CBD in the Newly Independent States: official and unofficial views by Mr. Piotr Gorbunenko, Biodiversity Issue Group Coordinator, European ECO-Forum European Nature - Magazine on the Interface of Policy and Science, Issue 8, April 2002 During the last ten years the Newly Independent States (NIS) of the former Soviet Union have been affected by a deep economic crisis; many have suffered social crises as well. Rapid changes in society have caused instability, and have even led to military conflicts that have brought day-to-day life almost to a standstill. All the NIS countries face common threats to biodiversity, although to varying degrees. The transitional economy of this huge region has made a tremendous impact on biodiversity and caused species losses and landscape degradation in many areas, from Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova in the West to the Russian Far East. At the same time, the Trans-Caucasus, Central Asia and the Russian Far East - vast regions with a unique biodiversity - should be protected from human encroachment as a priority. Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in the NIS region began in 1993, when Armenia and Belarus ratified the CBD. The majority of the NIS countries became parties to the CBD in 1994-1996, and this process was concluded in 2000. As a result, the NIS countries are today at different stages of implementing the CBD. However, only Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan have published their First National Report to CBD and have prepared National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. Political tools Traditions in the former USSR have fostered the production of overly positive reports and quite superficial strategies, which serve a more political than technical or managerial purpose. For example, the Ukraine National Report on the Conservation of Biological Diversity (1997) states: "At the present stage of development of Ukrainian society, forestry is moving from a 'resource-oriented' to a 'biosphere-oriented' approach. Forest ecosystems are regarded primarily as important components of the biosphere, which are crucial for stabilization and restoration of the natural equilibrium". Political rather than practical aspects are presented in the Moldovan report, which pays special attention to the impacts of military complexes on biodiversity: "At present large arms depots are still kept at Russian military bases. They are illegally located on the left, bank of the Nistru River" (First National Report of the Republic of Moldova on Conservation of Biological Diversity). The report does not quantify the impacts of military complexes on biodiversity, but presents them alongside urbanization, agriculture and forestry, hunting and fisheries, power supply and water management, implying that a large part of the country is taken up by military bases. This obviously does not reflect the real situation. Common structures and common problems A serious weakness in all the strategies is cross-sectoral cooperation and common approaches. It is obvious that the majority of problems faced by the countries in transition have a strongly pronounced social and economic nature, Resolving these will require a set of measures for active participation by businesses and the public in preserving biological and landscape diversity. What measures arc stipulated in these documents? All the strategies and action plans include provisions for raising public awareness and public participation in the decision-making processes. But what is next? What form will the public participation take in practice? Who will be responsible for taking the results into consideration? What kind of cross-sectoral cooperation mechanisms should be developed? In Russia, for example, a Cross-Sectoral Commission for Biological Diversity Conservation has been set up, including top officials from the ministries concerned, state sectoral bodies and the Russian Academy of Sciences, without any representation of the business community and civil society organisations. Report cycle The problem is that all these reports were written by small groups of officials and scientists without the wider involvement of the business and scientific communities, NGOs and the public. The multi-stakeholder approach was practically neglected during the preparation of official papers. As a result, the public has not been properly informed about the necessity and requirements of biodiversity conservation. The Clearing-House Mechanism does not work properly, NGOs prepare dozens of new statements calling on officials to protect natural resources against unsustainable use, and officials draw up nice reports mat are very welcome at international meetings. Commitment Given the very limited financial resources in the region, biodiversity and landscape conservation has to be made attractive to investors by developing and implementing clear local policies. We need "win-win nature" for the environment, the local population and businesses. To this end, biodiversity considerations should be fully integrated into sectoral policies and programmes, and its economical value measured. Clear commitments and a strong, consistent effort for change are needed. A strange situation has evolved in Eastern European societies of a highly educated but poor population. "Good Agricultural Practice", now long forgotten due to the intensification of agriculture, used to be a main tool for nature protection. This knowledge has been lost, and many NGOs in the region claim that only international control can solve local environmental problems. In fact, true cross-sectoral cooperation and broad public involvement in all countries are valuable assets in achieving CBD goals. |
|
Developed by BIOTICA Ecological Society Hosted by the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW) |