения!

Других аргументов чиновники МООС найти не смогли.

«Учитывая, что территория Учреждения является также особо охраняемой природной территорией, и статус ее аналогичен статусу Иле-Алатауского национального природного парка, считаем, что изъятие земель последнего отвечает требованиям действующего законодательства Республики Казахстан» (Ответ МООС №02-05-07/4061). Но почему бы не сделать наоборот? То есть передать земли национальному парку, находящемуся под эгидой центрального уполномоченного органа, и обеспечить более надежную защиту территорий?

В заключительной части письма говорилось, что «министерством обеспечивается проведение постоянного государственного контроля за соблюдением природоохранного режима на территории Учреждения». Контроль, возможно, и обеспечивался. А вот законность – нет! Позже министр окружающей среды А.С.Самакова не раз, беспомощно разводя руками, призывала навести порядок в урочище Медеу.

В феврале 2004 года, всего шесть с половиной лет спустя после принятия закона «Об особо охраняемых природных территориях» 1997 года, было принято постановление правительства (27 февраля 2004, № 240), определяющее порядок выноса посторонних зданий, сооружений и объектов, находящихся в пределах особо охраняемых природных территорий. До настоящего момента сведений о «выносе» чеголибо из названных парков нет. Зато перечень возведенных в их границах архитектурных «шедевров» займет не один десяток страниц. Да и участь самого постановления оказалась незавидной. 7 ноября 2006 года оно было отменено новым постановлением правительства № 1063 «Об утверждении Правил предоставления в аренду (! – автор) земельных участков на территории государственных национальных природных парков для осуществления регулируемого туризма и рекреации». С тех пор вопрос о выносе посторонних объектов и сооружений больше не поднимался, а строительство в парках пошло полным ходом.

Наконец, за наведение порядка в урочище Медеу берется президент. 11 июня 2004 года выходит распоряжение президента «О мерах по сохранению уникальных и редких ландшафтов на территории Республики Казахстан» (11 июня 2004, № 474). В нем черным по белому написано: «Правительству Республики Казахстан… в трехмесячный срок рассмотреть вопрос о придании статуса объекта государственного природнозаповедного фонда республиканского значения территориям Щучинско-Боровской курортной зоны, урочищ Медеу и Шымбулак и обеспечить их охрану путем установления запретов и ограничений на хозяйственную деятельность на этих территориях…». Значит, все-таки было правильнее передать земли в распоряжение национального парка!?

Но что для Алматинского Акимата распоряжение президента?

Пустой звук, не более! Поэтому его просто проигнорировали, правительство отмолчалось, и все вернулось на круги своя.

В 2005 году за дело взялась природоохранная прокуратура города Алматы. Она провела проверку соблюдения природоохранного законодательства на территории парка «Медеу» (Ответ прокуратуры №37-05). Еще одно испытание наших природоохранных ведомств, правительства и президента на прочность. В итоге – очередные рапорты, подсчеты нарушений и разрушений, а с Акимата, как с гуся вода.

В конце 2006 аким Алматы, полностью уверовавший в свою безнаказанность, объявляет настоящую войну природе парка «Медеу» и Иле-Алатуского национального парка. Осваиваем урочище Медеу! Строим автостоянки, торгово-развлекательные центры, рестораны, бары, ночные клубы... Последние, видимо, крайне необходимы для сохранения и восстановления уникальных природных комплексов Заилийского Алатау!

На очереди – урочище Кокжайлау, а там и до других мест доберемся. А всемирное наследие? Причем здесь всемирное наследие, когда от запаха засаленных долларов голова идет кругом.

И опять все вершится под прикрытием благих намерений.

Инициаторы нового проекта заявляют, что намерены положить конец нарушениям законности и навести порядок в урочище Медеу. «В целом, ожидается, что проект реконструкции и развития курортов (не особо охраняемых природных территорий, а курортов! – автор) Медеу и Шымбулак принесет долгосрочное позитивное воздействие на экономику Казахстана и станет примером реализации стратегии устойчивого развития общества с жизнеспособной инфраструктурой и соответствующими услугами и средствами обслуживания»

(Проект реконструкции…, с.4).

Свежо предание, но верится с трудом! В конце апреля 2007 года без положительного заключения экологических экспертиз, даже без завершенной оценки воздействия на окружающую среду, без согласования с администрациями парков компании начинают строительство канатной дороги. И начинают с того, что вырубают тянь-шаньские ели, роют котлованы, а грунт, как в добрые доэкологические времена, ссыпают по склону в реку.

И, наконец, последняя точка в этой истории. Верхом цинизма является то, что Национальную комиссию Республики Казахстан по делам ЮНЕСКО и ИСЕСКО возглавляет аким города Алматы!* Конвенция об охране всемирного культурного и природного наследия была разработана и подписана в 1972 году по инициативе ЮНЕСКО. Казахстан присоединился к ней в 1994 году. Тринадцать лет назад! Но до сих пор ни один природный объект не внесен в Список всемирного наследия!

Министерство охраны окружающей среды провело в июле 2007 года субрегиональный семинар по подготовке номинации «Западный Тянь-Шань». А номинация Иле-Алатауского национального парка отложена на неопределенный срок. Его «выдающаяся универсальная ценность с точки зрения науки» и «природной красоты», видимо, больше никого не интересует.

Многочисленные факты нарушения и несоблюдения закона «Об особо охраняемых природных территориях» в парке «Медеу» и Иле-Алатауском национальном парке говорят не просто о бездействии местных органов власти и уполномоченных природоохранных ведомств. Они свидетельствуют о параличе государственной власти, причиной которого является все разъедающая коррупция.

На наш взгляд, единственный выход из сложившейся ситуации – восстановление законности и порядка. Только так может быть остановлен экоцид.

*** Естественнонаучное обоснование организации государственного природного парка «Медеу». Пояснительная записка. – Алматы, 2000.

Обращение участников Второго экологического форума неправительственных организаций Казахстана к президенту, членам парламента, министру природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды. 28 сентября 2000 года.

Ответ Министерства охраны окружающей среды от 20 августа 2003 года № 02-05-07/4061 на запрос ЭО «Зеленое спасение» от 10 июля 2003 года № 028.

Ответ Министерства природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды от 23 февраля 2001 года № 03-05-10/507 на обращение общественности.

Ответ Министерства природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды от 6 февраля 2002 года № 02-05-10/375 на обращение общественности.

Ответ Специализированной природоохранной прокуратуры города Алматы от 24 марта 2005 № 37-05 на запрос ЭО «Зеленое спасение» от 21 февраля 2005 года № 012.

Постановление Акимата города Алматы от 10 декабря 2001 года за № 3/332 «О Государственном природном парке «Медеу».

Постановление Акимата города Алматы от 24 января 2003 года № 1/41 «О мерах по оздоровлению экологической обстановки в Государственном природном парке «Медеу» и горнолыжном комплексе «Чимбулак».

Постановление правительства Республики Казахстан от 22 февраля 1996 года № 228 «О создании Иле-Алатауского государственного национального природного парка в Алматинской области».

Постановление правительства Республики Казахстан от 15 июля 2002 года № 780 «О переводе отдельных участков земель особо охраняемых природных территорий в земли других категорий».

Постановление правительства Республики Казахстан от 27 февраля 2004 года № 240 «Об утверждении Правил изъятия (выкупа) земельных участков для создания и расширения особо охраняемых природных территорий из земель всех категорий, сноса, выноса посторонних зданий, сооружений и объектов на особо охраняемых природных территориях, предоставления в аренду земельных участков, зданий и сооружений на особо охраняемых природных территориях для научной, туристской и рекреационной деятельности».

Постановление правительства Республики Казахстан от 7 ноября 2006 года № 1063 «Об утверждении Правил предоставления в аренду земельных участков на территории государственных национальных природных парков для осуществления регулируемого туризма и рекреации».

Приказ председателя Комитета лесного, рыбного и охотничьего хозяйства Министерства природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды Республики Казахстан от 23 января 2002 года № 7 «О мерах по сохранению горных лесов Заилийского и Джунгарского Алатау Алматинской области».

Проект реконструкции курортов «Медеу» и «Шымбулак».

Оценка воздействия на окружающую среду (ОВОС).

Исполнительское резюме. – Алматы, 2007.

Решение акима города Алматы от 1 октября 1999 года № 906 «О вопросах по организации природного парка «Медеу».

Решение заседания рабочей группы по включению природных объектов Республики Казахстан в Список всемирного культурного и природного наследия ЮНЕСКО от 25 декабря 2000 года № 1.

Справка и решение Коллегии Министерства природных ресурсов и охраны окружающей среды и Генеральной прокуратуры Республики Казахстан по вопросу обеспечения законности в особо охраняемых природных территориях (сокращенный вариант). – Кокшетау, 26 августа 2000.

Указ президента Республики Казахстан от 29 апреля 1998 года № 3929 «Об изменении границ города Алматы».

*Указом президента Казахстана от 4 апреля 2008 года он был переведен на должность акима города Астаны.

Editorial On October 23, 2000, the Republic of Kazakhstan ratified the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). It entered into force on October 30, 2001. From that moment forward, all of the Convention’s provisions have been legally binding for its Parties.

As opposed to other international agreements in which the country participants fulfill obligations only before one another, this Convention goes further, aiming to guarantee not only the rights of the Parties, but also the rights of citizens. It imposes on state bodies obligations before the public to ensure its access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice.

At the First Meeting of the Parties, held in Lucca (Italy) in October 2002, the country participants decided to create a Compliance Committee. The Committee began its work at the end of 2003.

Reviewing communications from the public regarding violations of the Convention’s norms is included among the Committee’s responsibilities. The communications submitted to the Committee in 2004 from the citizens of Kazakhstan and the Ecological Society Green Salvation (Almaty, Kazakhstan) were among the first communications received by the Committee.

At the Second Meeting of the Parties, held in 2005, it was recognized that the Republic of Kazakhstan had not ensured that state bodies execute Article 3, Point 1 of the Convention; Article 4, Points 1 and 2; Article 9, Point 1; and did not ensure the complete compliance with Article 6, Point 1a) and Attachment I, Point 20, and in connection with this Article 6, Points 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8.

Based on these conclusions, the meeting adopted Decision II/5a “Compliance by Kazakhstan with its Obligations under the Aarhus Convention.” The Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan was issued recommendations under Point 7 of this Decision.

The Third Meeting of the Parties to the Convention is planned for June 11-13, 2008 in Riga (Latvia). The Republic of Kazakhstan has approached this event with far from comforting results.

This publication contains the point of view of the Ecological Society Green Salvation regarding the course of the implementation of the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention. It also takes into consideration those factors that influence the Convention’s observation in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Acknowledgments

The Ecological Society Green Salvation sincerely thanks our

sponsors:

- the National Endowment for Democracy, USA;

- the Dutch organization Humanistic Institute for Development Cooperation (Hivos);

- the Sigrid Rausing Trust, UK;

- the Open Society Institute, Hungary for their financial support of the organization’s activities, particularly our work to defend the right of citizens to a healthy environment, as well as for financing this publication.

The editors have great appreciation for Svetlana Filippovna Katorcha, who represents the rights and legal interests of the Ecological Society Green Salvation in court. We sincerely thank Alexander Anatolyevich Shitov for his valuable advice and efforts to defend the right of citizens to a healthy environment. The editors thank Valery Vasilyevich Krylov for his invaluable consultation.

We are grateful to Michelle Kinman, Glenn Kempf, and Kate Watters for their painstaking translation efforts.

The editors sincerely thank all who have helped to prepare the materials for this publication.

Translated by Michelle Kinman.

THE ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY

GREEN SALVATION

The Ecological Society Green Salvation was founded in 1990 and is registered as a public organization of the city of Almaty. Green Salvation’s goal is to protect the human right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature, and to foster improvements to the socio-ecological situation in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Green Salvation is guided by the following principles in its

activities:

- the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interconnection of all human rights;

- observance of the right of the present and future generations to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature;

- the need for general environmental education and awareness;

- the necessity of collaboration between government bodies, commercial entities and the public in resolving environmental problems.

Membership in the organization is based on personal initiative and participation in specific projects. Green Salvation’s staff is comprised of people from various professions who combine their organizational work with their professional activities. Honorary members and volunteers make a substantial contribution.

Main activity focus of the Ecological Society Green Salvation

1. Defending the human right to a favorable environment The organization defends rights utilizing pre-judicial and judicial methods, seeking strict observance of national legislation and international agreements. Among the organization’s most important activities are lawsuits concerning: the withholding of information by “Kazatomprom” and various Departments of Statistics; the recognition of the invalidity of the state environmental assessment’s conclusion for the project to construct a 110-kV high voltage power line in the Mountain Giant District; and the resumption of work of a Plant for Construction Materials and Structures. On average, Green Salvation files eight lawsuits per year and conducts dozens legal consultations.

In 2004 and 2007, it became necessary for Green Salvation to appeal to the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee. In the case of two of the appeals, the Committee acknowledged noncompliance with individual Convention statutes by the Republic of Kazakhstan and violations of citizens’ rights to participate in decision-making processes and to access to justice with regard to environmental concerns.

2. Participation in the development of environmental protection legislation Green Salvation participated in the official discussions concerning the law “On Protection of the Natural Environment in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic” (1991) and the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Environmental Protection” (1997), “On Environmental Assessment” (1997), “On Specially Protected Natural Territories” (1997), “On Land” (2001), “On Tourist Activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan” (2001), the Forestry Code (2003), the Land Code (2003) and others. In 2002, at the request of the Committee for Environmental and Nature Management Issues of the Lower House of Parliament, Green Salvation conducted a public environmental assessment of the draft Forestry Code (2003).

3. Environmental awareness and education Since 1995, the organization has published the “Green Salvation” Herald, with a supplement in English, since 2000. The Bulletin’s thematic issues are related to environmental protection legislation and the protection of human rights, environmental education, the development of a network of national parks, and other socioecological problems. Special courses are developed and textbooks are published for students. To date, more than 25 publications have been produced in Russian, Kazakh and English.

Green Salvation collaborates with the domestic and foreign press, participates in television and radio programs, and organizes exhibitions.

In 2002, Green Salvation began a video program. The films include: “Legacy of the Nuclear Age”, “The Riches of Nature—In Whose Hands?”, “Passengers in Forgotten Way Stations”, “Canyon” and “The Earth Does Not Belong to Man…”. Several of these films have been awarded prizes at international festivals.

In 2007, Green Salvation began the video discussion club “Green Lens.” In 2002, Green Salvation launched a website in Russian and English.

4. Environmental actions Green Salvation actively participates in actions to protect the integrity of the environmental system of protected natural territories.

Green Salvation is collaborating with the Ile-Alatau State National Nature Park administration. Video monitoring is regularly conducted on the park’s territory. Together with the environmental club “Berendei” (Kapchagai), Green Salvation has repeatedly conducted summer environmental schools in the Park.

Green Salvation actively participated in the anti-nuclear campaign conducted by public organizations opposing a plan to import and bury radioactive waste from other countries in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Green Salvation also participated in the following international campaigns: International Right to Know, Publish What You Pay, and Caspian Revenue Watch.

Green Salvation actively monitors projects financed by development banks and the activities of transnational corporations that have an impact on the environment.

5. Data collection on the Republic of Kazakhstan’s environmental situation Green Salvation has brought together various documentary, reference and training materials in its electronic databases, library, and video collection. These materials are used by activists from nongovernmental organizations, specialists, teachers, college students and schoolchildren.

The Ecological Society Green Salvation welcomes collaboration for the sake of the Earth!

Our address:

050000, Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, Shagabutdinova Street 58, apt. 28 Telephone\fax: (+727) 234-17-60, 253-62-56 E-mail: grsalmati@mail.ru Website: www.greensalvation.org Translated by Michelle Kinman.

Republic of Kazakhstan’s Fulfillment of the Decisions of the Second Meeting of the Parties Three years have passed since the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). It took place in the city of Almaty (Kazakhstan) in 2005. The Third Meeting of the Parties will take place in Riga (Latvia) from June 11-13, 2008. The Republic of Kazakhstan has approached this event with far from comforting results.

Fulfilling the Recommendations At the meetings it was recognized that the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan failed to fulfill Point 1, Article 3 of the Convention; points 1 and 2, Article 4; and Point 1, Article 9. It also failed to completely ensure Point 1a) Article 6 and Point 20 of Attachment 1 to the Convention; it also failed in this regard to fulfill Points 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of Article 6.

Based on these conclusions, the meeting of the parties adopted Decision II/5a “Compliance by Kazakhstan with its Obligations under the Aarhus Convention.” The government of Kazakhstan was given three recommendations in Point 7 of this decision.

Point 7a) “Adopt and implement regulations setting out more precise public participation procedures covering the full range of activities subject to article 6 of the Convention, without in any way reducing existing rights of public participation.” In early 2007, following the adoption of the Environmental Code, on numerous occasions official bodies determined that it included all the demands of the Convention concerning public participation in decision-making. The Supreme Court states: “At the current moment in the Republic of Kazakhstan, on the whole the legal conditions exist for the appropriate provision of access in all the components of the Convention…” (National Report on Executing…). The Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) has an even more optimistic point of view: “In the Republic of Kazakhstan, a political, legal and institutional basis has been created for active participation in deciding general state questions, including environmental. In this way, all the conditions for the necessary guarantee of access to all aspects of the Aarhus Convention have been created in the Republic” (Report on Measures Taken…).

Point 1.4) Article 13 and Point 1.

3) Article 14 of the Environmental Code state that the rights of physical and legal entities “to participate in the process of decision-making by state organs on questions related to the environment are in accordance with the established legislation.” This is a broadening of the rights of the public in comparison with the 1997 law “On Environmental Protection.” However, it is worth mentioning that in accordance with Point 1, Article 33 of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, “citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan have the right to participate in the implementation of acts of the state directly and through their representatives, to personally appeal, as well as to direct individual and collective appeals to state organs and to organs of local administration.” That is, in the Environmental Code, the only rights that are specifically mentioned are the rights represented in the Constitution.

In the Code, as in other laws, there is no reference to the normative legal act, which regulates the procedure for public participation. This fully corresponds to the practice of Kazakhstani legislation to make reference to nonexistent normative acts. The Environmental Code does not even name the body that must develop this procedure, but from Point 30, Article 17, it follows that these procedures must be developed by the Ministry of Environmental Protection.

In fact, the Code limits public participation in decision-making to public hearings. But this is only one of the forms of public participation in the decision-making process.

If one departs from Point 3.3 “Rules for Conducting Public Hearings”, which were confirmed in the Directive of the Minister of Environmental Protection on May 7, 2007, No. 135-p, public hearings are not a form of public participation in decision-making. “A public hearing—is a procedure of disclosing public opinion with the goal of taking stock while resolving an issue that may negatively impact on the environment.” Taking stock of public opinion (read “public hearing”) does not always occur, but only “for projects, the realization of which could directly impact the environment and the health of citizens” (Environmental Code, Point 3, Article 57). The meaning of the terms “negative”, and “directly” is not explained in the Environmental Code or in the “Rules for Conducting Public Hearings.” In Point 1.1, Article 39 of the Code, an additional term is used—“direct influence.” If one assumes that the authors meant specifically these direct influences by the term “directly”, then the public is deprived of the right to state its opinion with regard to economic activities that are considered “indirect impacts” and “cumulative impacts” on the environment (Points 1.2 and 1.3, Article 39).

Furthermore, in Point one of “Rules for Conducting Public Hearings”, it is determined that they “determine the rules of the organization and the conduct of public hearings with the goal of discussing materials of evaluating the environmental impact assessment” (further, EIA). There are no other normative acts in Kazakhstan that regulate the conduct of a public hearing. However, Point 4, Article 57 of the Code mentions public hearings, and is called, “Openness of State Environmental Expertise and Public Access to Decision-making!” In this article two forms of participation are listed: “the possibility to state one’s opinion”, without any description of how this would happen in reality (Point 2), and public hearings (Points 3 and 4).

The situation with regard to public opinion remains unclear.

On June 28, 2007 the Directive of the Minister of Environmental Protection No. 204-p was confirmed, “Instructions on Conducting an Evaluation of the Impact of Projected Economic and Other Activity on the Environment in the Development of Pre-planning, Planning, Pre-project and Project Documentation.” That same day, Directive No. 207-p confirmed “Rules for Conducting State Environmental Expertise.” And both the first (Point 51, 52 and others) and in the second document (Point 12.3) talk about the consideration of public opinion. In Points 58 and 60 of the instructions, “rules for considering public opinion” are described. More precisely—the mechanism of its appearance to contractors during an EIA.

How should state structures take into account public opinion in the process of decision-making? How should the population be informed about who is authorized to make a decision? Who should answer the public’s comments and questions? What sort of procedure exists for decision-making by state structures? Not one of the documents included in the Environmental Code addresses this issue. The authorized structure, which answers for the development of the rules of considering public opinion in the process of decisionmaking of state structures, is also not determined in the Code.

In this way, the Environmental Code partially determines the rules for organizing a public hearing and the rules for considering public opinion in the process of carrying out an EIA and state environmental expertise. But neither the contractor of the EIA, nor the developers of the EIA are state structures responsible for decision-making.

Structures of the state environmental expertise also do not make the decision. This is clearly stated in “Rules for Conducting State Environmental Expertise.” “State environmental expertise has an obligatory character and must precede legal, economic and administrative decisionmaking...Without a positive conclusion to a state environmental expertise, financing and realization of projects is forbidden” (Point 7).

Among the requirements of a state environmental expertise are:

“determination of environmental rationale of planned decisions...”;

the preparation of conclusions and “timely transfer to their state and other organizations, which are making the decision about the realization of the site of the expertise and the presentation of necessary information to interested structures and the population” (Points 8.1 and 8.4).

Do the developers of the Environmental Code really not know these basic truths?

But even the limited rights, which are given to the public, are observed poorly. Public hearings are organized with gross violations.

Often they are conducted by contractors after the decisionmaking of state structures, without timely reporting to the public, without prepared project documentation, without quality or any consideration of public opinion, protocols from the hearings are only formal documents. Developers of the EIA, who are the entities that receive licensing for the existence of similar work (Article 38, Environmental Code), fulfill the will of the contractor. Controlling structures willingly fulfill the decrees of the local power structures.

How can this tendency be explained? There is an apparent tendency to not tolerate the further long-term democratization of society, substituting effective public participation in fulfilling the provisions of the convention for formal notification of the public that falls within the area of the planned economic activity.

The Environmental Code (Articles 13 and 14) acknowledges a much broader spectrum of rights of citizens and the public to state its opinion than the public hearing. These include complaints and statements, demands, discussion of projects, demonstrations and referendums. All these forms can become elements of mechanisms for public participation in the decision-making process.

The current situation is reminiscent of the situation that occurred after the adoption of the 1997 law “On Environmental Protection.” The right of the public was recognized, but the mechanism for its realization was not created. More than a year passed after the adoption of the Environmental Code, but the rules for public participation “in the process of state structure decision-making on issues related to the environment”, have not been developed.

Is it possible to confirm, from these statements, that Point 7a) has been fulfilled and “more precise procedures for public participation” have been implemented in Kazakhstan? This question has no answer because it is impossible to compare that which never was with that which does not exist!

Point 7b): “Ensure that public authorities at all levels, including the municipal level, are fully aware of their obligations to facilitate public participation.” On October 17, 2007, in order to obtain a more objective picture of the execution of the strategy, reviewed in Decision II/5a, Green Salvation sent questions to the leadership, which were supposed to participate in its fulfillment. All of the organizations responded to the letter, which requires a general description of a fully-developed situation.

The Supreme Court reported regularly conducting international conferences, seminars, publication of compilations of reports and presentations, the acquisition of legal practice on the application of environmental legislation in the courts, placement of materials on the Supreme Court website http://www.supcourt.kz (Response of the Supreme Court…).

The General Public Prosecutor’s office reported on a series of measures to educate cadres and increase their qualifications.

With regard to Decision II/5a, the letter stated that the Ministry of Environmental Protection was responsible for its implementation (Response of the General Public Prosecutor’s office…).

The Ministry of Environmental Protection informed us of a series of normative legal acts, adopted in 2007, and on the conditions about which it had reported earlier (Response of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, November 8, 2007…).

The Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the Administration of Land Resources (ARKALR) reported that its section fulfills the demands for presenting information to the public (Response of ARKALR…).

The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR) reported that it believes it is premature to present information because the plan for implementing the strategy “is not approved” (Response of MEMR…).

The Forestry and Game Committee (FGC) of the Ministry of Agriculture reported that it could not provide information because the plan for the conditions to implement Decision II/5a was in draft form and “not fully complete in accordance with the normative legal act.” The Committee noted that information on its activities was located on the site www.minagri.kz (Response of FGC…).

The Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT) reported that it did not conduct work on the implementation of the draft strategy because it “was not complete” (Response of MIT…).

The Ministry of Economics and Budget Planning (MEBP) reported that the draft strategy and the plan for conditions to implement Decision II/5a were not agreed upon with them (Response of MEBP…).

From the responses of the ministries and departments one can come to the conclusion that before the end of 2007 the Ministry of Environmental Protection did not acquaint them with its opinion that, in connection with the implementation of the Environmental Code, “the affirmation of the government of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s draft strategy had lost its relevance” (Response of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, October 5, 2007…).

Four of eight departments that were questioned did not undertake any measures. The activity of the others cannot be labeled as completely fulfilling the demands of Point 7b). This is the situation with the leading departments and ministries. In other words, even those state structures that should have participated in the fulfillment of the strategy were not completely informed by the Ministry of Environmental Protection.

Point 7c): “Consider introducing stronger measures to prevent any construction work going ahead prior to the completion of the corresponding permitting process with the required level of public participation.” In the middle of 2007, social tension occurred in many cities in Kazakhstan. The reason for this was the beginning of construction of living quarters and economic buildings with gross violations of the country’s law, including environmental legislation. In the second half of the year the stress translated into protests, demonstrations and even a sit-in in the Almaty city courthouse (Panorama No. 16, May 4, 2007, “Respublika”, October 5, 2007 http://zonakz.net/ articles/21311).

The President was required to give out instructions on the creation of a special state committee with the goal of assuring the legality of construction in the city of Almaty and in Almaty Oblast. Attention was focused on facilities on illegally occupied land in the “Medeu” Nature Park and in the Ile-Alatau National Park, neighboring the city. Green Salvation had already been forced to file a lawsuit in 2004 because of illegal construction in the parks. On the basis of the lawsuit, the statement No. AССС/С/2004/10, was given to the Committee on the question of observance, and it was refused.

In the process of verification, in which the Ministry of Environmental Protection participated, massive violations of environmental law were uncovered; for example, the state environmental expertise had not been conducted. Post factum, the Ministry of Environmental Protection “discovered” the violations, practically acknowledging that the public was sidelined from participation in the decision-making process on the construction of a list of economic facilities.

On November 30, 2007, the General Public Prosecutor’s office published the results of the verification, which showed that there were 1460 violations of the law, including 228 violations of water legislation, 211—legislation on specially protected territories. The General Public Prosecutor’s office noted that this problem is relevant in other regions of the country as well! And this, notwithstanding the ongoing, many years of protest and activity by the public!

On March 19, 2008, the agency “Kazakhstan Today” in its distribution of the newspaper, “Business and Power” reported, “the Head of State’s assignment regarding land removal in environmentally protected areas of Almaty and the demolition of illegally constructed facilities in these areas is not being carried out.” At the end of 2006, one of the largest construction projects began in Almaty; the reconstruction of the resorts “Shymbulak” (Shymbulak is another name for Chimbulak) and “Medeu”, with the goal of preparing them for the upcoming Asian games in 2011 (see Appendix 4). In accordance with the June 25, 2005 decree of the government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 633 “On authorizing the plans to create and develop pilot clusters in priority sectors of the economy” in the second quarter of 2006, the Akimat of the city of Almaty was commissioned to develop a concept for the creation of a major mountain resort complex at the base of Shymbulak and Turgen.

The local press reported the beginning of construction in December 2006, although the draft of the complex was not complete and the conclusion of the state environmental expertise had not been received. Even at the earliest planning stages, there was no information available about the grandiose construction, apparently because the project envisaged the assimilation of a part of the territory of the national park, which was introduced by the Republic of Kazakhstan into the tentative list of World Heritage Sites.

In order to adhere to formalities, on April 27, 2007, the contractor— the company “Capital Partners”—held a public hearing, but also did not present the project for discussion. The dissatisfaction of the public forced the contractor to hold a second hearing on June 23, 2007 and to quickly receive the conclusion of the State Environmental Expertise on June 30, 2007. But on August 1, the Ministry of Environmental Protection cancelled it because the contractor failed to fulfill a series of demands, which had been stated in the conclusion of the expertise (Response of Ministry of Environmental Protection, August 3, 2007…). At the end of 2007 the project was adjusted in a second expertise and again was rejected (Conclusion…January 15, 2008).

However, the state structures, knowing full well about the legal violations, including the rights of the public to participate in decisionmaking processes, did not even try to stop the illegal construction.

Only at the beginning of the second half of 2007 did an economic slump result in work stoppage. It is difficult to believe, but a fact, that the project “whose equal cannot be found in the CIS” (Vechernyi Almaty, December 5, 2006), could not secure state financing.

The worst fears of Almaty’s “greens” were realized. Felled Tianshan firs rot on the hillsides, stumps of larch trees stick out along the roads, construction debris decorates the banks of the rivers, throughout this, three and four meter fences are littered about. This is how the former pearl of the Zailiisky Alatau Medeu Hollow looks.

Who will pay for this abuse against nature?

And this, to our great sorrow, is far from the only such instance in our country. Materials in the local press clearly delineate the facts of the violations, but the official bodies prefer to look good while engaged in a bad game.

It is worth mentioning that in a speech by the Minister of Environmental Protection, in which he listed the results of the above mentioned verification in the city of Almaty, not one word was stated about these flagrant illegalities. Instead, small companies were found to have violated the law, and on whom criticism and Ministry sanctions came down. In the report of the Ministry of Environmental Protection to the Third Meeting of the Parties of the Convention, and in the “Report on Measures Taken to Implement Decision II/5a” nothing was said about conditions for stopping illegal construction.

Not one of the official documents representing the Republic of Kazakhstan that was sent to the secretariat of the Convention on the eve of the Third Meeting of the Parties mentions the degree of reinstating the rights of the residents of the micro-region Gornyi Gigant and the MVD Settlement (ACCC/C/2004/02), as well as the family Gatina (ACCC/C/2004/6). People who were living in dangerous areas, which occurred as a result of illegal construction, continue to live there, and the environmental situation, as before, worsens.

In this way, Kazakhstan has failed to take “more decisive measures to prevent any construction before the completion of the necessary process of acquiring permission.” Bureaucrats, including the authorities of the city of Almaty, could care less about holding the government responsible to uphold the Environmental Code and international obligations.

The Fate of the Strategy In Decision II/5a the Meeting of the Parties appeals to the government of Kazakhstan with the request “to submit to the Compliance Committee, not later than the end of 2005, a strategy, including a time schedule, for transposing the Convention’s provisions into national law and developing practical mechanisms and implementing legislation that would set out clear procedures for their implementation.” In February 2006, the Ministry of Environmental Protection sent a draft strategy to the Committee. However, at the end of the year, it had still not been approved by the government. In the beginning of 2007, Green Salvation, upset that the government was not paying the necessary attention to the fulfillment of Decision II/5a, sent a letter to the Ministry with the goal of understanding whether the conditions were being met to realize the strategy.

In its answer, the Ministry of Environmental Protection stated that the Ministry of Economics and Budget Planning (MEBP) had excluded the points “The plan for realizing the decisions made at the Second Meeting of the Parties,” from the budgetary financing of the program, “Environmental Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2005-2007” (Response of Ministry of Environmental Protection, April 4, 2007…). Learning of this, Green Salvation sent a letter to the Prime Minister, who charged the MEBP with responding to the question.

The Ministry replied, “information, provided to the Ecological Society Green Salvation by the Ministry of Environmental Protection is not accurate”, that the points of the Ministry of Environment program “are in sight” “and other proposals for the Convention did not appear in the Ministry of Environmental Protection or in MEBP” (Response of MEBP, May 31, 2007…).

Following the appeal to the Prime Minister and the receipt of information from the Ministry of Economics and Budget Planning, the hope emerged that the government would fulfill all the necessary conditions. Therefore, on September 24, the organization sent another letter requesting an explanation of the fate of the strategy.

The answer was simply stupefying. The Ministry of Environmental Protection stated that the question of its confirmation “had lost its relevance” in connection with the implementation of the Environmental Code, in which “had practically completely taken into consideration the recommendations of Decision II/5a” (Response of Ministry of Environmental Protection, October 5, 2007…). It became fully apparent that the draft strategy for fulfilling Decision II/5a has not been and will not be approved by the government. Why didn’t the Ministry come to this conclusion immediately after the implementation of the Environmental Code? Why was it necessary to mislead the public, resulting in financial problems?

In this way the Ministry of Environmental Protection decided the fate of the strategy on behalf of the public, the government and the international community! Making a presentation to the final board of his department in the beginning of 2008, the Minister drew a picture of an environmental revival in Kazakhstan. He did not even refer to the demands of the environmental convention, and instead let drop, “We decided that they were necessary to implement” (Report of the Minister…).

Positive Moments?!

The establishment’s negative relationship to fulfilling international requirements predetermined the formal approach to implementing Decision II/5a. However, there were also several positive moments, which should be mentioned.

In particular, it pays to noted that the rights of the public to receive information were broadened. According to Sub point 9, Point 2, Article 130 of the Environmental Code, a resource manager is required “to provide public access to industrial environmental control programs and to report data on industrial environmental control.” Point 3, Article 164, states, “physical and juridical entities, conducting activity on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, are required to present environmental information that impacts the life and health of citizens to those who request it.” However, it would be more logical to include these positions in articles outlining the rights of physical entities and public associations. But, Point 7, Article 13 and Point 7, article 14 it mention only the right “to receive from state structures and organizations timely, full and accurate information.” In part, this innovation repeated the position of “Standard Procedures in the Process of Industrial Monitoring”, which was confirmed on February 2, 2006. It stated that all legal resource management bodies, without exception, must provide “public access to the program and report data for industrial monitoring” (Standard Procedures…, Point 13). This position contradicted Point 3, Article 25 of the law “On Environmental Protection”, which stated, “industrial monitoring data and reporting on the environmental impact of strategic, transborder and environmentally dangerous facilities should be given to the responsible state structure in the area of environmental protection, the subjects of economic activity—the local executive organs.” Nevertheless, the regulations were confirmed.

One of the first lawsuits Green Salvation filed after the acceptance of the Environmental Code demonstrated that Article 130 worked even with regard to private companies. But, regardless of the decision of the court, the company provided incomplete information, and only that which did not provoke opposition from the local residents.

Thus, as before, the completeness and quality of information remain problematic.

Another notable occurrence was the review by the Supreme Court of the complaint for review of Green Salvation. It was submitted in connection with the refusal of the Statistics Department of West Kazakhstan Oblast (WKO) to provide information on emissions of toxic substances into the atmosphere by the company “Karachaganak Petroleum Operating, B.V.” The organization sent an inquiry at the request of S.Ya. Anosova, a resident of the village of Berezovka, which is located next to the Karachaganak Oil and Gas Condensate Field. On January 14, 2007, the Statistics Department stated that the information could not be presented because it was confidential (Response of Statistics Department WKO…).

Green Salvation filed a lawsuit and, losing the case in court in the first and other instances, appealed to the Supreme Court. On March 26, 2008, the Review Board on Civic Affairs carried out the decision to satisfy all the demands of the organization and reverse the decision of the courts. The Statistics Department of West Kazakhstan Oblast was charged with providing Green Salvation the information.

The more important moment in this case was that the position of the Supreme Court was made in accordance with the terms of the Aarhus Convention. It states, “The analysis of the above mentioned norms, including national legislation as well as an international agreement, is evidence that the requested environmental information cannot be closed, the presentation of such information does not have a negative impact on the confidentiality of work of state structures, including the statistical structure, and furthermore, information on emissions relating to environmental protection is subject to disclosure.

Focusing on the appointed circumstances, the board believes that the refusal of the statistical structures to provide information on atmospheric emissions contradicts the terms of the international agreement…” (Decree of the Board on Civic Affairs… from March 26, 2008…).

Following the Second Meeting of the Parties, Green Salvation tried, unsuccessfully, to argue its legal demands several times, basing on the decisions and position of the Aarhus Convention. In each instance, the courts, including the Supreme Court, confirmed that these documents bore a recommendation character, or they completely ignored the references to them (Decree of the Board on Civic Affairs… October 12, 2006…).

The question inevitably arises: what caused the change in the position of the Supreme Court? Are these real positive changes in the work of the legal system or, as the Third Meeting of the Parties approaches, are they an attempt to demonstrate at least one instance of direct use of the Aarhus Convention in the courts?

Questions were raised because the Supreme Court ruled differently in a similar case in December 2007. Green Salvation requested information about atmospheric emissions from the Statistics Department of Karaganda Oblast. The judges of the Board on Civic Affairs of the Supreme Court, in a preliminary review of the organization’s complaint, refused to conduct an investigation (Decree of the Supreme Court…). They indicated that the information was confidential!

Thus, one would want to believe that the March 26, 2008 position of the Board on Civic Affairs of the Supreme Court was the start of positive changes in the work of the legal system of Kazakhstan.

What Next?

It is impossible, in a short review, to describe all the factors that influence the observance of the Aarhus Convention. Therefore, besides those listed, we name a few of most important.

On the whole, the social-ecological situation is significantly worse than it was in 2005. Massive violations of civil rights are taking increasingly gross forms.

1. Bureaucrats, understanding that public participation in the process of decision-making of state structures will lead to the further democratization of the country, do everything they can to stop the creation of such a mechanism (the process for participation still is not developed, as was discussed above).

2. The adoption of the Environmental Code, around which there was a lot of noise, in reality has not influenced the acknowledgement and adoption of rights of public organizations (Article 14). In comparison with the 1997 law “On Environmental

Protection”, (Article 6), only a few points have been added:

- on participation in the process of decision-making of state structures on environmental questions, this point is the development of Point 1, Article 33 of the 1995 Constitution of Kazakhstan;

- on participation in the process of developing plans and programs related to the environment;

- on the creation of environmental protection funds. Public organizations had the right to create funds and use their resources to conduct environmental activities in conjunction with Article 62 of the 1991 law “On Protection of the Environment of the Kazakh SSR”, which was repealed in 1997.

The public was given the right to receive information from private companies that exploited nature (Environmental Code, Article 130, Point 2, Sub point 9). But this right did not contradict the previous law. Practically, the Environmental Code only simplified access to this information, excluding intermediaries in the form of state structures.

But at the same time the rights of the public were limited: the right to demand the conducting of a state environmental expertise was excluded (1997 law “On Environmental Protection”, Article 6, Point

1) and the right to demand an environmental impact assessment (EIA) be conducted for existing enterprises (law “On Environmental Expertise”, Article 16, Point 2).

All the other rights have remained without change as in the 1997 law “On Environmental Protection.” Therefore, to say that the Environmental Code considered all the demands of the Aarhus Convention is, at a minimum, incorrect.

3. Bureaucrats and judges arbitrarily interpret the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and the decisions of the Compliance Committee. The glaring example is the answer of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Natural Resources of the city of Almaty, in which it placed in doubt the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee for application of ACCC/ C/2004/02 on illegal construction of the 110-kV power line in the micro-region Gornyi Gigant (Response of the Department of Natural Resources...).

4. It is worth mentioning the violation of existing laws and the poor implementation of court decisions.

5. Under the guise of adapting national legislation to the demands of international rights, the bureaucracy undercuts the positive work that occurred during the battles of the first years of independence.

References (In Russian)

Conclusion of the State Environmental Expertise on the project “Reconstruction of the Resorts Medeu and Shymbulak”, January 15, 2008, No. 03-1-1-10/13279.

Criminal Сode of the Republic of Kazakhstan, July 16, 1997 No.

168-1 (with changes and additions to its content as of July 21, 2007).

Decision of the government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, June 25, 2005 No. 633 “On confirming plans on the creation and development of pilot clusters in priority sectors of the economy.” Decree of the Civil Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, October 12, 2006 No. 4g-3133-06. – Astana, 2006.

Decree of the Civil Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, March 26, 2008 No. 4gp-64-08. – Astana, 2008.

Decree of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, December 6, 2007 No 4g-3698-07. – Astana, 2007.

Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, January 9, 2007 No. 212-III. Almaty 2007.

Information bulletin on the state of the environment of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Edition 11 (97), November 2007. – Almaty, 2007, http://nature.kz/ekolog/buleten/november.pdf.

Instructions on conducting an evaluation of the impact of significant economic and other activities on the environment during the development of pre-planning, planning, pre-project and project documentation. Confirmed by the order of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, June 28, 2007, No. 204-p.

National Report on Executing the Aarhus Convention. – Astana, 2008, http://www.supcourt.kz/site/supcourt.nsf/Documents/16A776 52B563ADCE462573B8003E84B6?OpenDocument; http://nature.kz/ docs/orhus.pdf, (citation).

Report of the Minister of Environmental Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan N. Iskakov on the results of the Board of the Ministry of Environmental Protection. – Astana, January 14, 2008, http:// www.nature.kz/ministr/vystupleniya6.php.

Report on Measures Taken to Implement Decision II/5a “Compliance by Kazakhstan with its Obligations under the Aarhus Convention” and the “National Report on Executing the Aarhus Convention.” – Astana, 2008, http://nature.kz/docs/orhus2.pdf, (Citation).

Response of the Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the Administration of Land Resources, November 13, 2007, No. 13-1to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Department of Natural Resources and Regulation of Nature Use of the Almaty City, October 12, 2007 No. 1722 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Forestry and Game Committee, November 13, 2007 No. 25-11-23/4196 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the General Public Prosecutor’s office, December 24, 2007 No. 36-24179-07,1 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, April 4, 2007 No.2-2-2-12/2247 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, August 3, 2007 No. 03-1-1-10/7560 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, October 5, 2007 No. 02-2-2-12/10966 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, November 8, 2007 No. 04-1-2-8/12032 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Ministry of Economics and Budget Planning, May 31, 2007 No. 16-2-2/4619 to the special assignment of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Response of the Ministry of Economics and Budget Planning, November 22, 2007 No. 16-2-2/9879 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, November 5, 2007 No. 06-02-9989 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, November 13, 2007 No. 16/4-15082 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Statistics Department of West Kazakhstan Oblast, January 24, 2007 No. 7/1-45/127 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Response of the Supreme Court, November 1, 2007, No. 11-6/3435 to the inquiry of EO Green Salvation.

Regulations for Сonducting State Environmental Expertise.

Confirmed decree of the Minister of Environmental Protection, June 28, 2007 No. 207-p.

Standard regulations for conducting industrial monitoring.

Confirmed decree of the Minister of Environmental Protection, February 2, 2006 No. 45-p.

Text of the Presentation of Minister [of Environmental Protection] N.A. Iskakov on construction Almaty, October 29, 2007. – Almaty, http://www.nature.kz/ministr/vystupleniya4.php.

The plan for measures to realize the decisions made by the Second Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in the Process of Decision-making and Access to Justice on Environmental Questions, which took place in Almaty, May 25-27, 2005. Not confirmed.

Newspapers Vechernii Almaty Panorama Respublika

Websites

General Public Prosecutor’s office:

http://www.procuror.kz/?iid=5&type=news&lang=kz&nid=190 1.

Kazakhstan Today:

http://www.kz-today.kz/index.php?lang=rus&uin=1133168071& chapter=1153442992.

Legal Reference System “Yurist”: http://www.zakon.kz.

Website of the Supreme Court: http://www.supcourt.kz.

Website of the Ministry of Environmental Protection: http:// www.nature.kz.

This material and Appendix 1 and Appendix 4 were prepared by Sergey Kuratov. The author thanks Nataliya Medvedeva, Svetlana Spatar, and Sergey Solyanik for their assistance in preparing these materials.

Translated by Kate Watters.

Appendix 1.

The Evolution of Kazakhstan’s Environmental Protection Legislation* (A Comprehensive Chronology from 1991 to 2007) In the evolution of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s environmental protection legislation, it is possible to clearly identify a few periods that have been defined by changes to the political and socioeconomic situation in the country.

1991 - 1994 The development of legislation was influenced by the inertia of the democratic tendencies of perestroika, the deteriorating socioeconomic situation, and the aspirations of the young government to renounce a raw materials economy and create the image of a country oriented towards democratic values. The environmental situation improved a little as a result of a drop in industrial production and a decline in agriculture.

The legal situation:

- the human right to a favorable environment was secured in the Republic of Kazakhstan’s Constitution in 1993;

- attempts were made to develop a state environmental policy;

- ownership of natural resources was secured for the country’s highest representative legal body;

- there was “a ‘turn away’ from the narrow, departmentally-based resource legislation towards environmental legislation” (Baideldinov, p. 53);

- a specialized body for environmental protection was created, with the functions of a state oversight control body;

- the right of the public to participate in the resolution of issues relating to the environment was acknowledged;

- the formation of economic mechanisms for the rational use of nature began;

- a series of international environmental protection conventions were signed.

1995 - Early 2003 This period saw a relative improvement in the economic situation.

The basis of the country’s economic growth was the intensive exploitation of natural resources. As a result of the de facto looting of state property and the signing of contracts with transnational resource exploitation companies, well-to-do clans and groupings formed. The political sphere saw a gradual return to a command/ administrative method of management.

The environmental situation again deteriorated as a result of the growth in industrial enterprises and massive violations of environmental protection legislation.

The legal situation:

- provisions regarding the human right to a favorable environment were not included in the Constitution of 1995, which replaced the 1993 version;

- the Parliament’s role in the resolution of environmental problems was reduced to legislative activities;

- the ownership rights to natural resources were, in effect, transferred to the executive bodies of power;

- legislation began to be eased in favor of natural resource users;

- there were massive violations of public rights as a result of imperfections in and a lack of compliance with the laws;

- there were limits placed on the authority of the specialized body on environmental protection and a deprivation of its functions as a state oversight control body;

- mechanisms for the rational use of nature were transformed and relegated to an adjunct of the fiscal system;

- international obligations were neglected, accompanied by declarations regarding the incorporation of international legal norms in national legislation.

2003 - First Half of 2007 This period saw a relative stabilization of the economy, in great measure predetermined by the sharp rise in the price of oil on the global market. The ruling elite ignored the symptoms of impending crisis and began to redistribute the ownership of natural resources, particularly land. A bureaucratic, corrupt state continued to form in the political sphere, but more and more the clans, which were gaining strength, came out from under the influence of the center.

The state aimed to get the “green” movement under control. The environmental situation continued to deteriorate.

The legal situation:

- despite being updated, the acting legislation became less effective than in 1991;

- legislation continued to be eased in favor of natural resource users;

- environmental protection bodies were transformed and almost entirely subjugated by the executive powers;

- massive violations of the public right to participate in the resolution of environmental problems occurred as a result of the lack of improvements to and compliance with the laws;

- mechanisms for rational nature use were finally destroyed;

- environmental protection legislation was used to exert pressure on transnational companies in order to redistribute profits;

- disinformation of the public became stronger in regards to the role of public in the resolution of environmental problems;

- attempts were made to use legal methods to get the “green” movement under control;

- the requirements of international agreements were blatantly ignored, raising the question as to whether the Republic of Kazakhstan must withdraw from a number of environmental conventions.

The Second Half of 2007 The mirage of economic and political stability was dispelled, and the country found itself to be in socioeconomic and political crisis.

The inflation rate rose sharply. The clans led an open fight against the authorities. The political activity of the population increased. The international community displayed concern regarding the political situation in Kazakhstan.

The legal situation:

- environmental legislation was used to fight political opponents;

- laws were tailored to suit the concrete interests of industrial groups;

- acting legislation was used in order to enrich bureaucrats.

THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (further RK), January 28, 1993.

The original Constitution went out of force when a new Constitution was adopted on August 30, 1995.

The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Adopted by a republic referendum on August 30, 1995.

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, October 7, 1998, No.284-I;

Law of the RK, May 21, 2007, No.254-III.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Law of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic from June 18, 1991, “On Environmental Protection in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic.”

Changes incorporated:

Decree from the President of the RK, July 31, 1995, No.2392;

Decree from the President of the RK, October 5, 1995, No.2488;

Law of the RK, July 11, 1997, No.154-1.

This law lost went out of force in accordance with the Law of the RK, July 15, 1997, No.161-I.

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan, July 15, 1997, No.160-I “On Environmental Protection.”

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, December 24, 1998, No.334-I;

Law of the RK, May 11, 1999, No.381-I;

Law of the RK, November 29, 1999, No.488-I;

Law of the RK, June 4, 2001, No.205-II;

Law of the RK, December 24, 2001, No.276-II;

Law of the RK, August 9, 2002, No.346-II;

Law of the RK, May 25, 2004, No.553-II;

Law of the RK, December 9, 2004, No.8-III;

Law of the RK, December 20, 2004, No.13-III;

Law of the RK, April 15, 2005, No.45-III;

Law of the RK, July 8, 2005, No.71-III;

Law of the RK, January 10, 2006, No.116-III;

Law of the RK, January 31, 2006, No.125-III;

Law of the RK, December 29, 2006, No.209-III.

The law went out of force in accordance with the Environmental Code of the RK, January 9, 2007, No.212-III.

Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, January 9, 2007, No.212-III.

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, July 27, 2007, No.320-III.

LAND PROTECTION AND USE

Land Code of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, November 16, 1990, No.332-XII.

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, June 26, 1992, No.1431-XII;

Law of the RK, April 8, 1993, No.2092-XII;

Decree from the President of the RK, July 31, 1995, No.2392;

Decree from the President of the RK, October 5, 1995, No.2488;

This law went out of force in accordance with the Presidential Decree from December 22, 1995, No.2717.

Decree from the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, bearing the force of law, from December 22, 1995, No.2717 “On Land.”

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, July 14, 1997, No.158-I;

Law of the RK, June 30, 1997, No.139-I;

Law of the RK, July 1, 1998, No.259-1;

Law of the RK, July 10, 1998, No.283-I;

Law of the RK, May 11, 1999, No.381-1;

Law of the RK, January 23, 2001, No.151-II.

The law went out of force in accordance with the Law of the RK from January 24, 2001, No.153-II.

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from January 24, 2001, No.152-II “On Land.”

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, July 10, 2001, No.227-II;

Law of the RK, December 24, 2001, No.276-II;

Law of the RK, January 8, 2003, No.375-II.

The law went out of force in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 8, 2003, No.479-II.

Land Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, June 20, 2003, No.442-II.

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, May 4, 2005, No.48-III;

Law of the RK, January 10, 2006, No.116-III;

Law of the RK, January 31, 2006, No.125-III;

Law of the RK, June 22, 2006, No.147-III;

Law of the RK, July 5, 2006, No.158-III;

Law of the RK, July 5, 2006, No.162-III;

Law of the RK, July 7, 2006, No.176-III;

Law of the RK, January 9, 2007, No.213-III;

Law of the RK, January 12, 2007, No.222-III;

Law of the RK, July 6, 2007, No.275-III;

Law of the RK, July 6, 2007, No.276-III;

Law of the RK, July 6, 2007, No.279-III;

Law of the RK, July 21, 2007, No.297-III;

Law of the RK, July 21, 2007, No.307-III;

Law of the RK, July 26, 2007, No.311-III;

Law of the RK, July 27, 2007, No.320-III.

FOREST PRESERVATION AND USE

Forestry Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan from January 23, 1993, No.1924-XII.

Changes incorporated:

Decree from the President of the RK, October 5, 1995, No.2488;

Law of the RK, May 11, 1999, No.381-1;

Law of the RK, January 23, 2001, No.151-II;

Law of the RK, December 24, 2001, No.276-II.

The law went out of force with the Law of the RK from July 8, 2003, No.477-II.

Forestry Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 8, 2003, No.477-II.

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, December 20, 2004, No.13-III;

Law of the RK, January 31, 2006, No.125-III;

Law of the RK, July 7, 2006, No.176-III;

Law of the RK, January 9, 2007, No.213-III;

Law of the RK, January 12, 2007, No.222-III.

THE PRESERVATION AND USE OF WATER RESOURCES

Water Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan from March 31, 1993, No.2061-XII.

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, December 24, 1996, No.58-1;

Law of the RK, May 11, 1999, No.381-1;

Law of the RK, January 23, 2001, No.151-II;

Law of the RK, December 24, 2001, No.276-II.

The law went out of force in accordance with the Water Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 9, 2003, No.481-II.

Water Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 9, 2003, No.481-II.

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, December 20, 2004, No.13-III;

Law of the RK, January 10, 2006, No.116-III;

Law of the RK, January 31, 2006, No.125-III;

Law of the RK, July 7, 2006, No.174-III;

Law of the RK, January 9, 2007, No.213-III;

Law of the RK, January 12, 2007, No.222-III;

Law of the RK, July 27, 2007, No.315-III.

PROTECTION OF NATURAL OBJECTS AND COMPLEXES

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 15, 1997, No.162-1 “On Specially Protected Natural Territories.”

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, May 11, 1999, No.381-1;

Law of the RK, January 23, 2001, No.151-II;

Law of the RK, December 24, 2001, No.276-II;

Law of the RK, May 25, 2004, No.553-II;

Law of the RK, December 20, 2004, No.13-III;

Law of the RK, January 31, 2006, No.125-III.

The law went out of force in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 7, 2006, No.175-III.

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 7, 2006, No.175-III “On Specially Protected Natural Territories.”

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, January 9, 2007, No.213-III.

PROTECTION OF THE ANIMAL WORLD

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from October 21, 1993, No.2463-XII “On the Protection, Reproduction and Use of the Animal World.”

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, May 11, 1999, No.381-1;

Law of the RK, January 23, 2001, No.151-II;

Law of the RK, December 24, 2001, No.276-II.

The law went out of force in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 9, 2004, No.593-II.

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 9, 2004, No.593-II “On the Protection, Reproduction and Use of the Animal World.”

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, January 31, 2006, No.125-III;

Law of the RK, January 9, 2007, No.213-III.

PROTECTION OF THE ATMOSPHERE

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from March 11, 2002, No.302-II “On Protection of the Atmosphere.”

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, December 20, 2004, No.13-III;

Law of the RK, January 10, 2006, No.116-III;

Law of the RK, January 31, 2006, No.125-III;

Law of the RK, December 29, 2006, No.209-III.

The law went out of force in accordance with the Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan from January 9, 2007, No.212-III.

LAW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan from March 18, 1997, No.85-I “On Environmental Assessments.”

Changes incorporated:

Law of the RK, December 24, 1998, No.334-I;

Law of the RK, May 11, 1999, No.381-I;

Law of the RK, July 2, 2003, No.454-II;

Law of the RK, December 20, 2004, No.13-III.

The law went out of force in accordance with the Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan from January 9, 2007, No.212-III.

REFORMATION OF THE MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Decision by the Council of Ministers of the Kazakh SSR from February 18, 1988 “On Realizing the Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers of the USSR” from January 7, 1988 “On Fundamentally Restructuring Nature Protection Matters in the Country.” Created by the State Committee of the Kazakh SSR for Nature Protection.

Decree from the President of the Kazakh SSR from December 20, 1990 “On Reorganizing the State Management Bodies in the Kazakh SSR.” To form the State Committee of the Kazakh SSR on Ecology and Nature Use on the basis of the abolished State Committee of the Kazakh SSR on Nature Protection.

Decision by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Kazakh SSR from March 29, 1991, No.202 “On an Outline for Managing the State Committee of the Kazakh SSR on Ecology and Nature Use.” “In connection with the creation of the State Committee of the Kazakh SSR on Ecology and Nature Use on the basis of the abolished State Committee of the Kazakh SSR on Nature Protection, and in accordance with the Decree from the President of the Kazakh SSR from December 20, 1990 ‘On Reorganizing the State Management Bodies in the Kazakh SSR’, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Kazakh

SSR has decided:

“1. To establish that the State Committee of the Kazakh SSR on Ecology and Nature Use (GosKomEkologiya) is the central body of state management in the field of nature protection and the use of natural resources, on par with the Oblast Executive Committee, Alma-Ata and Leninsky City Executive Committees, and bears, in its entirety, responsibility for the state of the environment and the rational use of nature in the republic.” Decision by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Kazakhstan from March 11, 1992, No.216 “Issues of the Ministry of Ecology and Bioresources of the Republic of Kazakhstan.” “In implementing the Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan from February 7, 1992 ‘On Updating the Organization and Activities of the State Management Bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan under Conditions of Economic Reform’, in particular the formation of the Ministry of Ecology and Bioresources of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of

Kazakhstan has decided:

1. To establish that the Ministry of Ecology and Bioresources of the Republic of Kazakhstan, having legal successors in the State Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Ecology and Nature Use and the Forestry Ministry of the Republic of Kazakhstan, has the authority and exercises the function of an oversight management and control body in the sphere of protecting the natural environment on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The decision of the Ministry of Ecology and Bioresources of the Republic of Kazakhstan and its local bodies, adopted under its competency, is required for implementation by all ministries, departments, institutions, enterprises and organizations, regardless of the form of ownership and departmental affiliation, and by citizens.” Decree from the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan from October 10, 1997, No.3655 “On Measures to Further Increase the Effectiveness of State Management in the Republic of Kazakhstan.” This decree mandated the formation of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan, transferring to this Ministry the authority to manage the property and matters previously the responsibility of the abolished Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Decree from the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan from August 28, 2002, No.931 “On Measures to Further Improve the State Management System of the Republic of Kazakhstan.” This decree mandated the reorganization of the “Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan by way of transferring to the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan its functions and authority in the field of managing water, forest, fishing and hunting resources.” Notes *These materials encompass only primary normative legal acts.

References (in Russian) Baideldinov, D.L., Environmental Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, 1995.

Legal Reference System “Yurist”: www.zakon.kz as of September 26, 2007.

Translated by Michelle Kinman.

Appendix 2.

Monitoring Compliance with the Aarhus Convention* The Ecological Society Green Salvation continues to conduct ongoing monitoring of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

Part I The summary below contains the results of monitoring from April 2005 to September 2006. A summary of the 2005-2006 monitoring is available in the “Green Salvation” Herald 2006 (Almaty, 2007).

LEGISLATION

Literally a few days after the completion of the Second Meeting of the Parties, on May 30, 2005, the law “On International Agreements of the Republic of Kazakhstan” was passed. Article 20 of the law

states:

“1. Every active international agreement of the Republic of Kazakhstan is subject to obligatory and conscientious execution by the Republic of Kazakhstan.

2. In the event of a contradiction between international agreements of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan, international agreements of the Republic of Kazakhstan are subject to change, suspension or termination of force.” The provisions of Point 2 threaten Kazakhstan’s compliance with the Aarhus Convention and contradict Article 4, Point 3 of the

Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which states:

“International agreements ratified by the Republic supersede national laws, effective immediately, except in cases when an international agreement requires the passing of a new law.” On September 13, 2005, a Deputy of the Mazhilis of Parliament officially raised the question of repealing this article.

On October 22, the government found that Article 20, Point 2 of the law in question is “an obvious violation of Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in accordance with which a government does not have the right to refer to the provisions of its domestic law as justification for not fulfilling its agreements.” The government noted that the application of Point 2 in practice has already caused difficulties and a negative reaction abroad (Letter from the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, October 22, 2005, No. 12-8/5206).

On January 25, 2006, the Mazhilis found Article 20, Point 2 of the law “On International Agreements of the Republic of Kazakhstan” in contradiction with the Constitution and came out in favor of its repeal (Legal Reference System “Yurist”, June 2, 2006).

In early 2006, preparation of Kazakhstan’s Environmental Code was initiated. According to statements by official bodies, one of the goals of developing the Code is to bring national environmental protection legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention.

ACTIONS BY STATE BODIES

On June 3, 2005, the newspaper “Panorama” (No. 21) published a piece on the results of the Second Meeting of the Parties of the Aarhus Convention in Almaty, with a commentary by the Minister of Environmental Protection, A.S.Samakova. In particular, she said that “one should consider the fact that representatives of Kazakhstan submitted appeals to the Committee as recognition of the real work of the Aarhus Convention (rather than the work on the Protocols) in the Republic. In the course of a few months, a lawsuit will come to trial, brought by an Almaty resident against a cement factory that, in the opinion of the plaintiff, is in violation of environmental norms. In terms of the remaining appeals, the leadership of the Convention’s Compliance Committee considered the government’s actions to be optimal and sufficient to stabilize the conflicts.” A panel from the Ministry of Environmental Protection met on July 7, and on the agenda was the issue of “Progress Implementing International Conventions in the Field of Environmental Protection.” The presenter, the Director of the Department of Normative/Legal Security and International Collaboration, A.G.Bragin, offered general information on Kazakhstan’s compliance with ratified conventions and protocols. He noted that, “the work to implement conventions does not bear a systemic character: rather, it is observed only in the periods when quarterly reports are presented.” In the portion of the presentation entitled “About Primary Conventions” nothing was said about the work to implement the Aarhus Convention or the results of the Second Meeting of the Parties.

On September 22, the Commission for Human Rights under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan discussed questions regarding the protection of citizens’ environmental rights. Based on the information presented by the Deputy Minister of Environmental Protection, S. Kesikbaev, the meeting participants came to the conclusion that the right of citizens to an environment favorable for life and health is substantially limited as a result of the influence of such factors as insufficient financing for environmental protection measures and violations of the norms of environmental legislation (www.earthwire.org/cache.cfm?aid=97996).

On October 4, the “Planned Steps to Achieve the Decisions of the Second Conference of Parties to the Aarhus Convention”** was published on the website of the Ministry of Environmental Protection (www.nature.kz/obsuzhdenie/Orhus/plan_orhus.pdf).

On November 21, a public hearing was held at the Kazakh Society for the Protection of Nature regarding the submission of additions to the comprehensive program for improving the environmental situation of the city of Almaty, which is reviewed periodically. In the updated version of the document, there is no mention of measures to improve the environmental situation in the Mountain Giant District and the MVD Settlement, measures that should have been taken in connection with the decision of the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee.

On January 1, 2006, the deadline expired for the Republic of Kazakhstan’s presentation of its strategy and planned measured for executing decision II/5a. On February 3, the Compliance Committee had been sent only the draft strategy, which the Committee began reviewing on March 29-31 at its 11th meeting.

As of the printing of this article, the government had not yet confirmed the draft strategy.

ACTIONS BY THE ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY GREEN SALVATION

As an interested party, the Ecological Society Green Salvation continued to send inquiries to governmental establishments, attempting to clarify what measures are being taken to implement the decisions of the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention.

On July 28, 2005, in response to Green Salvation’s inquiry (No. 077, July 22, 2005), the Deputy Director of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, E.Aitkenov, sent “Information on Fulfilling the Obligations of the Republic of Kazakhstan to International Environmental Conventions.” The document consists of general information about compliance to conventions ratified by Kazakhstan.

In particular, the document states that the country has “the greatest experience in the region in terms of implementing the Aarhus Convention.” Yet nothing is said about the Committee’s decisions for Kazakhstan or about the results of the Second Meeting of the Parties.

On December 21, the General Prosecutor’s office responded to an inquiry from Green Salvation regarding the procedure for the application of the statutes of the Aarhus Convention. In the response, it was pointed out that the Convention’s statutes “must be applied on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.” It was also noted that it is necessary to develop and adopt a legal act “regulating the procedure for prescribing, listening to, and then taking into account public opinion on issues” related to the environment.

On February 16-17, 2006 in Geneva, a representative of Green Salvation participated in the work of the Task Force on Access to Justice of the Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention.

Questions were raised about Kazakhstan’s execution of decision II/5a (www.unece.org/env/documents/2006/pp/ece.mp.pp.

wg.1.2006.4.e.pdf).

On February 21, Green Salvation sent a letter to the Ministry of Environmental Protection requesting that it report on the measures being taken to execute decision II/5a and to report whether or not the plan of action had been sent to the Compliance Committee.

On February 28, representatives of Green Salvation met with the leader of the National Center for Human Rights, V.A.Kalyuzhny, and discussed issues related to the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee. In April, Green Salvation sent V.A.Kalyuzhny a summary of its judicial experience.

An Internet search on April 7 revealed that the “Strategy for Executing the Recommendations of Decision II/51 of the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention” was not published on any official site. It was not discussed with the public, but nevertheless was sent to the Compliance Committee. Therefore, Green Salvation requested that the Ministry of Environmental Protection provide this document.

On April 26, Green Salvation received a response from the Ministry, from which it was clear that the requested document is a draft strategy. It was suggested that Green Salvation participate in the discussion of the document and prepare remarks and suggestions.

COURT EXPERIENCE

Following the Second Meeting of the Parties, the Ecological Society Green Salvation continued to defend in the courts the rights of citizens to access to information, participation in decision-making processes and access to justice in environmental matters. Green Salvation’s judicial experience graphically demonstrates how the Convention is “observed” in Kazakhstan.

Lawsuit on acknowledging as invalid the second conclusion of the environmental assessment for the construction of the 110 kV high-voltage power line in the Mountain Giant district and the MVD settlement of Almaty city.

Based on the decision of the Committee regarding communication ACCC/C/2004/02 (www.unece.org/env/pp/compliance.htm), the Ecological Society Green Salvation again filed a lawsuit. On April 27, 2005, a lawsuit was filed “On Newly Disclosed Circumstances” against the Almaty City Territorial Department on Environmental Protection.

In accordance with Article 174, Point 1 of the Civil Procedural Code, “Civil matters are to be reviewed and settled within two months’ time.” Yet the review of the primary allegation began only on October 7 (after a delay of more than three months).

On October 10, the court determined that Green Salvation did not satisfy trial requirements. The court considers the decisions made by the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee for Kazakhstan, and the decisions of the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Convention to be voluntary, bearing only the force of recommendations. Therefore, it is not possible to consider them as newly disclosed circumstances.

On October 11, Green Salvation filed an appellate complaint to the Board of Appeals for Civil Affairs of the City Court regarding this determination.

On November 10, the Board made the decision to deny the appellate complaint, as it recognized the conclusions of the District court as correct.

On December 1, Green Salvation sent an inquiry to the General Prosecutor requesting clarification on the procedures for applying the statutes of the Aarhus Convention in Kazakhstan.

In the response, received by Green Salvation on December 21, it is explained that the statutes of the Convention “must be applied on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.” Following the Second Meeting of the Parties, the situation in the Mountain Giant District was not once raised in the media. It should be noted that the newspaper “The Country and the World” published the article “The Price of Cynicism, or is it Worth it to Knowingly Enhance Absurd Precedents?” (December 23, 2005). In this article, a comprehensive critical analysis was given of the actions of government bodies, indicating the need to implement the Aarhus Convention.

On May 31, 2006, Green Salvation appealed to the Review Board for Civil Affairs of the City Court of Almaty with a complaint for review regarding the determination of the District Court and the ruling of the Board of Appeals.

On June 28, the Review Board for Civil Affairs of the City Court of Almaty reported that the complaint for review was halted in connection with an inquiry undertaken by the Supreme Court.

On August 31, following the return of this matter from the Supreme Court, the Board reviewed the complaint. The complaint was denied.

Lawsuit contesting the legality of a normative-legal act On February 28, 2004, the Ministry of Environmental Protection approved the “Instructions on Conducting Environmental Impact Assessments for Planned Economic or Other Activities During the Development of Pre-Plan, Pre-Project and Project Documentation.” The public did not participate in the discussion of this document.

The Ministry believes that the Instructions aid the public in achieving its rights. Point 37 of the Instructions states that “consideration of public opinion is guaranteed…as established in active legislation…” Yet there is no legal act in Kazakhstan that guarantees consideration of public opinion or public participation in the decision-making process.

In order to realize the rights of the public, Green Salvation considers it necessary for the Instructions to be recognized as invalid, and a legal act to be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention.

On June 22, 2005, Green Salvation and the Ecological Club “Biosphere” (Ridder) filed a lawsuit in the City Court of Astana, seeking acknowledgement that the Instructions are invalid and contradictory to legislation.

On July 14, having reviewed the lawsuit, the Court acknowledged the Instructions as an invalid normative-legal act, as it had not been published. Thus, for over a year and a half the Ministry had been citing a document that did not have legal force.

It was not until August 26 that the Instructions were published in “The Legal Newspaper” without changes to the wording.

On September 4, following the publication of the Instructions, Green Salvation again filed a lawsuit in the Astana City Court to acknowledge their invalidity in connection with newly disclosed circumstances.

The Court decided not to accept the lawsuit. According to the Court, the publication of the Instructions does not qualify as newly disclosed circumstances.

Green Salvation did not appeal this particular decision, as it had filed a lawsuit on the inactivity of the government and other state bodies, in other words, on non-compliance with an international agreement, the decisions of the Compliance Committee and the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention.

Lawsuit to declare invalid the conclusions of the 2003 and 2004 environmental assessments for the Plant for Construction Materials and Structures No. 3, located in Almaty city In 2004, citizens L. Gatina, A. Gatin, and L. Konyshkova submitted a communication to the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee. The basis for the appeal (ACCC/C/2004/06; www.

unece.org/env/pp/compliance.htm) was the violation of their right to access to justice on environmental matters. The review of the communication began in May 2005.

On November 16, 2005, at the request of L.Gatina and A.Gatin, Green Salvation filed a lawsuit in the Medeisky District Court against the Almaty City Territorial Department on Environmental Protection to recognize as invalid the conclusions of the state environmental assessments for the project to reconstruct the Plant for Construction Materials and Structures No. 3 (Since 2007 PCMS-3 has been known as “Tsentrbeton Ltd.”).

These assessments were conducted without consideration of public opinion, in violation of national legislation and the Aarhus Convention.

From December 5 to 7, the 10th meeting of the Committee reviewed communication ACCC/C/2004/06.

On January 18, 2006, the Court decided to reject the lawsuit. The District Prosecutor asked the Court to meet the trial requirements, indicating that the Court ignored gross violations by the plaintiffs of national legislation and norms of the Aarhus Convention regarding the execution of environmental assessments. The Court disregarded both the opinion of the District Public Prosecutor and the explanation by the General Prosecutor about the Court’s obligation to apply the Aarhus Convention’s statutes.

On January 18, the District Public Prosecutor issued a protest against the Court’s ruling of January 18, 2006.

On February 1, Green Salvation submitted an appellate complaint to the Board of Appeals for Civil Affairs regarding the District Court’s decision.

On March 23, the Board reviewed Green Salvation’s appellate complaint and denied it. The District Prosecutor retracted its earlier protest of the Court’s decision of January 18, 2006.

On March 29-31, the Committee continued reviewing the communication submitted by citizens L.Gatina, A.Gatin and L.G.Konyshkova at its 11th meeting in Geneva.

On April 24, Green Salvation submitted a complaint for review with the Review Board of the Almaty City Court.

At its 12th meeting on June 14-16, the Committee made its final decision regarding communication ACCC/C/2004/06, finding the Republic of Kazakhstan not to be in compliance with the requirements of Article 9, Points 3 and 4 of the Convention.

On June 28, the Board reviewed Green Salvation’s complaint for review and rejected it.

On July 14, Green Salvation sent a complaint for review to the Supreme Court based on the court rulings the Board for Civil Affairs of the City Court of Almaty On August 10, the Supreme Court reviewed the complaint and did not find grounds for the complaint. This ruling is final; the law does not stipulate its appeal.



Pages:     | 1 || 3 |
Похожие работы:

«Бакшеева Юлия Витальевна ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ ПРОСТРАНСТВЕННО-ЧАСТОТНЫХ СВОЙСТВ СИГНАЛОВ В УЛЬТРАЗВУКОВЫХ СИСТЕМАХ ДИАГНОСТИКИ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ОБЪЕКТОВ Специальность: 05.13.01 "Системный анализ, управление и обработка информации (в технике и технологиях)"...»

«Ельчининова О.А. Мышьяк в почвах долины Катуни и над месторождениями ртути 1. / М.А. Мальгин, А.В. Пузанов, О.А. Ельчининова, Т.А. Горюнова // Сибирский экологический журнал. -1993.№ 2 Ельчининова О.А. Тяжелые металлы и мышьяк в дикорастущих лекарственных 2. растениях Алтая / М.А. Мальгин, О.А...»

«159 СУМСЬКИЙ ІСТОРИКО-АРХІВНИЙ ЖУРНАЛ. №X-ХІ. 2010 ДУБРОВИНСКИЙ C.Б. К ИСТОРИИ СТАНОВЛЕНИЯ И РАЗВИТИЯ МИКРОБИОЛОГИИ И ЭПИДЕМИОЛОГИИ В СРЕДНЕЙ АЗИИ ПРОФЕССОР А.Д.ГРЕКОВ (1873-1957). ИЗ ВОСПОМИНАНИЙ СТАРОГО ЭПИДЕМИОЛОГА1 Впервые публикуется фрагм...»

«ГБОУ ВПО ПЕРВЫЙ МОСКОВСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ МЕДИЦИНСКИЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ имени И. М. Сеченова МИНИСТЕРСТВА ЗДРАВООХРАНЕНИЯ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ ПЕДИАТРИЧЕСКИЙ ФАКУЛЬТЕТ кафедра гигиены детей и подростков ПРАКТИЧЕСКИЕ ЗАНЯТИЯ ПО ГИГИ...»

«МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ Федеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего профессионального образования "ТЮМЕНСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ" Институт биологии Кафедра зоологии и эволюционной экологии животных Н.В.Сорокина ТЕРИОЛОГИЯ Учебно-методи...»

«Ученые записки университета имени П.Ф. Лесгафта, № 9 (91) – 2012 год учебное пособие / Д.Н. Давиденко, А.И. Зорин, В.Е. Борилкевич ; отв. ред. Д.Н. Давиденко ; С.-Петерб. гос. ун-т. – СПб. : Изд-во СПб ГУ, 2001. – 208 с.3. Данилин, Д.А. Изучение индивидуальных особенностей студентов и их социально-психофизиоло...»

«СЕЛЬСКОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННАЯ БИОЛОГИЯ, 2009, 3 УДК 633.11+633.3:631.559:631.524 О ВЗАИМОСВЯЗИ УРОЖАЙНОСТИ С СОДЕРЖАНИЕМ БЕЛКА В ЗЕРНЕ У ЗЕРНОВЫХ И БОБОВЫХ КУЛЬТУР (обзор литературы) О.В. КРУПНОВА Рассмотрено современное состояние исслед...»

«Министерство образования Республики Беларусь Учреждение образования "Международный государственный экологический университет имени А. Д. Сахарова" А. С. Шиляев С. П. Кундас А. С. Стукин ФИЗИЧЕСКИЕ ОСНОВЫ ПРИМЕНЕНИЯ УЛЬТРАЗВУКА В МЕДИЦИНЕ И ЭКОЛОГИИ Учебно-методическое пособие Рекомендовано к изданию УМО высших учебных заведений Республики Беларус...»

«АДМИНИСТРАЦИЯ АКСАЙСКОГО РАЙОНА ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ № 12. 10. 2016 457 г. Аксай Об утверждении административного регламента по предоставлению муниципальной услуги "Выдача справки об отсутствии (наличии) задолженности по арендной плате за земельный участок" В соответствии с Земельным кодексом Российской Фе...»

«УДК 338.48-6:502/504 С.М. НИКОНОРОВ СОЦИАЛЬНО-ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКАЯ СУЩНОСТЬ ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКОГО ТУРИЗМА Ключевые слова: туристская конкурентоспособность, рейтинг туристской конкурентоспособности, совокупный рейтинг конкурентоспособности страны, критерии туристской конкурентоспособности,...»

«Ученые записки Таврического национального университета имени В. И. Вернадского Серия "География". Том 27 (66), № 2. 2014 г. С. 27–37. УДК 504.7 064.3 ГЕОЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ АНАЛИЗ ЛАНДШАФТНЫХ УНИКУМОВ (НА ПРИМЕРЕ ИЗВЕСТНЯКОВЫХ МАССИВОВ ЮЖНОБЕРЕЖНОГО КРЫМА) ДЛЯ ЦЕЛЕЙ РЕКРЕАЦИИ И ОХРАНЫ Вахрушев И.Б. Таврически...»

«Special material. Land law; natural resources law; environmental law; agricultural law 191 УДК 349.6 Publishing House ANALITIKA RODIS ( analitikarodis@yandex.ru ) http://publishing-vak.ru/ О понятии и классификации видов экологического терроризма Алексеева Анна Павловна Кандидат юрид...»

«УДК 544.6 ВЛАГОПЕРЕНОС В БИКОМПОНЕНТНЫХ КОНСЕРВАЦИОННЫХ МАТЕРИАЛАХ НА БАЗЕ НЕПОЛЯРНЫХ РАСТВОРИТЕЛЕЙ Н. Е. Беспалько Кафедра "Безопасность жизнедеятельности и военная подготовка", ФГБОУ ВПО "ТГТУ"; bgd@mail.nnn.tstu.ru Ключевые слова и фразы: амиды; ами...»

«Институт законодательства и сравнительного правоведения при Правительстве Российской Федерации ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВО О РЫБОЛОВСТВЕ И СОХРАНЕНИИ ВОДНЫХ БИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ РЕСУРСОВ В ВОПРОСАХ И ОТВЕТАХ НАУЧНО-ПРАКТИЧЕСКОЕ ПОСОБИЕ Руководитель авторского коллектива кандидат юридических наук Д.О. Сиваков Москва ИНФРА-М У...»

«Светлова Марина Всеволодовна КОМПЛЕКСНАЯ ОЦЕНКА ЭКОЛОГО-ГЕОГРАФИЧЕСКОГО ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ ПРИМОРСКИХ ТЕРРИТОРИЙ (НА ПРИМЕРЕ МУРМАНСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ) Специальность 25.00.36 – Геоэкология (Науки о Земле) ДИССЕРТАЦИЯ на соискание ученой степени кандидата географических наук Научный руководитель: д.г.н....»

«Экологическое занятие Подготовила и провела воспитатель высшей категории Васильева С.А "Лесное царство" Цель: закрепить знания о лесе, как о экосистеме.Задачи: — дать детям представление о том, что лес – это живой организм, который мы должны беречь, учить анализировать и дела...»

«Том 8, №2 (март апрель 2016) Интернет-журнал "НАУКОВЕДЕНИЕ" publishing@naukovedenie.ru http://naukovedenie.ru Интернет-журнал "Науковедение" ISSN 2223-5167 http://naukovedenie.ru/ Том 8, №2 (2016) http://naukovedenie.ru/index.php?p=vol8-2 URL статьи: http://naukov...»

«Вестник Томского государственного университета. Биология. 2013. № 4 (24). С. 77–97 УДК [597.6+598.1](571.1) Л.А. Эпова1, В.Н. Куранова2, С.Г. Бабина1 Государственный природный заповедник "Кузнецкий Алатау" (г. Междуреченск) Томский государственный университет (г. То...»

«РОССИЙСКАЯ ФЕДЕРАЦИЯ (19) (11) (13) RU 2 574 496 C1 (51) МПК G08G 1/01 (2006.01) ФЕДЕРАЛЬНАЯ СЛУЖБА ПО ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНОЙ СОБСТВЕННОСТИ (12) ОПИСАНИЕ ИЗОБРЕТЕНИЯ К ПАТЕНТУ 2014127098/11, 03.07.2014 (21)(22) За...»

«Серия Wind Top AE2282 All-in-One (AIO) PC Модель MS-AC7B/ AC7C Введение Содержание Авторские Права iii Товарные Знаки iii Журнал Изменений iii Модернизация и Гарантия iv Приобретение Сменных Деталей iv Технич...»

«Вестник Тюменского государственного университета. 20 Экология и природопользование. 2016. Т. 2. № 4. С. 20–32 Павел Евгеньевич КАРГАШИН1 Платон Сергеевич ЯСЕВ2 УДК 528.87+528.94 КАРТОГРАФИРОВАНИЕ ПРОМЫШЛЕННОГО ОСВОЕНИЯ ХОХРЯКОВСКОГО НЕФТЯНОГО МЕСТОРОЖДЕНИЯ кандидат географических наук, доцент кафедры картографии и геоинфо...»








 
2017 www.kn.lib-i.ru - «Бесплатная электронная библиотека - различные ресурсы»

Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.