By Nikolai Voronstov, Minister of Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection of the USSR, ["May I Have the Floor? In a Single Ecological Space, Moscow News in English, No. 44, 3-10 Nov 91 p 11]

The concept of a single economic space within the boundaries of the former Union has been coined today. But there is even more reason to discuss a single ecological space. The majority of boundaries of ecological zones does not coincide with administrative frontiers, everything overlaps. Therefore I am greatly concerned about the present-day separatist trends. Not as a Union minister caring for the preservation of his official position, but as a specialist well familiar with the problem from the "inside".

It may not seem to be a paradox, but the economic and social consequences of national egotism in the sphere of ecology may jeopardize sovereignty. To avoid this, some "arbitration court" as represented by an interrepublican body is absolutely critical. On the same level some common standards, as yet undeveloped, are also vital.

I am convinced: "ecological sovereignty" can and must be waived. Otherwise we shall be in even deeper trouble. Needless to say, on-site control or inspection by experts--all this must be controlled by the Republics. But the Centre must retain a single methodology for ecological maintenance. Many problems can generally be solved only at the world community level.

Let's not beat around the bush. It would be naive to think that once the Republics were headed by progressive presidents, the republican administrations would also consist exclusively of progressive officials. For this reason alone it is unfeasible to destroy the Union system of environmental protection departments which it took us great pains to set up a mere three years ago. It will doubtlessly have its part to play in working out and implementing the principles of the utilization of nature with regard to the established traditions.

Incidentally, there is definite connection between ecological calamities and the outbreak of ethnical conflicts. Ferghana and Sumgait are the most cogent points in this case. The conditions of congestion and constant pollution, besides everything else, generate aggressiveness.

I want to cite just one example to demonstrate what the trend to pull apart all the Union structures for various Republics can lead to. Today the country knows no plague, but ten percent of its territory may be described as pestilential nidi. The anti-epidemic service has worked with dedication. When, for instance, an epidemic broke out in Kyzyl-Kum in 1968, antiplague units were urgently dispatched there from Tuva, the Trans-Baikal area and Astrakhan. Four years later an alarming situation took shape in Tuva, and everything was concentrated there. And, indeed, how is it at all possible to eliminate the single epidemiological service?

Today, the Republics (including the Baltics) have no experience in the questions of the market economy. Yet mechanisms for the economic regulation of natural resources exploitation, an ecological market and environmental technologies must be created. Life will necessitate doing this together, on the basis of interrepublican and international programmes. There are plenty of examples to prove the point: take the problem of preserving the population of sturgeon in the Caspian Sea. It concentrates 90 percent of their world population. The sturgeon must not be caught at sea, because if they are the herd will disappear at a very rapid pace. This can only be done in rivers during the spawning period. But not all the Republics located on the shores of the Caspian have rivers flowing into it. And Russia and Kazakhstan must share part of their Volga and Ural catch with Azerbaijan and Turkmenia only in exchange for the latter's not catching sturgeon at sea. And the latter can take part in building fish factories and in fish-breeding activities. It would also be advisable to involve Iran in this comprehensive programme.

Studying the consequences of the Chernobyl accident is important for more than just our country. But this work has been organized in a most wretched way. For example, no one actually deals with analyzing the genetic consequences of the disaster. Whatever newspapers publish from time to time, various photographs of calves with six legs, are not genetic deflections but violations of individual development. Pravda recently wrote with delight the number of genetic diseases in the Chernobyl zone did not increase in 1987 in comparison with 1986. But that is nothing to rejoice over. Most mutations that arise are of recessive nature, and all specialists know this well enough. They surface only after a generation and it's very difficult to take stock of them. Nobody deals with this, the problem is simply being profaned.

Drawing on the world community for support, we could create an excellent international institute for studying this problem, but the solution to the problem has been twisted in the whirlwind of apparat games.