home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View.iso
/
txt
/
jpr
/
jpr0192.001
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-05-02
|
5KB
|
112 lines
<text>
<title>
Voronstov Decries 'Ecological Sovereignty'
</title>
<article>
<hdr>
Joint Publications Research Service, January 9, 1992
Environmental Affairs: Vorontsov Decries 'Ecological
Sovereignty'
</hdr>
<body>
<p>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]
</p>
<p> 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".
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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?
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> 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.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>