"Biodiversity in Europe and ten years of transition
- by Mr. Piotr Gorbunenko, Biodiversity Issue Group Coordinator, European ECO-Forum 2nd Intergovernmental Conference “Biodiversity in Europe”, Budapest, 25 February 2002 Introductory statement
Excellencies, It is a honor for me to address the Conference on behalf of the -European ECO-Forum, which is a broad, ad hoc environmental NGOs coalition of the Pan-European region We consider this opportunity as an important step toward further development of established cooperation between PEBLDS and the ECO-Forum. Biodiversity is nature. Nature does not know political borders, policy programs and tools. However economic and social situation has tremendous impact on nature. Last decade of the 20th century created a new phenomenon - countries with economies in transition. Influence of transitional economy on biodiversity has global character, which results from political and economic changes on the area of about 23.4 mln. sq. km. In scale of our planet this impact may be compared only with consequences of world wars or repartition of the world. This decade has passed. The countries of the Central and Eastern Europe are now in process of accession to the European Union. Fourth Ministerial Conference "Environment for Europe" in Aarhus in 1998 has raised the issue of refocusing the environmental policy processes in Europe to the Newly Independent States. Methods and approaches used in CEE regions are supposed to be applied in the NIS region. Nevertheless, no real analysis of results of their implication was made and no lessons were learned. Main international financial resources available for biodiversity focus on development assistance, loans, co-funding, grants and aid to middle-income countries of CEE and the NIS. Again, there is no analysis of effectiveness of such support. Environmental approach and populism in the beginning of 90's were results of modern political demand of criticism of existed anti-environmental approaches and then went out of focus of politicians and mass media together with political changes. Unfortunately, it became a practice the direct or indirect diminishing influence of environmental ministries and agencies. Some of them lost their status and rights, and even were abolished like in Russia. Some are loosing more and more in their budgets. Environmental legislation began development with deficit of qualified environmental lawyers; therefore different mistakes were made like the exclusive state ownership on protected areas in the NIS that create problems with further development of ecological network after privatisation. Neglecting of environmental considerations in legislation led to privatisation of some valuable natural sites as in Hungary, or obstacles to create private reserve in Russia. Very important topic is land privatisation and restitution. I have already mentioned the Hungarian case of privatisation of some valuable natural sites, but it is quite common approach in CEE region. Another situation exists the NIS region, where there are two main trends in arable land's privatisation. The first one covers mainly large countries, such as Russia and Ukraine. Privatisation of land in Russia was made in rather formal way via issuing owner's certificates. It remained within associations, i.e. previous large collective farms under integral management without significant changes. The second way is typical for small countries like Armenia or Moldova where numerous farmers took their ownership for independent use. As a rule, there are small parcel (1-2 ha) where technological rotations are impossible; nothing was done for progressing of multisided co-operation. Altogether with other conditions that provoked growth of erosion, soil and biodiversity degradation. Another common trend is brought about by macro-economic structure of countries in transition. After deepest economic crisis in this area main part of GDP is coming from natural resources exploitation, including biological ones. As a result, we are facing deep conflict of interest between economic development and nature conservation. This conflict has different facets. It includes rather political than environmental considerations in legislation, as decision makers would like to obtain political dividends and profit from short-term economic development not looking to long-term results. Growing poverty also creates conditions for unsustainable use of natural resources for surviving of population in rural areas. A conflict of interests creates nihilism of the rule of law in a society, based on short-term anthropocentristic motivation of environmental consideration neglecting. The same conflict leads to choking of transboundary cooperation and joint management of natural sites and watercourses, infringing river basin approach and natural interdependency. In such conditions very important role belongs to international organisations and donors. Unfortunately quite often we are facing international support for rather paper than practical work, double standards for Western countries and for countries in transition, attempts to move environmentally unfriendly business from developed countries to this region and to develop transitional countries into region, which provide raw resources. Such situation stimulates very effectively development of black economy and corruption among authorities and results in further rapid degradation of environment. Clear policy toward technical and financial assistance providing for countries in transition should be developed. It is necessary to elaborate a system of clear and unambiguous indicators in relation to the implementation of international obligations. We need special efforts to be done for implementation of multi-stakeholder approach on different levels - international, regional and national ones. For that purpose we consider, that private sector, NGOs and other major groups should be actively involved in development and implementation of biological and landscape diversity conservation policies and programs. It is necessary to raise environmental awareness not only for public, but also for decision-makers and top-managers. Environmental education should become an integral part of general education and became a life-long learning system. Paraphrasing it - to continue from cradle to grave. All together the success of biodiversity conservation policies and programmes would depend on integration of these tasks and considerations into different sectoral policies. There are a lot of examples of simple transfer of approaches and methods from West to East without taking into consideration local specificity - economical, social and political background. As representative of NGO I would like to point out situation with involvement of NGOs from countries in transition in international programmes and projects. In many international documents it is stipulated that NGOs play a significant role in the process of public participation and help to raise public awareness on environmental matters. Many projects are implemented in strong cooperation between international NGOs and international bodies and today we could see that large number of discussion papers for this Conference were prepared by NGOs, like IUCN, ECNC, PlantLife. It means that such cooperation is possible and moreover, provides a great result. But to my mind it is question now: why is such cooperation possible only with officially recognised Western NGOs? Why NGOs from transitional countries are treated as grass-root organisations only? Why could they be only recipients of different skill-shares and provide a local consultant role for their big brothers? From my personal experience I can tell you that for NGO from transitional country it is much more easy to find financial support for public participation in management plans development, public hearing on creation of new protected area, rather than for concrete restoration activity, implementation of these decisions in practice, etc. For the implementation activities Western experts are usually invited. As a result, mainly paper work is done in the sphere of protected areas management. We need to change a traditional approach that NGOs from transitional countries could deal with public participation and public awareness only. We are not dependants but partners in our common work for our common future and we are ready for such partnership. In conclusion let me also express our gratitude to the UNEP Regional Office for Europe for the support of the CEE and NIS NGOs participation in the conference. This is great step forward in our cooperation and seeking common solutions for biodiversity in Europe. Altogether we can make a change. Thank you for your attention. |
|
Developed by BIOTICA Ecological Society Hosted by the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW) |