Архив рубрики: News

News, Publications of Green Salvation, Uncategorized

Essays on Kazakhstan Directors Endowed with a Sense of Nature

БезымянныйWe present to your attention the translation of a new book by film scholar Nadezhda Berkova. The book’s heroes are Kazakhstani film-makers with a special sense of nature inherent to each of them, who captured its enduring value for living and future generations.

The book covers the period from the emergence of non-fiction films about the interaction of man and nature in Kazakhstan until 2022. Kazakhstani film-makers have made a significant contribution to the development of documentary films.

The author hopes that the book will be useful for a wide range of readers, lovers of nature films.

Essays on Kazakhstan Directors Endowed with a Sense of Nature

Legal Proceedings, News

Summary of Lawsuits in 2024 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation

Ecological Society Green Salvation (hereafter—ES)

SECTION No.1

Case No. 1

on the failure of Almaty City Department of Urban Planning and Urbanism to provide environmental information on which section of the General Plan contains information on the buffer zone for ​​the Ile-Alatau National Park

Case background facts

On November 15, 2023, the ES sent a letter to the Department of Urban Planning and Urbanism of Almaty (hereinafter—the Department) with a request to provide environmental information on which section of the new General Plan of Almaty until 2040 contains information about the buffer zone for  ​​the Ile-Alatau National Park and where it can be found.

The response from December 6 states that in “clause 6.4.1 of the explanatory note of the General Plan (Volume 2, section Architectural and planning organization of the territory) Proposals for the preservation and development of the territories of the city’s natural complex” it is stated that “it is necessary to develop and approve in the established manner a buffer” for the Ile-Alatau National Park. However, the Department did not attach extracts from the explanatory note of the General Plan to its response.

On January 15, 2024, the ES again contacted the Department.

The Department’s response of February 2 stated that “after the approval of the General Plan of Almaty City (by the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on May 3, 2023) until 2040, all current detailed planning projects became irrelevant, and in connection with this, a decision was made to develop new detailed planning projects.”

Having checked the links provided in the response, the ES was convinced that the materials provided did not contain the requested environmental information. On March 14, the ES sent a new letter to the Department asking for documents. The Department ignored the request.

Legal violations

The Department violated the right of the ES to access timely, complete and reliable environmental information. The provision is provided for in Article 4 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (hereinafter—Aarhus Convention). The Department violated Article 13 and Article 17 of the Environmental Code of Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter—RK), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 9 of the Law of RK “On Access to Information.”

The Ecological Society went to court

On May 10, a claim was filed with the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty (hereinafter—SIAC) in defense of the interests of an indefinite number of persons and the interests of the organization.

Demands

  1. To recognize the failure of the Department to provide environmental information as an illegal action.
  2. To oblige the Department to provide an extract (in writing) from the explanatory note of the General Plan and a copy of the detailed planning project of the buffer zone.

The Department requested that the claim be denied, citing the fact that establishing a buffer  zone for the park is not its responsibility and that the plaintiff should contact Almaty City Department of Ecology and Environment.

The SIAC, guided by the norm of Article 30 of the Administrative Procedure Code (hereinafter—APC), on its own initiative involved Almaty City Department of Ecology and Environment as an interested party.

During the process, it became clear that a detailed plan of buffer zone for the national park had not been developed and the new General Plan did not provide for the creation of buffer zone.

On June 28, the SIAC satisfied the claims of the ES, recognizing the inaction of the Department as illegal, and obliged it to provide environmental information. The court pointed out the defendant’s violation of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and a number of requirements of national legislation. The court decision states that the Department is obliged to inform the court about the execution of the decision “no later than 3 (three) working days from the date of its entry into legal force.”

In September, the Department filed an appeal to Almaty City Court.

On October 31, the panel of judges, having reviewed the appeal, dismissed it.

The trial continues.

* * *

Case No. 2

on the failure of Almaty City Department of Culture to provide environmental information on the implementation of the resolution of Almaty City Akimat

Case background facts

On November 11, 2020, Almaty City Akimat adopted Resolution No. 4/492 “On the relocation of the historical and cultural monument of local significance «Airport (International Airport).»” It is included in the State List of Historical and Cultural Monuments of Local Significance of Almaty under number 65. The list was approved by the Resolution of Almaty City Akimat dated March 17, 2021 No. 1/191.

The second paragraph of the Resolution states that Almaty City Department of Culture (hereinafter—the Department) must:

“1) ensure the integrity and safety of the monument during the relocation;

2) take other measures arising from this Resolution.”

On November 28, 2022, the ES contacted the Department with a request to provide environmental information on what specific measures the Department has taken to fulfil its obligations.

On December 12, a response was received that did not contain the requested information.

On October 19, 2023, the ES again contacted the Department with a request to provide documents confirming its actions to ensure the integrity and safety of the monument.

On November 10, a response was received from the Department, which stated that the relocation of the “monument is being carried out by LLP «Arkhrest,» which has a license for this type of work based on an agreement concluded with a branch of the company TAV Airport Holding … In connection with this, we ask that you contact the above-mentioned organizations.”

On 8 April 2024, the ES, considering that the Department had once again failed to provide the requested environmental information, sent a new request.

The Authority did not provide a response.

Legal violations

The Department violated the right of the ES to access timely, complete and reliable environmental information, as provided for in Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 13 and Article 17 of the Environmental Code of RK, Article 6, Article 7 and Article 9 of the Law of RK “On Access to Information.”

The Ecological Society went to court

On May 15, 2024, the ES applied to the SIAC of Almaty to protect the interests of an indefinite number of persons and the interests of the organization.

Demands

  1. To recognize the failure of the Department to provide environmental information as an illegal action.
  2. To impose on the Department the obligation to provide environmental information on the measures taken by it to ensure the integrity and preservation of the historical and cultural monument of local significance “Airport (International Lines Airport).”

On July 22, the court issued a ruling declaring the untimely provision of information to the ES illegal. The response from the Department, received by the ES after its appeal to the court, “is a formal reply, since it does not contain information about the actions taken by the defendant to implement the order.”

The court did not satisfy the demand of the ES to oblige the Department to report on the measures taken. The court explained, firstly, that at the court’s request, “the defendant fulfilled the plaintiff’s request, providing him with all the information, documents and materials he had, confirming the execution of the resolution in the part assigned to him.” However, this was what the defendant claimed. The judge had not seen the papers and did not know about their contents!

Secondly, “the court recognizes as justified the statements of the defendant’s representative regarding the absence of any documents other than those presented to the plaintiff and the court.” This is explained by the fact that “the fire in the building of Almaty City Akimat, which occurred in January 2022, is a well-known fact, and accordingly, the defendant’s claims about the loss of documentation, including those confirming the implementation of measures to enforce the resolution, are not questioned.”

In August, the Department provided the ES with the information it had.

The case has been closed.

***

Case No. 3

on the inaction of the Akimat of the Medeu district of Almaty City, which does not fulfill its obligations for the improvement and sanitary cleaning of the container site, and on the failure of the Akimat to provide environmental information

Case background facts

Since January 9, 2024, employees of the ES have repeatedly identified violations of the planned regular sanitary cleaning in the Kensay gorge of the Medeu district of Almaty City. During inspections of the area, dumps of household and construction waste were discovered at a container site near the NN building on Shokaya Street. The violations were recorded by employees of the ES in photos on January 9, February 14, March 6, October 9 and November 11.

The ES has repeatedly appealed to the Akimat with a request to take measures to restore order in accordance with sanitary standards. The ES pointed out that near the container site grow Alatau saffron and Kolpakovsky’s iridodictyum, which are included in the Red Book of Kazakhstan.

Guided by paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Environmental Code of RK; paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Law of RK “On Access to Information;” paragraph 15 of the Regulation on the municipal state institution “Apparatus of the Akim of the Medeu District of Almaty City;” Articles 4 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention; On October 17, the ES again contacted the Akimat. The appeal proposed taking the following measures:

— to remove waste from the container site;

— to clean up around the container site;

— to organize regular and more frequent waste removal from the container site;

— increase the number of containers;

— install temporary surveillance cameras near the specified site;

— conduct explanatory work with local residents and install warning posters.

Because of the inaction of Akimat officials until the moment of filing an application to the court, the situation has not changed.

Legal violations

The Akimat violated the right of citizens to an environment favorable for life and well-being and the right of the ES to access timely, complete and reliable environmental information, as provided for in Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 13 and Article 17 of the Environmental Code of RK, Article 6, Article 7 and Article 9 of the Law of RK “On Access to Information.”

The Ecological Society went to court

On November 21, the ES appealed to the SIAC of Almaty to protect the interests of an indefinite number of persons and the interests of the organization.

Demands

  1. To recognize the fact of systematic failure by the Akimat of Medeu District to fulfill the obligations stipulated by subparagraph 17) of paragraph 15 of the Regulation on the municipal state institution “Apparatus of the Akim of Medeu District of Almaty City” as inaction.
  2. To oblige the Akimat to carry out improvement and sanitary cleaning of the container site next to the NN house on Shokaya Street. To oblige the Akimat to report on the measures taken.
  3. To recognize the inaction of the Akimat, expressed in the failure to provide the ES with environmental information, as illegal.

Several preliminary court hearings were held in November and December.

The SIAC, guided by the norm of Article 30 of the APC, at the initiative of a representative of the Akimat of the Medeu District, involved the Department of Ecology and Environment of Almaty City of and LLP “Tartip” as interested parties.

Government agencies were irresponsible in preparing for the trial.

On December 25, the SIAC judge issued a ruling to impose a monetary penalty on the head of the Medeu District Akim’s Office for failure to fulfill procedural obligations and for the purpose of respecting the law and the court. The amount of the penalty is 73,840 tenge.

The trial continues.

***

SECTION 2

Implementation of court decisions

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter—CPC)  and paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the APC, judicial acts that have entered into legal force are binding on all state bodies, local government bodies, public associations, other legal entities, officials and citizens without exception and are subject to execution throughout the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Case No. 1

on compelling Almaty City Akimat to establish a buffer zone

for the Ile-Alatau National Park

 

On May 31, 2023, the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court considered and fully satisfied the cassation appeal of the ES filed against the decision of the SIAC dated April 15, 2022 and the ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of Almaty City Court dated September 7, 2022.

The Supreme Court:

— recognized the Akimat’s inaction in failing to establish a buffer zone for the Ile-Alatau National Park as illegal;

— imposed on the Akimat the obligation to establish a buffer zone in accordance with the procedure defined in Article 18 of the Law of RK “On Specially Protected Natural Areas;”

— replaced in the third paragraph of the operative part of the SIAC decision the words “consider the issue of providing” information with “provide a response to the request of October 28, 2021.”

 

On June 23, the ES, guided by Article 241 of the CPC, filed an application with the SIAC with a request to issue and hand over a writ of execution for the Supreme Court ruling, which entered into legal force on May 31, 2023.

On July 4, the SIAC responded that “A copy of the court decision and the ruling of the higher courts with a note on entry into legal force is being sent to Almaty City Akimat of for execution. The judicial act is subject to execution within one month from the date of its entry into legal force, of which the defendant must notify the court.”

On August 25, the ES, having become convinced that the Supreme Court’s ruling had not been implemented, again applied to the SIAC with a request to issue and hand over a writ of execution.

On September 12, the SIAC responded that “it is not possible to satisfy your application for the issuance of a writ of execution, since the provisions of Article 172 of the APC provide only for the compulsory execution of a court decision on the collection of a monetary sum. However, in the case under consideration, the above court decision did not resolve issues of collecting a monetary amount. You have the right to apply to the court with a statement on the imposition of a monetary penalty in the event of non-compliance with the court decision.”

On October 18, the ES, guided by Part 5 of Article 127, Part 3 of Article 171 of the APC, filed a second application to the SIAC with a request to impose a monetary penalty on the Akimat for failure to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in the amount of fifty monthly calculation indices.

On November 6, the SIAC reliably established that by November 6, the Akimat had not complied with the Supreme Court ruling, but the judge did not take procedural measures to impose a monetary penalty on the Akimat.

On November 15, the ES again filed an application with the SIAC with a request to provide information indicating the measures taken against the Akimat.

On November 20, SMAS responded that “on May 27, 2022, Almaty City Akimat sent information to the ES on the issue of establishing a buffer zone for the Ile-Alatau State National Nature Park.”

On December 6, the ES filed a statement with the SIAC, stating that this information was not true. In June-July 2023, the ES did not contact the Almaty City Department of Ecology and Environment regarding the establishment of a buffer zone for the Ile-Alatau National Park and did not receive a response.

By December 31, the ES had not received a response from the SIAC.

On June 4, 2024, the ES once again applied to the SIAC with a statement on the imposition of a monetary penalty on the Akimat.

On July 1, the SIAC again rejected the application. The judge again gave an arbitrary interpretation of Article 123 of the Land Code of PK, Articles 10 and 18 of the Law of RK “On Specially Protected Natural Areas” and the Supreme Court ruling of May 31, 2023. He again referred to the “Rules for the development of projects of natural-scientific and technical-economic justifications for the creation or expansion of specially protected natural areas, as well as adjustments to technical-economic justifications.” The judge seems not to notice that the Rules do not regulate the organization of protected areas of specially protected natural areas.

The ES has repeatedly emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling clearly states that “the literal content of the above-mentioned provisions of the Land Code and the Law [“On Specially Protected Natural Areas”] does not imply the existence of administrative discretion on the part of the local executive body, but provides for its obligation to establish buffer zones” along all external boundaries of the Ile-Alatau National Park.

Over the past year and a half, the ES has collected compelling evidence that the SIAC does not intend to take action against the Akimat. For this reason, on August 15, a statement was sent to the Supreme Court with a request to clarify:

— what procedural decisions the SIAC should make when considering an application for the imposition of a monetary penalty on the Akimat for systematic failure to comply with a court decision;

— the procedure for executing the Supreme Court ruling, which entered into legal force on May 31, 2023. The ES asked to consider the application on the merits, without forwarding it to the SIAC and Almaty City Court. The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation.

On November 28, the ES sent a letter to Almaty City prosecutor about the Akimat’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling. The prosecutor’s office did not respond.

On December 24, Almaty City Department of Ecology and Environment sent a letter stating that “on July 26, 2024, an agreement was concluded between the National Park and BEREN COMPANY LLP for the development of projects for the creation of a buffer zone, with a completion date of work until December 31, 2024.

In this regard, after receiving the approved Natural Scientific Justification and Feasibility Study projects from the authorized body, Almaty City Akimat will take measures to develop and approve a resolution of Almaty City Akimat on the establishment of a buffer zone and a regime for the use of natural resources for the National Park on the territory of Almaty.”

Until the end of 2024, the buffer zone for ​​the Ile-Alatau State National Park from the side of Almaty has not been established.

The execution of the Supreme Court ruling continues.

 

Rights and legal interests of the Ecological Society Green Salvation are defended in court by an attorney of Almaty City Board of Attorneys Omarbekova Alma Zhanatovna.

News, PROJECTS

Who authorized the demolition of the VIP terminal?

Аэропорт123Two years have passed since the infamous demolition of the VIP terminal (old building) of the Airport. A new one has already been built. But many unknowns remain. The Ecological Society Green Salvation (hereinafter—Ecological Society) is trying to figure out the legal aspects of this story. Moreover, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter—Bank) made a significant contribution to the destruction of the monument!

A simple question: who allowed the demolition of a historical and cultural monument of local significance? We expected to receive an answer to it without difficulty, but the story turned into a real detective story and escalated into a legal battle. 

The official version is very clear

The flow of tourists eager to see the southern capital and its environs is growing. A new airport terminal is needed to increase capacity and improve services. The old building, built back in 1947, is preventing construction. It cannot be demolished, because it is a monument. What can be done in this situation? According to the law “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage Objects,” the old building can be relocated.[1] The VIP terminal needs to be relocated 400 meters to the east and everyone will be happy. The authorities decided to do so.

Article 29 of the law allows such a procedure. Relocation (перемещение) is “a change in the position of a historical and cultural monument in space.” It is permitted in exceptional cases, if the monument has been destroyed by more than seventy percent, or has lost its historical and cultural significance, or if relocation will improve “the conditions for its preservation.”

The first two cases are clearly not suitable. What about the third case? Doubtful that security will actually be improved? However, it is still legal.

Since the VIP terminal is a monument of local significance, the decision on relocation is made by the local executive body “based on the conclusion of a historical and cultural examination … in agreement with the authorized body.” On November 11, 2020, the Akimat of Almaty adopted resolution No.4/492 “On the relocation of the historical and cultural monument of local significance «Airport (International Lines Airport»).”

Аэропорт новый 6What was assigned to the Department of Culture of the City of Almaty?

Such an unusual operation for Almaty could not be left to chance. Everything must be according to the law. The above-mentioned Article 29 states “individuals and legal entities who have received a decision, when moving or changing a historical and cultural monument, are obliged to ensure the conditions for its preservation.” Local executive bodies must record the movement of the monument.

Therefore, the resolution of the Akimat in paragraph 2 states: to the Department of Culture:

“1) when relocating, ensure the integrity and safety of the monument;

2) take other measures arising from this resolution.”

Apparently, officials consider the terms “relocation,” (перемещение) and “demolition” (снос) to be synonymous.

The result is well known to all townspeople. Despite the protests of specialists and the public, the monument was demolished, but officials continue to assure us that it was relocated.

The question inevitably arose: how did the Department of Culture ensure the safety of the monument?

Аэропорт1234We decided to ask

Why does the Department insist on relocation? What has the Department done to ensure the integrity and safety of the monument? Perhaps at least some parts of the monument were relocated? We sent two letters. The Department provided a detailed explanation. “The building will be recreated and retain the original appearance of the following decorative elements.” Further, in the letter these decorative elements were listed.[2] A little later, we were further explained that it is “the decorative elements that determine its [the VIP terminal’s] cultural and historical significance!”[3] Doesn’t it matter that the building was built in 1947?

It followed from the letter that it was decided to relocate only the original decorative elements. However, the Akimat’s resolution talks about relocation the entire monument. What was the basis for this decision? Allegedly, the conclusion of a specialized institution engaged in restoration “Kazrestavratsiya” dated October 31, 2022! This document, like the conclusion of 2020, was commissioned by the Department of Culture. The second document, which is also supposedly the basis for the decision, is the protocol of the special commission of the Ministry of Culture and Sports No.6 dated November 1, 2022. It was drawn up a few days before demolition!

In February 2023, the President of Almaty International Airport Ersoy Alp Er Tung reported that the historical building, which previously housed the VIP terminal, “is now being moved piece by piece and its double (двойник) is being assembled.”[4] So is it relocated or recreated? Why individual elements and not the whole monument? The Akimat’s resolution did not mention the relocation of individual original elements. It says about the monument as a whole! A new question has arisen. Who gave permission for demolition the monument?

In addition, the Department did not say what exactly it has done to ensure the integrity and safety of the monument. We have sent a third request. The officials ignored him. We were left no choice.

On May 15, 2024, the Ecological Society appealed to the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of the City of Almaty with a demand to oblige the Department to provide information on the measures taken to ensure the safety of the old Airport building. 

The court decided

On July 22, the court made its decision. The Department’s response, received after the Ecological Society applied to the court, “is a formal reply, since it does not contain information about the actions taken by the defendant to implement the decision.” Therefore, the court declared illegal the untimely provision of information to the Ecological Society.

However, the court did not satisfy the demand of the Ecological Society to oblige the Department to report on the measures taken. Firstly, at the request of the court, “the defendant complied with the plaintiff’s request, providing him with all the information, documents available to the Department confirming the execution of the Akimat’s resolution in the part assigned to the Department.” That is what the defendant argued. The judge did not see the papers and did not know their contents!

Secondly, “the court recognizes as justified the statements of the defendant’s representative that the Department does not have any documents other than those presented to the plaintiff and the court.” On what basis did the judge make this conclusion? He draws this conclusion on the fact that “the fire in the building of the Akimat of the City of Almaty, which occurred in January 2022, is a well-known fact. Accordingly, the defendant’s allegations about the loss of documentation, including those confirming the implementation of measures to implement the Akimat’s resolution, are not questioned.” However, no one can confirm that all the documents were completely burned.

What do the documents show?

Finally, through the court, we received the long-awaited information. Including the above conclusions and protocol. However, among the papers there are no documents of the Department for 2023-2024. There are no documents for November-December 2022, when the demolition took place. An inquisitive reader will ask: ‘What follows from this?’ The fact is that the Department was obliged to control the process of dismantling the building or at least its individual decorative elements.

Dismantling a historical monument does not mean simply tearing off or cutting off certain parts of the whole. This complex process requires special knowledge, technology and equipment. All dismantled fragments must be recorded, an inventory drawn up, and ensured that they are properly packaged and stored in conditions that ensure their integrity. An installation does not mean that decorative elements can simply be nailed or welded. They must be installed using special techniques and technologies.

Among the documents received in accordance with the court decision there is no information about the above actions of the Department. During the trial, representative of the Department also argued that the Department was not obliged to exercise control. He argued this despite the fact that control is part of the officially approved official functions of the Department, prescribed in the “Regulations on the municipal state institution Department of Culture of the City of Almaty.”

We found the most interesting information in the above-mentioned conclusions made by the specialized institution “Kazrestavratsiya” of the Ministry of Culture and Sports dated October 26, 2020 and October 31, 2022.

The 2020 conclusion states “a mandatory condition when agreeing to relocation the airport building must be the preservation of the image of the monument and its use in accordance with its aviation-related purpose!”

In the 2022 conclusion, approved a few days before the destruction of the building, it is written “an acceptable way to preserve a historical and cultural monument is its relocation to a new location, while observing all the technologies and methods of its construction.” In conclusion, it is stated “the monument must be relocated.” Not a word about demolition! The experts only agreed on “relocation”! How could their decision become the basis for demolition?

The above-mentioned Protocol No.6 also does not say a word about the demolition of the VIP terminal. Perhaps there are secret expert articles or protocols that were not provided to either the court or us?

Therefore, based on the facts at our disposal, we draw the following conclusions.

There was no reason to demolish the monument. There is no decision on demolition among the documents received![5] The Department did not fulfill the task assigned to it by the Akimat resolution.

In the “Certificate of acceptance of the facility into operation” (the new VIP terminal building) dated April 29, 2024 and its annexes, the facility is called “relocation of the existing business terminal to a new site, with the demolition of existing buildings, and structures at the international airport Almaty. Increased level of responsibility.” The basis is the resolution of the Akimat dated November 11, 2020 “On the relocation of the historical and cultural monument of local significance “Airport (International Lines Airport).”

From this document, it follows that construction work began in June 2022 before receiving the expert conclusions and protocol No.6!

Now a copy of the building, and not the original, is listed in the current State List of Historical and Cultural Monuments of Local Significance in the City of Almaty at number 65.[6]

Who authorized the demolition of the old Airport building? The question remains open.

Questions for the Bank

Finally, what do the specialists of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development think about this situation? The Bank finances the “Almaty International Airport Expansion Project,” as part of which the VIP terminal was demolished. Sorry, “relocated.”

It was the experts invited by the Bank in June 2022[7] who stated, “a) the VIP terminal is not an important cultural heritage; b) the building belongs to a reproducible cultural heritage and its main structural elements can be dismantled and preserved.”

The VIP terminal is, of course, not the Egyptian pyramids or Notre Dame Cathedral. However, paragraph 36 of the Bank’s 2014 Environmental and Social Policy states “an integral element of all IRs [implementation requirements] is the requirement to comply with national legislation.” In the legislation of Kazakhstan, there are no concepts of “unimportant cultural heritage” and “reproducible cultural heritage!”

The experts invited by the Bank arbitrarily interpreted the norms of legislation of Kazakhstan and were guided by provisions that have no legal force in our country.

Although the Summary of Answers to Public Questions states the following: “The relocation of a historical and architectural monument does not contradict the requirements of the law. This was confirmed by the Department of Culture, where demolition of historical monuments is prohibited, but law permits relocation. The building will not be demolished (снесен), but will be relocated to a new location. There is existing world practice.”[8] 

© Ecological Society Green Salvation, 2024.

_____________________________________

[1] Construction terminology. Technology and organization of construction (SP RK 1.01-102-2014). According to clause 3.702 SP RK 1.01-102-2014: “Moving buildings: A set of construction works, including the installation of foundations in a new location, preparing a rail track, separating the building from the foundation, placing a rigid metal structure under the walls and columns of the building, installing devices that provide normal conditions for people in the building, moving the building along the rail paths using electric winches”: https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=36740535&pos=1;-16#pos=1;-16 (date of access to the site September 25, 2024).

[2] Response of the Department of Culture of the City of Almaty dated December 12, 2022 (Ref. No. 03.4-05/ZT-K-63) to the letter of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” dated November 28, 2022 (Ref. No. 088 and 089).

[3] Letter from the Department of Culture dated July 9, 2024 (Ex. No. 03.4-15/37-2024-03659747) to the Ecological Society Green Salvation.

[4] How the old Almaty airport building is being moved: https://krisha.kz/content/news/2023/kak-perenosyat-staroe-zdanie-aeroporta-almaty (date of access to the site September 25, 2024).

[5] Rules for issuing a decision to carry out a set of works on post-utilization of objects (demolition of buildings and structures), clause 6. Approved by order of the Minister of Industry and Infrastructure Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 29, 2021 No.202: https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V2100022672.

[6] Resolution of the Akimat of the City of Almaty dated March 17, 2021 No.1/191 “On Approval of the State List of Historical and Cultural Monuments of Local Significance of the City of Almaty (as amended on September 9, 2021): https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/ V21R0001693#z3 (date of access to the site September 25, 2024).

[7] See: Almaty International Airport expansion: https://www.ebrd.com/work-with-us/projects/psd/51186.html; Almaty Airport Expansion—VIP Terminal Building. Heritage Site Summary, June 2022.

[8] Expansion of Almaty airport. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report, August 2021. Appendix A.8 Concerns and suggestions expressed by the public, NGOs and experts regarding the VIP terminal, p.405: https://webcmsala.tav.aero/files/1654768544_RUSSIAN%20ver.%20Almaty%20Airport%20Expansion%20ESIA%20Rev%20D%20for%20issue.en.ru.pdf.

News, PROJECTS

Monitoring of national parks 2022-24

2022-24 Монитормнг обложка Вариант 02 (1)The ecological society “Green Salvation” presents “Results of monitoring of national parks of the Almaty region for 2022-2024”.  This publication is a continuation of publications under the general title “Results of monitoring of national parks of the Almaty region” for 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020-2021. The organization has been monitoring for more than eighteen years.

The purpose of monitoring is to assess to what extent the maintenance and use of national parks resources correspond to the public interest and the objectives of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. The United Nations General Assembly proclaimed “2021-2030 the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration to call for the protection and revival of ecosystems all around the world, for the benefit of people and nature. It aims to halt the degradation of ecosystems and restore them as well as conserve the ecosystems that are still intact. Only with healthy ecosystems can we enhance people’s livelihoods, counteract climate change, and stop the collapse of biodiversity.”

Monitoring tasks:

— collection of reliable information: photographs, maps, documents and other materials;

— analysis of legislation and development of recommendations for its improvement;

— analysis of the country’s compliance with international conventions;

— implementation of practical actions necessary to improve the situation and eliminate identified violations.

The focus is on the Ile-Alatau National Park. It is of invaluable importance for mitigating the effects of climate change, preserving the region’s biological diversity, preserving and reproducing water resources, and ensuring the health and well-being of residents of the significantly expanded Almaty agglomeration. The publication includes information on the Charyn, Altyn-Emel, and Kolsai Lakes national parks. Materials related to the legal situation in the Sairam-Ugam National Park were used to analyze Kazakhstan’s compliance with international conventions.

The authors did not intend to describe all events that occurred during the period covered. The main task was to analyze the facts, on the basis of which it is possible to identify trends that determine the development of the situation.

The Ecological Society “Green Salvation” expresses special gratitude to the Global Greengrants Fund for its support, thanks to which the work on the publication was successfully completed. The monitoring was carried out by the organization with the assistance of local activists and volunteers. We sincerely thank everyone who contributed to the preparation of this release.

© Ecological Society “Green Salvation,” 2024.

Conventions, News

Does Kazakhstan really need World Heritage?

… The cultural heritage and the natural heritage
are increasingly threatened with destruction
not only by the traditional causes of decay,
but also by changing social and economic conditions
which aggravate the situation with even more
formidable phenomena of damage or destruction…

Convention concerning the protection
of the world cultural and natural heritage

Thirty years ago, on Friday, April 29, 1994, Kazakhstan became a party to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.[1] On Monday, April 29, 2024, no one remembered this.

Neither the Committee of Forestry and Wildlife of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, which is responsible for specially protected natural areas included in the World Heritage List, nor the Ministry of Culture and Information, which is responsible for cultural heritage. At the briefing of the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan A.S. Smadiyarov, held on April 29, 2024, it was said about the annual weekday meeting of the National Commission of the Republic of Kazakhstan for UNESCO and ISESCO, scheduled for April 30.[2] There is also no mention of this important date in the official material about the commission meeting.[3] The UNESCO Office in Almaty, created in the same 1994, was also silent. In a word, the official bodies celebrated this “anniversary” in silence.

The media also ignored the anniversary. Well, information about World Heritage is not intended for the general reader! Although there is more than enough crime and scandals related to World Heritage sites in Kazakhstan.

Success

What has been done in thirty years?

Six sites are included in the World Heritage List.

In 2003—Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi, cultural heritage.

In 2004—Petroglyphs of the Archaeological Landscape of Tanbaly, cultural heritage.

In 2008—Saryarka-Steppe and Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan, natural heritage.

In 2014—Silk Roads: the Routes Network of Chang’an-Tianshan Corridor, cultural heritage, a transboundary object jointly with China and Kyrgyzstan.

In 2016—Western Tien-Shan, natural heritage, a transboundary object jointly with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

In 2023—Cold Winter Deserts of Turan, a natural heritage, a transboundary object jointly with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

On April 30, 2024, during a meeting of the National Commission, the head of the UNESCO regional office in Almaty presented its chairperson with the original certificate of inclusion in the World Heritage List of the Altyn-Emel National Park and the Barsakelmes Nature Reserve—parts of the transboundary object Cold Winter Deserts of Turan.

Six objects. Whether this is a lot or a little, judge for yourself. Tiny Costa Rica has four World Heritage Sites, Kyrgyzstan—three, Finland—seven, Denmark—11, Belgium—16.

It is gratifying that the number of World Heritage sites in Kazakhstan is increasing. However, every year there are more and more fears for their future.

Failures

Altyn-Emel National Park

At the end of 2008, the Kazakhstan Electric Grid Operating Company (KEGOC) Joint Stock Company applied to the World Bank with an application to finance the Moinak Hydroelectric Power Plant Power Delivery Scheme project.

According to the project, the Moinak hydroelectric power station, which was being built on the Charyn River, was planned to be connected to existing electrical networks. The power lines were supposed to be laid through the territories of the Charynsky and Altyn-Emel national parks. The project developers assured that the construction “will not have a negative impact on the flora and fauna.” They were not even embarrassed by the fact that Altyn-Emel was included in the tentative list of sites for nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List back in 2002!

A concerned public raised the alarm and launched a campaign to protect the national parks. On March 17, 2009, a demand was sent to the World Bank to refuse to finance a project that violates the “World Bank Operational Policy—Natural Habitats” and national legislation. The public demanded that alternative routes be chosen for construction.

In May, an open letter was sent to the president, parliament, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry and Hunting Committee, and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. 85 activists from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine signed it. It caused a great resonance.

The World Bank recognized the public’s appeal as justified and suspended financing of the project. The Joint Stock Company agreed that its original version contradicts the requirements of the law “On Specially Protected Natural Areas.” By October, the project was adjusted. The campaign was successful, power lines were erected, but the parks remained intact.

On September 20, 2023, Altyn-Emel National Park was included in the World Heritage List as one of the sites in the Cold Winter Deserts of Turan nomination. More than 20 years have passed since the national park was included in the tentative list of World Heritage!

We would be happy that a new World Natural Heritage site has appeared in the country! If not for one significant “but”! On June 2, 2023, further amendments to legislative acts relating to specially protected natural areas were submitted to the Mazhilis of Parliament for consideration. The essence of the proposals is to expand the possibilities for transferring lands of specially protected natural areas into reserve lands, regardless of whether the norms of international conventions apply to them or not (they were not adopted before June 8, 2024).

02 Городище Талгар. Объект всемирного наследия. Не средневековый «памятник».Talgar settlement

In the summer of 2014, the Talgar settlement, which flourished in the 8th-13th centuries AD, was included in the Chang’an-Tianshan Silk Road Corridor Route Network and proudly began to bear the title of a World Heritage Site.

In the fall of the same year, the Chinese delegation, which decided to inspect the facilities located on the territory of Kazakhstan, came to Talgar and was extremely surprised. Markings were made through the Archaeological site for the construction of a road to the Ak-Bulak ski resort. A few meters from the defensive rampart, the construction of a bridge across the Talgar River was already being completed.

A scandal broke out. Construction was stopped, officials promised to do everything according to the law, build a road bypassing the settlement, and ensure the protection of the monument. However, at the beginning of June 2016, construction resumed. A private archaeological firm carried out security excavations, proving that there is nothing valuable here! Moreover, our scientists, the Chinese, from the World Heritage Committee, know nothing about archeology or world heritage! Road workers made a hole through the southern part of the settlement for the highway… However, the scandal became international, so they were unable to complete what they started.

International commissions came twice.

On October 27, 2016, Deputy Prime Minister I. Tasmagambetov held a visiting meeting with representatives of authorized bodies at the site. Construction was completely stopped. The excavation for road construction  was filled with soil and sprinkled with straw on top. Information boards were installed and the fence was repaired. However, construction of the bridge was not stopped.

A few days later, on November 8, the site was visited by representatives of the World Heritage Center, the International Council for the Conservation of Monuments and Sites, the Ministry of Culture and Sports, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (National Commission for UNESCO), the Institute of Archaeology, local authorities, the Passenger Transport Authority and highways of the Almaty region, the public and the media. International experts prepared a “harsh” report, which spoke of violations of the requirements of the World Heritage Convention by government agencies in Kazakhstan.

Only after this, the Talgar Settlement was transferred under the auspices of the State Historical and Cultural Reserve-Museum “Issyk”. The minimum requirements of the World Heritage Center have been gradually fulfilled. A road was built to bypass the monument. The entrance group has been renovated. New information boards were installed and the facility was fenced off on all sides. The entry and exit to the monument territory was completely closed. Grazing of livestock was stopped. The streets in the east and north were paved.

However, the settlement still does not look like a tourist Mecca. Mansions continue to be built in the protected zone. Apparently, officials decided to leave the ill-fated bridge as a monument to the omnipotence of corruption.

WhatsApp Image 2024-05-12 at 23.19.51Sairam-Ugam National Park

In 2016, Sairam-Ugam National Park was included in the World Heritage List as one of the sites in the Western Tien Shan nomination. However, four years later, the “Development Plan for the Hydropower Industry of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2020-2030” was adopted. According to the plan, it is planned to amend the legislation to allow the seizure of lands of specially protected natural areas for the construction of hydroelectric power stations. The Ugam River is mentioned at number 68 in the plan! That is, violation of the norms of the World Heritage Convention is allowed even at the governmental level.

In 2022, the Correction (feasibility study) of the national park was adjusted in terms of functional zoning and the master plan for infrastructure development. Its necessity was justified, in particular, by “the creation of a cascade of hydroelectric power stations and a water pipeline to provide drinking water to populated areas.” The authors of the Correction did not even remember that Sairam-Ugam National Park is included in the World Heritage List.

The problem, as with Talgar and the Altyn-Emel National Park, has again reached the international level. In 2021 and 2023, the World Heritage Committee included in its decisions certain points regarding the situation in the Sairam-Ugam National Park.[4] The World Heritage Committee has expressed extreme concern about the planned changes to the Sairam-Ugam National Park, as this could “impact the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.” The committee asked Kazakhstan to “provide additional information on this border change at the national level.”

20240610_141707+Ile-Alatau National Park 

For more than 15 years, the destruction of the natural complexes of the Ile-Alatau National Park, included in the tentative list of sites for nomination to the World Heritage List in 2002, has not stopped.[5]

It will take more than one hundred pages to briefly describe the main problems: illegal construction, transfers of park areas to reserve lands, illegal attempts to create ski resorts, endless adjustments to functional zoning and the general plan, the ecotourism pandemic, litigation on the issue of the park’s protected zone, and so on. The saddest thing is that attempts to grab a tasty morsel from the park do not stop, and they are becoming more and more sophisticated and numerous.

In the last few years, officials and businesspersons have had plans to build a ski resort in the Turgen Canyon. In the Aksai Canyon, on the former territory of the Ile-Alatau National Park, transferred to reserve lands, a mudflow protection dam was built, the feasibility of which raises serious doubts.

“More than 775 million tenge” were stolen during construction.[6] A similar dam was erected in the Big Almaty Canyon for the engineering protection of “national economic facilities located below the designed dam… On the protected territory there are objects of the Almaty hydroelectric power station cascade, the Almaty highway—the Almaarasan sanatorium, and also recreation areas have been built and operate, cafes and restaurants.”![7]

Hundreds of hectares of the national park are leased for long-term and built up with cottages and palaces.

By government decree of May 29, 2020, more than 16 hectares of the Ile-Alatau National Park in the Aksai Canyon were transferred to reserve lands for the construction of a water intake and pipeline. 12,544 trees, including those listed in the Red Book, were cut down! The Canyon has turned into an ordinary industrial zone.

Since last year, the Akimat of Almaty[8] has been laying claim to 20,000 hectares of the Ile-Alatau National Park with the aim of including them in the Medeu regional park. This is not counting the territory of the national park, located within the administrative boundaries of the city, which the Akimat manages as if it were its own backyard!

On March 28, 2024, an announcement appeared on the website of the Charyn National Park about holding public hearings on the project of transferring specially protected areas to reserve lands, including from the Ile-Alatau National Park, for national security needs.

What is next?

November 22, 2023 “Kazakhstan was elected to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for 2023-2027 based on voting results during the 24-th session of the General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.” [9] The media immediately reported this. Kazakhstan, together with other participants, will now decide on the inclusion of cultural and natural sites on the World Heritage List assess their state of conservation and plan to provide support to States Parties to the Convention.

We will hypocritically teach others how to preserve the world heritage, and at the local level, we will destroy our own historical and natural monuments!

The country’s specially protected natural areas still do not have the legal status of strategic objects.[10] This makes it easier to manipulate their lands, including those included on the World Heritage List. How then should we understand the term “specially protected”?

The Law “On Specially Protected Natural Areas” still does not contain the category “specially protected natural areas of international importance.”  This is one of the tricks that allows officials and businesspersons to arbitrarily interpret not only national legislation, but also ignore the norms of international conventions. Although a similar norm appeared in the law “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage” back in 1992. Its introduction was connected precisely with Kazakhstan’s intention to join the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

The persistent reluctance of legislators to introduce a similar norm into the law “On Specially Protected Natural Areas” raises the suspicion that its absence is beneficial to interested parties!

Despite the fact that there are already 10 nature reserves and 15 national parks in Kazakhstan,[11] the country does not have a special department for the management of specially protected natural areas. All of them are subordinate to the Forestry and Wildlife Committee.

Some departments develop national parks for the development of tourism, others need water, others need river energy, and others need an international image. Their battlefield is specially protected natural areas. Does Kazakhstan really need World Heritage?

If all of these negative trends continue, then in the next thirty years we will lose not only our world heritage, but also vital resources. Poverty and environmental destruction are always interconnected.

© Ecological Society “Green Salvation,” 2024.
________________________________________

[1] World Heritage Convention: https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/kz/.

[2] Briefing by the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan A.S. Smadiyarov, Astana, April 29, 2024, April 29, 2024: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/mfa/press/news/details/761245?lang=ru.

[3] The State Counselor chaired a meeting of the National Commission of Kazakhstan for UNESCO and ISESCO, April 30, 2024: https://akorda.kz/ru/gosudarstvennyy-sovetnik-provel-zasedanie-nacionalnoy-komissii-kazahstana-po-delam-yunesko-i-isesko-3035430.

[4] Decision 44 COM 7B.95: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/7811/; Decision 45 COM 7B.85: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/8263.

[5] World Heritage Convention, Northern Tyan-Shan (Ile-Alatau State National Park): https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1681/.

[6] Violations during the construction of the Aksai dam threaten the lives of 30 thousand Almaty residents— Ministry of Emergency Situations, April 12, 2024: https://rus.azattyq.org/a/32902220.html.

[7] Project. Feasibility study for the transfer of lands of the Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park into reserve lands for the construction of mudflow retention structures. TsDZ LLP and GIS “Terra,” Almaty, 2017, p.9.

[8] Akimat—local executive authority.

[9] Kazakhstan elected to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, November 23, 2023:  https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/mfa/press/region-news/details/16463?lang=ru.

[10] Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (General Part), Article 193-1, paragraph 2.

[11] National report on the state of the environment and the use of natural resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2022. Astana, 2023, p.72.

 

When preparing the material, information from open, publicly available Internet sources was used. All footnotes are current as of July 5, 2024.

Conventions, News

World Heritage Watch Report 2024: Can UNESCO Still Protect the World Heritage?

2024.06 WHW Report 2024 cover pageOn June 1, 2024, World Heritage Watch a non-governmental organization that closely monitors the condition of natural and cultural sites included in the World Heritage List and the Tentative List, announced the release of the next report (1).

«Today, the non-governmental organization World Heritage Watch presents its tenth annual report on threats to UNESCO World Heritage Sites. It contains 55 contributions from all continents on cultural monuments, historic city centers, cultural landscapes and nature reserves, including several with indigenous populations.

Every year, the World Heritage Watch Report highlights the state of humanity’s common heritage. It is submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the Member States of the International Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Natural and Cultural Heritage (“World Heritage Convention”) to help them make a more comprehensive assessment of the threats and take more appropriate decisions to address them».

Global trends are not encouraging. In many countries, «local communities have been waiting for years for more decisive action from the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, for example in Stonehenge, Diyarbakir, St. Petersburg and the Acropolis of Athens. Frustration is growing that this body, made up of diplomats, gives priority to political interests rather than to the protection of heritage. In Venice, at Lake Ohrid, but also on the Upper Middle Rhine Valley, people have almost lost hope that the UNESCO World Heritage Convention can deliver on its promise to protect the sites under their tutelage».

There is also positive news. «Last year, President Biden declared nearly 1 million acres (404,685.642 ha) adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park a national monument, not only prohibiting further uranium mining, but also protecting sacred sites of several indigenous nations».

2023.10.06 Аксай 4472Two publications in the report are dedicated to Kazakhstan. The Ecological Society Green Salvation prepared the material «Legal obstacles to the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the Republic of Kazakhstan». It highlights the situation in the Ile-Alatau National Park, which was included in the Tentative List for inscription on the World Heritage List back in 2002. Another material, «Imminent threats to the Western Tien Shan in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan», talks about threats to the transboundary World Heritage site The Western Tien Shan, which was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2016.

The main threats to World Heritage sites in Kazakhstan remain the same. This is the inconsistency of many norms of national legislation with the norms of the Convention, poor implementation of its requirements by government and business structures, economic development of specially protected natural areas, overtourism, and depletion of water resources, urbanization, and ineffective management.

We invite interested readers to familiarize themselves with the important and informative materials of the report.

_______________________

1. WHW – https://world-heritage-watch.org/.

News, PROJECTS

Bank for Development and Reconstruction… and Reproduction!

Аэропорт123Good intentions

In November 2020, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereafter—EBRD) approved a “syndicated loan of up to $229.4 million” to finance the development of infrastructure at Almaty International Airport (hereinafter—ALA) and improve the level of services on its territory, including the construction of a new passenger terminal.[1]

“With the construction of a new international terminal, the modernisation of the domestic terminal, and the adoption of IATA’s [The International Air Transport Association] Optimum Level of Service standards, the airport will be able to provide better quality aeronautical services and expand its commercial space to offer a wider scope of non-aeronautical services. The involvement of TAV Airports, a global and experienced airport operator, will improve the connectivity, service quality and will help develop ALA’s potential as a major regional transit hub. This Project will be the first large-scale foreign direct investment in the airport infrastructure sector in Kazakhstan and the largest across the Central Asia region.”

Аэропорт1234They wanted to do it according to the law.  It turned out as always

Everything would be fine, but there was one problem. The airport’s VIP terminal building, built in 1947, stood in the way of the implementation of the largest transaction of its kind in Central Asia. And the trouble is, it turned out to be a historical and cultural monument of local significance in accordance with Kazakh legislation.[2]

There is nothing to be done; the issue must be resolved in accordance with the requirements of national legislation. And the following explanation appeared in the EBRD project: “As part of the terminal expansion, the existing building of VIP terminal will need to be relocated. This building has both historical and cultural significance and protected under the national legislation.” This formulation was fully consistent with the spirit of the bank’s Environmental and Social Policy. “EBRD will not knowingly finance, directly or indirectly, projects involving the following: … (c) Activities prohibited by host country legislation or international conventions relating to the protection of biodiversity resources or cultural heritage.”[3]

Then “legal” improvisation began, if not casuistry. “A Cultural Heritage study, conducted by an international specialist firm, confirmed that: (a) VIP terminal is not critical cultural heritage; (b) the building relates to a replicable cultural heritage, and its main structural elements can be salvaged for subsequent preservation; (c) types of expertise required to preserve the replicable elements of the building ex situ or reintegrate them into the building of a new terminal. The government supported key recommendations of PR8 [cultural heritage] study, and the client re-confirmed its commitment with regards to the preservation of the key structural elements of the VIP building.” [4]

Firstly, the project developers obviously got something wrong. There is a concept of reproducible resources. However, what is “reproducible cultural heritage”? This is an “invention” of the International Finance Corporation, which is used in the manual on cultural heritage sites. In any case, there is no such definition in the legislation of Kazakhstan. Secondly, it seems that the creators of the project are deliberately juggling various terms. Either move, then dismantle, then reproduce! As a result, the building was simply demolished, retaining key structural elements. Third, the claim that the government “supported the key recommendations of the study” is highly questionable. In the resolution of the Akimat[5] of the city of Almaty dated November 11, 2020 No. 4/492 “On the relocation (перемещение) of the historical and cultural monument of local significance Airport (International Lines Airport),” paragraph 2 states: “To the municipal state institution Department of Culture of the City of Almaty:

1) When transferring, ensure the integrity and safety of the monument;

2) Take other measures arising from this resolution.”

No dismantling, much less demolition, was even planned. What a disobedient Akimat!

Fourthly, Article 29 of the Law “On the Protection and Use of Objects of Historical and Cultural Heritage” [6] states:

“1. Relocation and changing a historical and cultural monument is a change in the position of the historical and cultural monument in space, its appearance, space-planning and design solutions and structures, interior and other physical characteristics reflected in the passport of the historical and cultural monument.

  1. Relocation or changing a historical and cultural monument is prohibited.

An exception is allowed only in cases of destruction of more than seventy percent of a historical and cultural monument or loss of historical and cultural significance, or if its movement and change will lead to an improvement in the conditions for its preservation …

  1. Individuals and legal entities that received the decision, when relocating or changing a historical and cultural monument, are obliged to ensure the conditions for its preservation!”

What national law was the EBRD guided by when deciding to dismantle “not critical” cultural heritage? By the way, there is no such concept in the legislation of Kazakhstan either.

Everyone knows where the road paved with good intentions leads. The case with the airport VIP terminal building was no exception. 

Аэропорт новый 6How can we understand you now?

The public of the city of Almaty was extremely concerned about the plans to relocate the historical and cultural monument. There was and is no such experience in Kazakhstan. According to independent experts, as a result of the “transfer” (relocation), the historical building could have been completely lost.

On December 28, 2020, public hearings were held on the project “Assessment of the environmental impact for the period of operation and reconstruction, expansion and development of the passenger terminal building and platform, and associated infrastructure facilities at the Almaty International Airport.”

At the hearings, representatives of the public put forward a demand to make changes to the Almaty airport reconstruction project to preserve the old building.

In November 2022, unfortunately, as part of a project financed by the EBRD, a cultural heritage site of local importance in Almaty— the airport VIP terminal building—was demolished. In 2023, its copy was erected on Akhmetov Street.

We believe that the EBRD violated its own Environmental and Social Policy, which does not allow financing activities prohibited by the laws of the host country!

On October 16, 2023, the Eсоlogical Society Green Salvation sent a letter to the Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for Kazakhstan with a request to inform what measures the bank plans to take in connection with violation of the requirements of its Environmental and Social Policy. There was no response until early December.

This is a violation of another policy point, namely EBRD Project Implementation Requirement 10: Information Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement. The first paragraph of the introduction of Requirement 10 states: “In particular, effective community engagement, appropriate to the nature and scale of the project, promotes sound and sustainable environmental and social performance, and can lead to improved financial, social and environmental outcomes, together with enhanced community benefits.” What benefits did the population receive from the demolition of the airport’s VIP terminal?

On December 5, 2023, the Ecological Society sent a new appeal to the EBRD. On December 20, the long-awaited answer arrived.

Of course, the EBRD considers that the Environmental and Social Policy has not been violated. “All concerns and requests from the public, activists, and CSOs [Civil Society Organizations] were given careful consideration, and detailed responses had been provided throughout the consultation process.”

“Furthermore, to address your concern regarding the lack of in-country expertise in Kazakhstan to relocate the historic buildings, the sponsors hired one international heritage consultancy to carry out the heritage assessment and an another international heritage firm to guide the preparation and implementation of the VIPT [VIP terminal] relocation process (Mott McDonald).”

The sponsors considered three options.

Option 1. Keep the historic VIPT building in its original location and build a new terminal adjacent to it (proposed by the Project);

Option 2. Replace the existing VIPT building with a new International Passenger Terminal to the south, with the new terminal taking its place (proposed by the Project);

Option 3. Use the design features of the historic VIPT and integrate them with new features as part of the new passenger terminal (proposed by the stakeholders).”

“Following an in-depth analysis of each alternative and a series of public consultation meetings, the option 2 was selected as the most viable and realistic alternative.” The terminal was demolished. The EBRD does not deny this fact, but provides the following arguments to justify it.

“It needs to be borne in mind that the historic VIPT building was an element within a much larger culturally significant landscape, i.e. extending along Mailin Street and terminating at the airport garden forecourt and historic VIPT. This culturally significant resource had lost much of its landmark status over the years through subsequent development. Mitigation to offset the loss of the historic VIPT has consequently devoted a lot of attention to recovering as much of the eroded significance of the larger cultural landscape as possible.” Not a monument, but a cultural landscape!

Expert opinion is, of course, a significant argument, but not final and not binding. According to paragraph 12 of the Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 11, 2003 No. 5 “On court decisions in civil cases”: “The expert’s opinion does not have an advantage over other evidence and is not binding on the court. It must be assessed in conjunction with other evidence.”

The letter does not contain one, apparently, in the EBRD’s opinion, insignificant detail. There is no reference to the law, according to which the demolition of the monument was recognized as “the most viable and realistic alternative.” As mentioned above, in Article 29 of the Law “On the Protection and Use of Objects of Historical and Cultural Heritage,” the movement of historical and cultural monuments does not imply their demolition. Moreover, paragraph three of this article states that “individuals and legal entities who have received the decision, when relocating or changing a historical and cultural monument, are obliged to ensure the conditions for its preservation!” The conditions for the preservation of the monument have been met, but what about the preservation of the monument? How can we understand you now, gentlemen?

P.S.

“3.702 Moving buildings (передвижка зданий): a complex of construction works, including the installation of foundations in a new location, preparing a rail track, separating the building from the foundation, placing a rigid metal structure under the walls and columns of the building, installing devices that provide normal conditions for people in the building, moving the building along the rail track using electric winches.”[7]

“3.972 Building demolition (снос зданий): Purposeful, often forced, activity to liquidate a construction site, due to a number of reasons or physical and moral deterioration of the construction site.”[8]

 

© Ecological Society Green Salvation, 2024.

[1] Almaty International Airport expansion: https://www.ebrd.com/work-with-us/projects/psd/51186.html.

[2] Resolution of the Akimat of the city of Almaty dated November 10, 2010 No. 4/840 “On approval of the State List of Historical and Cultural Monuments of Local Significance of the City of Almaty,” paragraph 73: http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V10R0000864.

[3] Environmental and social policy. As approved by the Board of Directors at its Meeting on 7 May 2014,  Appendix 1:

https://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/policies/esp-final.pdf.

[4] Almaty International Airport expansion.

[5] Akimat is a local executive body.

[6] Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 26, 2019 No. 288-VI “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage Objects” (as amended on May 1, 2023).

[7] Construction terminology. Technology and organization of construction. SP RK 1.01-102-2014. Astana, 2015, p.61.

[8] Ibid., p.82.

News, PROJECTS

National park, water, land and 12 thousand cut down trees

The global economy is already so far above sustainable
levels that there is very little time left for the fantasy of an infinite globe.

Donella H Meadows; Jorgen Randers; Dennis L Meadows[1]

A city devouring itself

What does the construction of four new water intakes[2] for Almaty indicate? Firstly, that the city constantly lacks water. Secondly, that the ecological capacity of the territory has been exceeded and Almaty has reached the limits of its growth. If this urban development trend continues to dominate, then no new water intakes or wells will save the situation.

Last year, at a meeting with Almaty residents, the akim[3] publicly admitted: “I am forced to admit that today in the state land fund of the city there are no free land plots for the construction and expansion of social infrastructure, as well as places of leisure and public spaces. We will solve these problems exclusively through construction or extensions, or the purchase of buildings and land plots from private owners.”[4]

The population growth of Almaty, Astana and Chimkent is largely due to “internal migration from the regions.” “The number of residents of Astana has increased by 82.3% since 2012. If ten years ago 742 thousand people lived in the capital, then in 2023 there will be about 1.4 million citizens.

In Almaty, the situation is similar: over ten years the population has increased by more than 700 thousand people, amounting to almost 2.2 million people. In relative terms, this is plus 49.1%.”[5] About “60% of the increase comes from migration.”[6] Why do people strive to live in megacities? “Only Astana and Almaty have higher indicators of workers’ well-being than the country as a whole. […] Despite the inconveniences and hardships that residents of big cities are forced to put up with—long waits in traffic jams, queues, polluted air—for many migrants, the opportunities of megacities outweigh all the disadvantages.”[7] In other words, the city’s population is growing because of migration from disadvantaged areas of the country.

“Over the past eight years, the city’s area has doubled from 33.3 thousand hectares to 68.3 thousand hectares.”[8] How did it increase? Through the annexation of suburban settlements, vast fertile fields that fed the city for many decades, cutting down gardens, building water protection strips, transferring lands of specially protected natural areas into reserve lands! How much have fresh water reserves increased? How much cleaner has the air above us become? The official authorities are silent about this.

Almaty is firmly established among the cities in Kazakhstan with the most polluted air. Smog has been hanging over Almaty for more than 50 years. Two generations of Almaty residents were born and raised, inhaling a toxic mixture every day. Only the pre-smog generation of townspeople still remembers the freshness of the clear air, shady streets and parks, the crystal water of rivers and ditches. The youngest generation suffers from smog, allergies, bottled water, diseased trees, the incessant roar of thousands of cars, dense urban development, concreted riverbanks, and countless landfills. In a word, growth without end and without edge!

Despite the obvious evidence that the environmental load on the urban area is exceeded, we hear a new call as a recipe for breaking the environmental impasse: “The success of the future development of the city of Almaty is determined, first of all, by the sustainable growth of its economy, financial income and the active attraction of investments.”[9] Are development and growth synonymous? Very strange. Development and growth are different concepts.[10] Maybe our establishment doesn’t understand this or simply doesn’t know what to do with a city that is devouring itself?

Where to get water?

As stated above, the Almaty authorities intend to “sort out” the water shortage by building new water intakes. Where to get water? One of the main sources is the rivers of the Ile-Alatau National Park. Everything is “done” in the most primitive and destructive way by transferring his lands to the category of reserve lands.

Paragraph 11 of Article 36 of the Environmental Code states: “In order to preserve and improve specially protected natural areas for these territories, taking into account their special environmental status, in accordance with this Code, more stringent environmental quality standards may be developed and approved than those established for throughout the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.”[11] However, this is a “dry theory,” but in practice… For some reason, not a single innovation comes to mind regarding the approval of more stringent environmental standards for national parks. Nevertheless, there are more than enough examples indicating the deterioration of the situation.

Aksai canyon. “According to the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No.337 dated May 29, 2020 “On the transfer of lands of specially protected natural areas into reserve lands,” the lands of the RGU Ile-Alatau State National Nature Reserve” … with a total area of ​​16.6042 hectares were transferred from specially protected natural areas to the category of reserve lands of Karasai district of the Almaty region for the construction and operation of a water intake structure and a main pipeline on the Aksai River for water supply to the Nauryzbay district of Almaty.” [12]

By Government Decree No.808 of November 12, 2021, 5.69 hectares of land of the Ile-Alatau State National Park were transferred “to the category of reserve lands in the Karasai district of the Almaty region for the construction of a water intake structure on the Kargaly River for water supply to the Nauryzbay district of the city of Almaty!”

By Government Decree No.293 of May 16, 2019, 49.7306 hectares of land of the Ile-Alatau State National Park were transferred “from the category of lands of specially protected natural areas to the category of reserve lands for the construction of mudflow protection dams.” The same resolution says “2. The Akim of the city of Almaty, in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, ensures: …

2) preservation of objects of the natural reserve fund!” The whole city knows what the construction site in the Big Almaty Gorge has been turned into.

By Government Decree No.1408 of November 10, 2012, 29.4597 hectares of the Ile-Alatau SNNP were transferred to the category of reserve lands of the Karasai district of the Almaty region.

Recently, the Akimat of Almaty announced claims to 20,000 hectares of the Ile-Alatau National Park, with the aim of including them in the Medeu regional park.

In addition, this is not counting the territory of the national park, located within the administrative boundaries of the city, which the Akimat manages as if it were its own backyard!

The myth of compensatory landings

The areas of the national park transferred to the category of reserve lands are not wastelands. These are wild fruit and coniferous forests, ecological systems that have undergone only minor anthropogenic impact. But in order to “ensure conditions for construction activities, construction and installation work” in the Aksai canyon, “in accordance with the permission of the State Institution “Department of Housing and Communal Services, Passenger Transport of Highways and Housing Inspectorate of the Karasai District” dated 08/10/2023,” workers cut down 12,544 trees! Apparently, according to officials, cutting down trees does not affect the places where they grow and the state of natural ecological systems. It is enough to make compensatory plantings of trees, anywhere and anyhow, and you will instantly reproduce natural ecosystems

To realize this environmental miracle, the Department of Energy and Water Supply of the city of Almaty was given an order to carry out compensatory “restoration of trees and shrubs by planting seedlings of tree and shrub species in 10-fold size, as well as to carry out a full range of measures to protect, maintain and preserve forest plantations in the adjacent territory.”[13]

In accordance with the permit, the following felling included: birch, cherry, squat elm, rough elm, oak, Tien Shan spruce, willow, Norway maple, walnut, plum, Scots pine, sumac, white poplar, trembling poplar, pyramidal poplar, ash common, creeping juniper, barberry, hawthorn, viburnum, buckthorn, sea buckthorn, rowan, lilac, rose hip.

With a generous hand, they gave permission to proceed to cut down plants included in the Red Book of Kazakhstan—an illustrated list of rare and endangered species of plants and animals and plants included in the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. According to the permit, 1,028 apricots were cut down. Apricot—scientific name “common apricot” (Prunus armeniaca—synonym Armeniaca vulgaris) is included in the official “List of rare and endangered species of animals and plants”[14]—paragraph 117. 2345 apple trees were cut down (varieties not specified). This List includes wild varieties of apple trees: item 113—Niedzwetzkyana apple tree (Malus niedzwetzkyana); point 114—Sievers apple tree (Malus sieversii). Niedzwiecki apple and Sievers apple are classified as “endangered” and “vulnerable” species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List.[15]

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 339 of the Criminal Code,[16] “Illegal… destruction of rare and endangered plant species… as well as destruction of their habitats is punishable by a fine in the amount of up to three thousand monthly calculation indices, or correctional labor in the same amount, or involvement in public works for a term of up to eight hundred hours, or restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for the same term, with confiscation of property, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to five years.”

However, this is again just a “dry theory,” but in practice, you are once again convinced that our officials do not care. After all, it is at their “order” that trees are cut down “exclusively for people and for the sake of people,” and ecological systems are destroyed on the former lands of the national park, which provides us with vital benefits. What a touchingly fanatical concern for a person!

“Aquatic ecosystems in Kazakhstan are particularly vulnerable”

Are there no other ways to solve the problem? In 2022, the UN Development Program published a special publication for our country, “Simply on Climate Change. Handbook on adaptation to climate change in Kazakhstan!” [17]

What do the experts offer? First, they note, “aquatic ecosystems in Kazakhstan are particularly vulnerable.” Therefore, “it is necessary to change the entire system of state planning, the procedure for the development, implementation and financing of state and territorial programs taking into account climate change.”

Secondly, they emphasized the importance of implementing the following measures:

— “building nature-based infrastructure for flood prevention, including the expansion and restoration of forests and wetlands;

— restriction of economic activity in areas exposed to climate risks in order to preserve and restore vegetation cover in watersheds in order to reduce the dangers of mudflows and floods;”

— “restoration and preservation of forest ecosystems, increasing forest cover and forest belts to regulate and prevent flooding and flood phenomena;”

— “development of networks of protected natural areas and eco-corridors to protect the migrations of animals and birds and preserve biodiversity;”

— “increasing forest cover in drainage areas in river basins and reforestation in areas where river flow dissipates.” “For example, forests in river basins significantly reduce the severity and speed of flash floods. But for this it is necessary that at least 30% of the river basin be covered with forest.”[18]

Thirdly, it is necessary to reduce consumption!

“Forests and trees are integral components of the water cycle.”[19] Destruction of forests, especially along riverbanks, causes irreparable harm to forest and aquatic ecosystems.

If you compare the recommendations of the UN Development Program with the “activities” in the Aksai canyon, it becomes obvious that they mean absolutely nothing to officials and developers. The forest is being cut down, and the habitats of rare and endangered species are being destroyed, and the mountain slopes are being destroyed, and water protection zones are being built up! What can we expect as a result other than a deterioration in the environmental situation and an increase in water scarcity?

Vicious circle

We are caught in a vicious circle. The lack of state environmental policy in the context of the global environmental crisis and the predatory exploitation of vital resources, the lack of which is becoming more obvious every day, lead to a deterioration in the quality of life! Violations of human rights to live in an environment conducive to health and well-being have become the norm.

Uncontrolled urbanization is creating more and more environmental problems. Solving them by plugging the holes and applying patches where they are torn temporarily relieves the tension. “By indiscriminately extracting water resources, damaging nature and biodiversity, polluting both Earth and space while cutting down options to deal with disasters, human actions introduces new risks and amplifying existing ones.”[20]

By sacrificing the ecological systems of specially protected natural areas, their forests and mountains, to economic growth, “it is as though we are approaching a cliff that we cannot see clearly ahead of us, and once we fall off the cliff, we can’t easily go back,”[21]

“Forests are vital for water security: forest and mountain ecosystems serve as source areas for more than 75 percent renewable water supply, providing water to over half of the world’s population.”[22]

The downside of economic growth is increased water scarcity, increased disease, increased waste, increased poverty and unsustainable development.

 

P.S. The Ecological Society “Green Salvation” sent an appeal to the Committee on Ecology and Natural Resources Management of the Mazhilis of Parliament. It proposes, in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 36 of the Environmental Code, to develop and approve more stringent environmental quality standards for specially protected natural areas than those established for the entire territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. According to the Ecological Society, it is first necessary to introduce stricter environmental standards for specially protected mountain and forest areas.

The Ecological Society sent an appeal to the prosecutor’s office of the Almaty region with a request to verify compliance with the law when issuing permits for cutting down rare and endangered plant species of the Republic of Kazakhstan and plants included in the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

 

© Ecological Society “Green Salvation,” 2023.

[1] D.H.Meadows; J.Randers; D.L.Meadows. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update.—London, Earthscan, 2006, p.12.

[2] Almaty will build four new water intakes, August 19, 2023: https://kapital.kz/economic/118366/v-almaty-postroyat-chetyre-novykh-vodozabora.html.

[3] Akim— head of local executive authority.

[4] Report of Almaty akim E. Dosayev from a meeting with the population of Bostandyk district, April 14, 2022: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/almaty/press/article/details/82534?lang=ru.

[5] Cities are not rubber: what has uncontrolled urbanization led to in Kazakhstan? September 19, 2023: https://finprom.kz/ru/article/goroda-ne-rezinovye-k-chemu-v-kazahstane-privela-beskontrolnaya-urbanizaciya.

[6] Almaty is a global city for people. Main priorities of the Almaty Development Plan until 2025 and medium-term prospects until 2030. June 2022, p.3.

[7] Cities are not rubber…

[8] Almaty city development program until 2025 and medium-term prospects until 2030. Almaty, 2022, p.17: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/almaty/documents/details/344101?lang=ru.

[9] Almaty city development program until 2025…, p.72.

[10] Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jørgen Randers. Beyond the Limits, Chelsea Green Publishing, 1992, p. xix.

[11] Environmental Code (as amended and supplemented as of September 5, 2023).

[12] Response of the RGU “Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park” dated September 13 (Ref. No. ЗТ-2023-01714512) to the letter of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” dated August 31, 2023 (Ref. No. 061).

[13] Response of the RGU “Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park”….

[14] “List of rare and endangered species of animals and plants,” approved by government decree of October 31, 2006 №1034: https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/P060001034_.

[15] The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species:

— Malus sieversii: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/32363/9693009;

— Malus niedzwetzkyana: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/63477/12681555;

— Prunus armeniaca: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/50134200/50134213#assessment-information.

[16] Criminal Code of July 3, 2014 No. 226-V (with amendments and additions as of September 12, 2023: https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1400000226.

[17] Just about climate change. Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation in Kazakhstan, UNDP, 2022: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/kz/e0520a6f85cf55f851ea4ea57827e012f403cc63b70f1c3d199a390d5b9c29ff.pdf.

[18] Just about climate change. … pp.10, 16, 25, 29-30, 47.

[19] A guide to forest-water management. FAO, IUFRO and USDA. 2021. FAO Forestry Paper No. 185. Rome, р.3: https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6473en.

[20] ‘Tipping points’ of risk pose new threats, UN report warns, October 25, 2023: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142807/

[21] Ibidem.

[22] A guide to forest-water management, р.3.

 

Conventions, News

Obstacles to the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Kazakhstan

The Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment “has completed a series of six thematic reports on the substantive elements of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, including clean air, safe and sufficient water, healthy and sustainably produced food, non-toxic environments, healthy ecosystems and biodiversity and a safe, livable climate. He would like to seek inputs on the procedural or participatory elements of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, including access to information, public participation and access to justice with effective remedies.”[1]

* * *

Responses to the questionnaire of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment

 

To the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment: hrc-sr-environment@un.org

From Ecological Society “Green Salvation,” Almaty City, Republic of Kazakhstan:  gsalmaty@gmail.com   

 

The answers are given based on the practical human rights activities of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation,” (hereinafter—GS) and therefore the answers are given to just a few questions. The answers reflect only the opinion of the organization.

 

Questions

  1. What are States’ obligations—and businesses’ responsibilities—related to the rights to access information, public participation and access to justice with effective remedies in environmental matters? What are the major barriers to the full enjoyment of these rights?

Responses

The obligations of the State and the responsibilities of business related to rights of access to information, public participation and access to justice are enshrined in the Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2021.[2]

There are a number of significant obstacles to the full implementation of the rights to access information, public participation and access to justice.

 

  1. Subparagraph 5 of paragraph 2 of Article 13 and paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Environmental Code contradict the norms of paragraph 3 of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention. In accordance with these articles, the public does not have the right to apply to the court to challenge the legality of actions (omissions) of private individuals that violate the provisions of national legislation related to the environment.

Article 13, paragraph 2: “In order to ensure the right of every person of present and future generations to live in a favorable environment, the state recognizes and guarantees the following rights of the public: …

Subparagraph 5) to apply to the court with an application to challenge the legality of actions (inaction) and decisions of state bodies, local governments, officials and civil servants on environmental issues, including those related to the elimination of environmental damage caused and the suppression of violations of the requirements of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.”

Article 14: “Non-profit organizations in carrying out their activities in the field of environmental protection, in addition to the rights provided for in Article 13 of this Code, also have the right to: …

Paragraph 3) to apply for protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities, including in court, as well as to appeal against the legality of actions (inaction) and decisions of state bodies, local governments, officials and civil servants in the interests of an indefinite number of persons.”

The mentioned norms of the Environmental Code violate and contradict:

— paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan according to which: “Everyone shall have the right to legal defense of his rights and freedoms;”

— paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan according to which: “Everyone shall be equal before the law and court.”

 

  1. The Environmental Code of 2021 does not contain a provision on the mandatory implementation of the environmental impact assessment (hereinafter—EIA) procedure for all types of planned activities. A similar norm existed in the 2007 Environmental Code.

According to paragraph 1 of Article 65 of The Environmental Code of 2021, EIA is mandatory only for activities defined in a special annex to the Environmental Code.

“Article 65. Mandatory nature of environmental impact assessment

  1. Environmental impact assessment is mandatory:

1) for the types of activities and facilities listed in section 1 of Appendix 1 to this Code, taking into account the quantitative threshold values ​​specified therein (if any);

2) for the types of activities and facilities listed in section 2 of Appendix 1 to this Code, taking into account the quantitative threshold values ​​specified therein (if any), if the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment in relation to such activities or such facilities is established in the conclusion on results of screening of the impacts of the planned activity;

3) when making significant changes to the types of activities and (or) the activities of the facilities specified in subparagraphs 1) and 2) of this paragraph, in respect of which an environmental impact assessment was previously carried out;

4) when making significant changes to the types of activities and (or) the activities of the facilities listed in section 2 of Appendix 1 to this Code, in respect of which a conclusion was previously issued on the results of screening of the impacts of the planned activity with the conclusion that there is no need to conduct an environmental impact assessment, in cases where the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment of such significant changes is established in the conclusion on the results of the screening of the impacts of the planned activity.”

Even for planned economic activities in specially protected natural areas that are subject to international conventions, mandatory EIA is not provided for. This contradicts not only the rules of the Aarhus Convention, but also the rules of Appendix III of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, which defines “significant adverse transboundary impact.”

“While what would constitute a «significant impact on the environment» is not defined in the Convention [Aarhus Convention], some guidance as to how it is interpreted in other contexts can be found in appendix III to the Espoo Convention and other sources related to EIA procedure.”[3]

The restriction introduced in the 2021 Environmental Code has significantly reduced the scope for public participation in decision-making even in the case of significant environmental impacts. In addition, this contradicts the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 3 of the Aarhus Convention, which states:

“5. The provisions of this Convention shall not affect the right of a Party to maintain or introduce measures providing for broader access to information, more extensive public participation in decision-making and wider access to justice in environmental matters than required by this Convention.

  1. This Convention shall not require any derogation from existing rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.”

 

  1. In accordance with the new Administrative procedural and process-related code of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2020 (hereinafter—APPC),[4] too long deadlines for consideration of applications in administrative courts have been introduced.

According to paragraph 6 of Article 138, paragraph 1 of Article 146, paragraph 8 of Article 168, paragraph 5 of Article 169 of the APPC, the consideration period in all instances is approximately 18 (eighteen) months. This is contrary to paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, violating the requirement for “an expeditious procedure established by law” for review of a decision in court.

In 2004, the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee reviewed the GS application. The Committee came to the following conclusions:

“26. The Committee also finds that the lengthy review procedure and denial of standing to the non-governmental organization in a lawsuit on access to environmental information was not in compliance with article 9, paragraph 1.”[5]

Based on this conclusion, decision II/5a was adopted at the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Convention, which states that the meeting of the parties: “1. Endorses the following findings of the Committee: … (b) The lengthy review procedure and denial of standing to a non-governmental organization in a lawsuit on access to environmental information was not in compliance with article 9, paragraph 1.”[6]

In paragraph 21 of the Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on Communication ACCC/C/2004/01 it is stated: “However, as the time and number of determinations with regard to jurisdiction in this case demonstrate, there appears to be lack of regulations providing clear guidance to the judiciary as to the meaning of an expeditious procedure in cases related to access to information.”

The consideration of the GS application submitted to the court in December 2021 lasted 18 months until the end of May 2023. The case described in Communication ACCC/C/2004/01 lasted 11 months (including the 3 months it took to determine jurisdiction).

GS believes that in Kazakhstan it is still lacks regulations that provide clear guidance to the judiciary on the value of expedited procedures in cases involving access to information.

 

  1. Access to justice in Kazakhstan is not fully protected. The decisions of the courts, including the Supreme Court, have not been implemented for years. This contradicts paragraph 18 of the Preamble of the Convention. “[18] Concerned that effective judicial mechanisms should be accessible to the public, including organizations, so that its legitimate interests are protected and the law is enforced,

The eighteenth preambular paragraph contains several important points. The first is that judicial mechanisms should be effective. This includes the notion of the independence, impartiality and professional integrity of the judiciary, which in turn requires the judiciary to have a solid financial base and to be essentially self-regulating. It further requires that the judgements of the judicial authorities should be ultimately enforceable in society.”[7]

 

  1. Government bodies do not provide the population with full access to timely, complete and reliable environmental information. Statistics of GS appeals to government agencies show the following:

Year          Number of         Replies             No replies             Incomplete or incorrect

requests sent      received (%)      received (%)          information provided (%)

(pieces)

2014              189                    67                         33                                60

2015              252                    66                         34                                48

2016              125                    68                         32                                54

2017              223                    70                         30                                39

2018              132                    75                         25                                42

2019              186                    92                           8                                51

2020              129                    91                           9                                60

 

  1. According to subparagraph 1-1) of paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the status of its deputies” of 1995, deputies of parliament have the right of legislative initiative. Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention does not cover laws and amendments to them initiated by members of parliament. “Once the draft legislation is out of the hands of the public authorities and passes to the legislature, it is no longer in «preparation» by a public authority and article 8 would no longer apply.”[8]

 

On behalf of Ecological Society “Green Salvation”

Sergey Kuratov

October 1, 2023.

 

© Ecological Society “Green Salvation,” 2023.

___________________________________________

[1] Promoting Environmental Democracy: Procedural elements of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment: https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2023/promoting-environmental-democracy-procedural-elements-human-right-clean.

[2] Unofficial translation: https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/K2100000400.

[3] The Aarhus Convention: An implementation guide. Second edition, 2014, p.133.

[4] Unofficial translation: https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/K2000000350.

[5] https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/pp/c.1/ece.mp.pp.c1.2005.2.Add.1.e.pdf.

[6] https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/pp/ece/ece.mp.pp.2005.2.add.7.e.pdf.

[7] The Aarhus Convention: An implementation guide. Second edition, 2014, p.35.

[8] The Aarhus Convention: An implementation guide. Second edition, 2014, p.182.

News, Uncategorized

Resurrected from non-existence. Нow the airport building was “moved”

Аэропорт123How it all started

At the beginning of November 2022, the Airport building, a historical and cultural monument of local importance, was destroyed. This act was committed despite the protests of specialists, the public and the resolution of the Akimat of the city of Almaty dated November 11, 2020 Number 4/492.

In connection with a clear violation of the law “On the protection and use of objects of historical and cultural heritage,” the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” sent a request to the Department of Culture of the city of Almaty. The Ecological Society inquired about the implementation of the resolution of the Akimat of the city of Almaty dated November 11, 2020 Number 4/492 “On the movement of the historical and cultural monument of local importance Airport (Airport of International Lines).”[1] Paragraph 2 of the resolution states: “To the communal state institution «Department of Culture of the City of Almaty» (hereafter— Department):

1) when transferring, ensure the integrity and safety of the monument;

2) take other measures arising from this resolution.”[2]

On December 29, 2022, the Department replied that, in accordance with Article 29 of the Law “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage Objects,” the movement of the monument “is allowed if its movement and change will lead to an improvement in the conditions for its preservation.”[3] The full text of paragraph 2, to which the Department refers, is somewhat different: “Movement and alteration of a monument of history and culture is prohibited.

An exception is allowed only in cases of destruction of more than seventy percent of a monument of history and culture or loss of historical and cultural significance, or if its movement and change will lead to an improvement in the conditions for its preservation.”

First, there is no confirmation in the Department’s response that the monument was destroyed by seventy percent. Secondly, the Office recognized that the monument has not lost its historical and cultural significance. The building is still listed in the current State list of local historical and cultural monuments of the city of Almaty at Number 65. The list was approved by the resolution of the Akimat of the city of Almaty dated March 17, 2021 Number 1/191.[4] Thirdly, subparagraph 3 of paragraph 2 of Article 29 states: “Individuals and legal entities that have received a decision, when moving and changing a monument of history and culture, are obliged to ensure the conditions for its preservation.”

Further, in the answer we read, “The building will be recreated and will retain the original appearance of the following decorative elements.”

Аэропорт новый 6There is indeed a concept of re-creation in the law. Paragraph 4 of subparagraph 1 of Article 32 states: “1. The scientific and restoration work on the monument of history and culture includes:

4) recreation—a set of measures to restore the lost monument of history and culture in the presence of sufficient scientific data and special historical, scientific, artistic or other cultural value of the monument of history and culture.”

Does this mean that the Department admitted that the monument was “lost” through the efforts of the Akimat and others like it? Alternatively, to call a spade a spade, simply liquidated, demolished like a pile of garbage. How to understand the words “the building will retain its original appearance?” At best, a new building will be an exact copy of the old one, but no more.

On April 4, 2023, having not received clear answers to the questions asked, and in connection with an obvious violation of the law “On the protection and use of objects of historical and cultural heritage,” we turned to the Prosecutor’s Office of the city of Almaty (Number 023). Guided by articles 10, 23 of the Constitutional Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office,”[5] the organization asked to initiate criminal proceedings against the guilty persons under part 1 of article 203 and part 1 of article 371 of the Criminal Code for the deliberate destruction of historical and cultural monuments and negligence.

The city prosecutor’s office forwarded the letter to the city Police department. Department— in the Police Department of the Turksib region. The Police Department of the Turksib region apparently transferred the letter to the Linear Police Department at the airport in Almaty. The Linear Department sent our appeal to the Department of Culture, which becomes obvious from the answer of the latter. The circle is closed. Having received no answers, on July 20, 2023 (Number 041) we again sent a letter to the Police Department of the Turksib region.[6]

Старый Аэропорт-картаLetter from the past

On July 21, the day after sending another request, the Ecological Society received a long-awaited answer. But not from the Prosecutor’s Office, not from the Police Department, but from the Department of Culture (Number 03.4-12/48982sl). A copy of the response was sent to the Linear Police Department at the airport in Almaty.

In the letter, the Department of Culture reassures Almaty residents that “in accordance with Article 29 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage Objects,” the movement of a monument is allowed if its movement and change will improve the conditions for its preservation. But, as mentioned above, the text of the law differs significantly from the interpretation given to it by the Department of Culture. Almaty residents are well aware that the building was demolished at the end of last year. Numerous photographs published in the media and social networks confirm this. Our photo archive contains files depicting the barbaric destruction of a cultural monument in front of the citizens and guests of the capital.

Аэропорт новый 5-картаMost of all, in the response of the Department of Culture, the phrase “the monument with all the decorative elements will be moved within a radius of 420 meters on the territory of the Airport!” surprised. Does the Department know that the building has already been moved? The new-old “structure” stands on Akhmetov Street and is clearly visible on satellite images.

Apparently, without thinking twice, the Department somewhat edited the version of the letter dated December 29, 2022, but forgot to change the time from the future to the present. For the public, this is enough. In addition to the well-known facts in the answer, we did not find a single convincing document confirming and explaining how the Airport building was moved. No blueprints, no photographs, no link to an approved project, no budget (and it is not cheap), no information about who is funding it, no timetable.

Neither give nor take a letter from the past.

Except fraud—no miracles

The letter of the Department of Culture, in accordance with the Environmental Code and the Aarhus Convention, can be qualified as false and incomplete information! Therefore, we decided to find out why the Department keeps talking about relocation.

The fact is that the phrase from the above-mentioned letter from the Department of Culture  should be taken literally. “The building will be recreated and will retain the original appearance of the following decorative elements: stained-glass filling of window openings, decorative relief-ornamented panels on the side facades, a multi-profile cornice with a relief-ornamented cornice along perimeter, three-quarter ornamented columns of the national order at the corners of the pylons, stained-glass window of the arched opening, a tower (belvedere) with a spire, an openwork parapet along the entire perimeter of the roof.” This means that only the original decorative elements will be transferred. Although this statement is now in doubt. Everything else has already been destroyed. In February 2023, president of Almaty International Airport said that the historic building that previously housed the VIP terminal was “now being moved piecemeal and its twin is being assembled.”[7] It is well known that the twin is not the original.

How to understand the paragraph of the Akimat’s resolution “when transferring, ensure the integrity and safety of the monument?” A monument, not just decorative elements! Or is the law not written for an investor, and the decision of the Akimat is an empty phrase?

Although from the point of view of the investor, such a move-demolition is legal. After all, neither the Akimat, nor the branch of the Republican State Enterprise “Kazrestavratsiya,” nor the Ministry of Culture and Sports prevented the destruction of the monument. If local officials allow breaking the law, then the investor washes his hands.

Moreover, it is beneficial for him. “The transfer of a historical object to a certain distance is a complex, multi-stage process that requires a thorough study of a large number of factors, the development of a working draft and careful preparation. At the beginning, a conclusion is made on the ability of the structures to withstand the transfer, and on additional temporary measures to strengthen the building. … Where the preservation of the structural integrity of the facility remains an important step.” It must be taken into account that it is first necessary to carry out a vertical lifting of the object. These technologies involve “liquidation of the consequences of building deepening; increase in the dimensions of the basement floor and the development of the underground space of the building; strengthening or replacing foundations; elimination of deformations as a result of long-term operation of structures; complex replacement of communications.” If all this is included in the costs, then it becomes clear that removing decorative elements, and then demolishing the old one and building a new object will cost much less than moving it.[8] By the way, maybe someone will tell us if any historical buildings were moved in Kazakhstan.

However, the destruction of historical monuments in Kazakhstan has become a common practice. In the Almaty region, officials managed to demolish almost half of the world heritage site — the settlement of Talgar.[9]

Movement = demolition = corruption?

The Phoenix bird was reborn from its own ashes, but in this case, there was no ashes left of the Airport, not even debris! The builders have surpassed the capabilities of the mythical bird. They resurrected, returned the building from non-existence!

The technology secret is simple. The airport building is state property. It can be moved, demolished, “sent” to non-existence and returned back. So there can be no question of any criminal offense. Honor and praise to those who know how to “resurrect” historical monuments! But God forbid to touch the abandoned private construction sites and ruins, landfills and wastelands that have been “decorating” the city for decades!

What do we have as a result? Countless calls for the development of tourism, the improvement of its infrastructure. What can we show tourists? National parks with their poor tourist service; dilapidated World Heritage sites in disrepair; cheap architectural forgeries?

The main question remains unanswered: movement/moving = demolition = corruption? Maybe we are wrong.

© Ecological Society “Green Salvation,” 2023.

[1] The letter was sent twice: on November 20 and December 28, 2022. The answer was received only on February 2, 2023, after the intervention of the Bostandyk district prosecutor’s office, which reminded the Department of Culture that it was uncivilized not to respond to the letter.

[2] The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 26, 2019 No. 288-VI “On the protection and use of objects of historical and cultural heritage” (as amended on May 1, 2023) does not contain the term “transfer/transferring” (перенос). There is the term “movement/moving” (перемещение) (Article 29). But does such a trifle matter to the Akimat?

[3] Response of the Department of Culture of the city of Almaty dated December 29, 2022 (No. 08.4-05 / zt-k-2013) to the letter of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” dated November 28, 2022 (No. 88, 89).

[4] Resolution of the Akimat of the city of Almaty dated March 17, 2021 Number 1/191 “On approval of the State list of historical and cultural monuments of local importance of the city of Almaty” (as amended on 09.09.2021): https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V21R0001693#z3.

[5] Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 5, 2022 Number 155-VII “On the Prosecutor’s Office” (as amended on July 24, 2023).

[6] The Akimat of the city also did not respond to our request on whether or not it controlled the implementation of its own resolution “On the movement of the historical and cultural monument of local importance Airport (International Airport).”

[7] Alfajr Mohamad Abdul Karim, Osama Elservi. Modern methods of lifting and moving historic buildings, 2017: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29022968&pf=1.

[8] 10 monuments that were moved from place to place. Yes, they do! September 3, 2018: https://perito.media/posts/moved-sights.

[9] Visit of representatives of the World Heritage Center and ICOMOS to Talgar village: http://esgrs.org/?p=13924.  Talgar is a World Heritage Site. Garbage, desolation, devastation: http://esgrs.org/?p=16650.

News, PROJECTS

National parks are a bargaining chip!

3.park+On June 2, 2023, a draft law “On amendments and additions to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on forestry and specially protected natural areas” was submitted for consideration by the Mazhilis of the Parliament. The deputies of the Senate of the Parliament initiated it.[1]

“»The draft law under consideration was developed in order to further improve legislation in the field of forestry and specially protected natural areas and to eliminate gaps in legal regulation,» said Baurzhan Smagulov, deputy of the Mazhilis of the Parliament, during the meeting.

He noted that the draft law is aimed at regulating the issue of transferring lands of specially protected natural areas for the construction of water facilities and structures for protection against floods, landslides, and snow avalanches. In addition, to solve the problems of forest settlements, including their entire infrastructure, which were erroneously included in the composition of specially protected natural areas when they were created.”[2]

What can be answered? Laws can be improved to infinity! But how can mere mortals fulfil them when the speed of their “improvement” will soon equal the speed of sound? Since the adoption of the law “On Specially Protected Natural Territories” in 2006, amendments and additions have been made 29 times! The latest changes are already the third one this year!

If ordinary mortals are perplexed, then uncommon Akimat[3] mortals simply manipulate the laws. They wanted to transfer the Baum grove from the category of specially protected natural areas (SPNA) of “republican significance” to the category of “local significance,” they transferred it. When the issue was resolved, the law was “brought back.” It occurred to them to withdraw the lands of the Kok-Zhailau tract from the Ile-Alatau National Park to the lands of the reserve, they did. Then the lands were returned and the law was corrected. In a word, our law—as we want, so we change it!

It seems that our legislators in this situation are acting according to the traditional scheme. An order has been received, so it must be fulfilled. Not everything else matters.

The authors of the draft law, apparently, do not have a clear idea about the role of specially protected natural areas that they play in the conservation of water resources, in mitigation – reducing climate change, in achieving carbon neutrality, in preserving biological diversity… This is not surprising. In Kazakhstan, there is no environmental policy adopted by the parliament, and specially protected natural areas do not have the legal status of strategic objects!

“A strategic object is property that is of socio-economic importance for the sustainable development of Kazakhstani society, the possession and (or) use and (or) disposal of which will affect the state of national security of the Republic of Kazakhstan.”[4] For example, main railway networks, pipelines, communication lines; oil refineries; energy-producing facilities with a capacity of at least 50 megawatts; international airports; nuclear facilities; objects of the space industry; water facilities (thank God, even though they “can be classified” as strategic facilities!) and so on. Moreover, please tell me, how fertile soils, forests, glaciers, rivers and lakes, protected area ecosystems have to do with sustainable development and strategic objects? Of course, none!

In the “Strategy for achieving carbon neutrality of the Republic of Kazakhstan until 2060,” approved by the Decree of the President of February 2, 2023, protected areas are not mentioned at all. Only a few words are said about the function of forests, which are capable of accumulating carbon.

The statement of the authors of the draft law that the proposed norms will “contribute to the fulfilment of Kazakhstan’s obligations in the transition to carbon neutrality” sounds unconvincing. The cost and benefits of environmental services provided by protected areas are not taken into account. For example, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature: “At least 15% of the world’s carbon reserves are located within specially protected natural areas.” In Switzerland, “17% of forests prevent avalanches—a service valued annually between 2 and 3.5 billion US dollars in monetary terms.”[5]

The European Parliament is considering a bill on the restoration of nature. One of its goals is to restore nature on land and in sea areas. “These measures should cover at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and ultimately all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.” Every 1 euro invested into nature restoration adds €8 to €38 in benefits.[6]

We are offered to transfer the lands of specially protected natural areas into reserve lands! What does the term “specially protected area” mean in this case?

The project does not take into account the international environmental obligations assumed by Kazakhstan in accordance with the Conventions on Biological Diversity, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Heritage Convention. That is why the authors propose to allow the withdrawal of land from any protected areas, regardless of whether they are subject to the norms of international conventions or not.

Finally, will the proposed changes and additions increase corruption risks? Especially in the construction of protective structures against mudflows, avalanches and landslides.

For example, in a number of canyons of the Ile-Alatau National Park, such structures were built after the illegal placement of cottages, resorts and other alleged objects of tourist infrastructure in order to ensure their protection. Gross violations of the law on protected areas were committed. Everyone is well aware of the story of the plans to build a ski resort in the Kok-Zhailau valley. The damage caused to the ecosystems of the national park and the state budget has not yet been compensated. The land of the valley was returned to the national park only in 2022. A little more than a year passed, and again officials started talking about seizures and transfers.

In May 2023, the Anti-Corruption Service for the Almaty Region completed an investigation against the leaders of the State Institution “Kazselezashchita.”[7]. “They were charged with taking large and especially large bribes totalling 396 million tenge from entrepreneurs for signing acts of work performed and general patronage.”[8] Where is the guarantee that such “patronage” will not flourish even more luxuriantly after the adoption of changes and additions?

What to do in the event of a real absence of alternative options for locating economic facilities? Use the best world experience. In a number of countries, long-term or perpetual leases are used. It allows not withdrawing land from the protected areas, but at the same time obliges companies to minimize damage to ecosystems during the construction of economic facilities. If their use is terminated, the lease agreements are terminated and the facilities are dismantled. The legal status of lands remains the same—lands of specially protected natural areas.

The authors of the draft law, apparently, are not familiar with the “Rules for the development of projects of natural-scientific and feasibility studies on the creation or expansion of specially protected natural areas, as well as adjustments to the feasibility study.”[9] They describe measures for the engineering protection of protected areas from hazardous geological processes that can be carried out without changing the legal status of the land! 

And will you not be mistaken, gentlemen, in proposing such changes and additions to laws?

National parks have become a bargaining chip in the mercantile games of business and officials. Manipulations with the lands of specially protected natural areas that have been incessant for many years are one of the most serious factors destabilizing the ecological situation in the country and violating the rights of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment that is favourable for his health and well-being. 

© Green Salvation Ecological Society, 2023.

___________________________________

[1] Draft Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On amendments and additions to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on forestry and specially protected natural areas» (Initiated by deputies), June 2, 2023: https://www.parlam.kz/ru/mazhilis/post-item/36/16072.

[2] The Majilis began consideration of the draft law on forestry issues, June 21, 2023: https://www.inform.kz/ru/mazhilis-prinyal-v-rabotu-zakonoproekt-po-voprosam-lesnogo-hozyaystva_a4078659.

[3] Akimat local executive authority.

[4] Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (General Part) (with amendments and additions as of July 1, 2023), article 193-1, paragraphs 1 and 2.

[5] Protected areas help people cope with climate change: https://www.iucn.org/sites/default/files/import/downloads/nat_sol_climate_change_russian__laid_out_.pdf.

[6] Nature restoration law: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en#targets.

[7] The state institution “Kazselezashchita” is an enterprise that solves the problem of preventing mudflows and landslides, and eliminating their consequences.

[8] Antikor completed the investigation into the case of “Kazselezashchita,” May 25, 2023: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/anticorruption-zhetysu/press/news/details/561264?lang=ru.

[9] Acting order Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated September 1, 2010 No. 558 “On approval of the Rules for the development of projects of natural scientific and feasibility studies on the creation or expansion of specially protected natural areas, as well as adjustments to the feasibility study” (with changes and additions as of December 20, 2022), paragraphs 25, 26 and 36.

News, PROJECTS

The Supreme Court recognized the inaction of the Akimat of Almaty city

WhatsApp Image 2023-06-05 at 22.19.36On May 31, the Supreme Court considered and satisfied in full the cassation appeal of the Green Salvation Ecological Society.

This story began on September 20, 2021, when the Ecological Society applied to the Akimat of the city of Almaty (hereafter—Akimat) with a request to take measures to establish a buffer zone of the Ile-Alatau National Park.

According to subparagraph 11 of paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Specially Protected Natural Territories”: “Local executive bodies of regions, cities of republican significance, the capital within their competence: make decisions on the establishment of protected zones of specially protected natural territories of all types with restriction within these zones of activities that adversely affect the state of the ecological systems of these territories, ecological corridors, as well as the regime for their protection and use.” The law was passed in 2006, but for 15 years, the Akimat ignored its demand. The Ecological Society asked the Akimat to report on what measures it plans to take to organize the park’s buffer zone.

The Akimat forwarded our letter to the Green Economy Department of Almaty. It, in turn, sent him even further—to the administration of the Ile-Alatau National Park. And the appeal of the Ecological Society has sunk into oblivion.

On October 28, the Ecological Society writes a letter to the Akimat again, pointing out violations of the public’s rights to access environmental information. The result is the same: Akimat —Green Economy Department—National Park Administration—no answer.

On December 6, 2021, the Ecological Society filed a claim with the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty (hereafter—SMAS) in defence of the interests of an indefinite number of persons.

Offense.

The Akimat violated the right of the Ecological Society to receive timely, complete and reliable environmental information, enshrined in subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of article 14 of the Environmental Code and articles 1 and 4 of the Aarhus Convention.

Requirements.

  1. Recognize the fact that the Akimat of the city of Almaty did not fulfil its obligations to establish the buffer zone of the Ile-Alatau National Park as inaction.
  2. Recognize the failure of the Akimat to provide the Ecological Society with the requested complete and reliable environmental information, and all information related to the decision-making process to establish the buffer zone of the Ile-Alatau National Park as inaction.
  3. Assign to the Akimat the duty to establish a buffer zone of the national park.
  4. Assign to the Akimat the obligation to provide the Ecological Society with complete and reliable environmental information.

In January-February 2022, several court hearings of the CMAS of the city of Almaty were held. At the request of the representative of the Akimat, the following persons were involved as interested parties: the Committee for Forestry and Wildlife, the Green Economy Department of the city of Almaty, the Ile-Alatau National Park. Consideration of the case in connection with the involvement of third parties was delayed.

Only on April 15, the court made a decision: the claim of the Ecological Society “satisfy in part.” Recognize non-provision of information by the Akimat as an “illegal act.” Akimat to “consider providing” the available information. And not a word about the violation of the Ecological Society’s rights to access environmental information!

Regarding the failure of the Akimat to fulfil the obligation to establish a buffer zone, the court found the following: “The plaintiff’s arguments that … by the decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Economic Court of the city of Almaty dated September 28, 2016 in a civil case on the suit of the Ecological Society against the Akimat of the city of Almaty, the obligation to make a decision on the establishment of buffer zones was established by the court is not denied. Indeed, the decision of the court established the duty of the Akimat, but, however, the sequence of actions was not established.” However, it is not the function of the court to determine the sequence of actions. The Akimat and the Committee Forestry and Wildlife should do this.

The prosecutor supported the demand of the Ecological Society to recognize the Akimat’s failure to fulfil the obligation to establish a buffer zone. He stressed that 15 years is more than enough time to solve the problem, and the public disputes precisely the inaction of the Akimat, and no other state bodies. He also supported the requirement to recognize the failure to provide information to the Ecological Society as inaction.

Disagreeing with the decision of the CMAS, on May 19, the Ecological Society filed an appeal with the Almaty City Court. On September 7, the court dismissed the appeal.

On October 12, 2022, the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” sent a cassation complaint to the Supreme Court.

Requirements.

  1. Cancel the decision of the Specialized Interdistrict Administrative Court of Almaty city dated April 15, 2022.
  2. Issue a new decision on recognition of the Akimat’s failure to fulfil its obligations to establish a buffer zone of the Ile-Alatau National Park as inaction.

Assign to the Akimat the obligation to establish a buffer zone of the Ile-Alatau National Park by adopting a resolution.

  1. Oblige the Akimat to provide the Ecological Society with the requested complete and reliable environmental information on the establishment of the Ile-Alatau National Park buffer zone.

On May 31, 2023, the Supreme Court considered and satisfied in full the cassation appeal of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation,” cancelling all judicial acts of lower courts issued in this case.

After the announcement of the decision of the Supreme Court, one of the judges, explaining it, emphasized that the territory of the Ile-Alatau National Park is of international importance, and the Akimat should pay the most serious attention to ensuring its safety.

 

© Ecological Society “Green Salvation”, 2023.

News, PROJECTS

Protecting biodiversity hinders the development of tourism!

КимасарOn January 27, 2023, the media reported, “the Ministry of Culture and Sports proposed to give akimats the opportunity to build up national natural parks with tourism infrastructure. Vice Minister Yerzhan Yerkinbaev put such a proposal forward at the visiting board of the department in Burabay.

‘The owner of the national parks is the Ministry of Ecology. It does not build infrastructure, it has a different task—the conservation of biodiversity. Akimats cannot build in national parks, because these lands do not belong to akimats. As a result, we lose a lot of potential’.” [1]

Then there were new publications.

January 30 – “Glampings, ski resorts and free flights: how tourism will be developed in Kazakhstan.” “In the near future, glampings will appear in the Altyn-Emel National Park, in the Charyn Canyon and Karkaralinsk. It is also planned to build similar facilities in Aktobe, Zhambyl and North Kazakhstan regions.

In addition to glampings, more visitor centers will be built in Kazakhstan. These are places where tourists can get information about the protected area and attractions, as well as other recreational services.”

According to officials, “ecotourism is the fastest growing type of tourism in the world, but the lack of basic infrastructure in our national parks is holding back our potential.” “The Ministry of Culture also plans to build new ski resorts in Almaty, Turkestan and East Kazakhstan regions.”[2]

The Akimat of the Almaty region is also not averse to taking part in the “sharing” of picturesque corners of nature. On February 2, a publication appeared “How to develop a mountain tourism cluster in the Almaty region.” “The other day, a meeting was held in the regional akimat on the development of a mountain cluster. The leaders of the national parks of the region (“Kolsai kolderi,” “Sharyn,” “Ile-Alatau”) were invited, as well as representatives of ski bases and key mountain resorts, who was given the opportunity to speak about existing problematic issues and further development plans for 2023.” “According to the Deputy Akim of the Almaty Region Arslan Dandybaev, the mountain cluster in the Zailiysky Alatau has enormous opportunities, but significant investments are required for their implementation.” “As Arslan Dandybaev noted, the plans are to cover all key mountain locations from Kaskelen to Turgen, while the Kokzhailau resort is also included in the development concept.”[3]

 

24 Кимасаровское ущелье. Руины, над которыми не властен закон.The arguments are painfully familiar: profit, investment, employment. We have already heard this when zealous developers offered to turn the Kok-Zhailau valley into our Courchevel. Everyone knows how this story ended. However, she did not teach anyone anything. A year has passed since the release of the government decree on the return of Kok-Zhailau to the lands of the national park, and the idea that it needs to be developed again emerges!

Everything is as old as the world.

“Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold.”[4] Why are our developers so bold? One of the reasons is the direct indication of the Deputy Minister on the “hole” in the legislation. You can even say about the black hole in which budget millions irretrievably disappear, as in the case of the construction of a ski resort on Kok-Zhailau.

According to Article 6 of the Law “On Specially Protected Natural Territories”: “The system for ensuring the protection of specially protected natural territories includes:

1) Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

2) authorized body…;

3) central executive bodies in charge of specially protected natural areas …;

4) representative bodies of regions, cities of republican significance, the capital…;

5) executive bodies of regions, cities of republican significance, the capital …;

6) environmental organizations;

7) individuals and legal entities carrying out activities in the field of ensuring the protection of specially protected natural areas.”

According to Article 6-1: “State management in the field of specially protected natural areas is carried out:

1) the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

2) the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

3) an authorized body …;

3-1) the central executive body exercising the functions of state administration in the field of tourism activities;[5]

4) central executive bodies in charge of specially protected natural areas;

5) representative and executive bodies of regions, cities of republican significance and the capital.”

No matter how accustomed we are to the “tricks” of our legislators, they never cease to amaze us. As a result: some protect biodiversity, while others—the Ministry of Culture and Sports only governs! Consider the meaning of the above quote:  “The owner of the national parks is the Ministry of Ecology. It does not build infrastructure, it has a different task—the conservation of biodiversity.” The conclusion is clear: biodiversity and tourism are irreconcilable antagonists. Therefore, the protection of biodiversity hinders the development of tourism!

 

According to Article 4 of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage: “Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State.”

According to Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity: “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:

(a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity;

(b) Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity;

(d) Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings;

(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of threatened species, inter alia, through the development and implementation of plans or other management strategies;

(k) Develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations.”

Kazakhstan is a party to these conventions! However, apparently, the Ministry of Culture and Sports does not even “suspect” this.

In 2021, the UN has declared a decade for ecosystem restoration! What does the Ministry of Culture and Sports call for the residents of Almaty, who are suffocating from the smog? Don’t breathe, don’t drink clean water and ski? By the way, the Almaty smog covers Chimbulak by about three o’clock in the afternoon and then settles on the glaciers.[6]

 

Let us end with a quote. Residents of Alberta (Canada) love their parks. “It’s their church: they’re special, sacred, peaceful and energizing places.”[7]

What is sacred for our officials and developers? Their god is a golden calf, their altar is a cash register, bow your knees and pay, but do not break your forehead, gentlemen, in fervent prayer!

_______________________

[1] The Ministry of Culture proposes to allow akimats to build up the territory of national parks (January 27, 2023): https://informburo.kz/novosti/minkultury-predlagaet-razresit-akimatam-zastraivat-territoriyu-nacparkov?fbclid=IwAR1vu4sZ8tzhBUV60QEiNusduhf5NRoumNegwMqjUwfHTqHW3-h25jNFHFU&mibextid=Zxz2cZ.

[2] Glamping, international resorts and free air travel: how tourism will develop in Kazakhstan (January 30, 2023):  https://informburo.kz/stati/glempingi-gornolyznye-kurorty-i-besplatnye-aviaperelyoty-kak-v-kazaxstane-budut-razvivat-turizm.

[3] How to develop a mountain tourism cluster in the Almaty region, discussed in the akimat, (February 2, 2023): https://www.alataunews.kz/ru/region/kak-razvivat-gornyj-turisticheskij-klaster-v-almatinskoj-oblasti-obsudili-v-akimate/.

[4] Dunning, Thomas Joseph. Trade’s Unions and Strikes: Their Philosophy and Intention. — London, 1860, pp.35-36: https://archive.org/details/tradesunionsstri00dunnrich/page/36/mode/1up?view=theater/.

[5] Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 7, 2006 No. 175-III “On Specially Protected Natural Territories” (with amendments and additions as of November 18, 2022). The article is supplemented by subparagraph 3-1 in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 30.04.21, No. 34-VII.

[6] Glacier of Our Anxiety (September 9, 2020): https://ingeo.kz/?p=8821.

[7] Alberta fights Canada government over its crowded parks: ‘Like a tailgate party’ (January 12, 2023): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/12/alberta-canada-government-row-overcrowded-parks.

Education, News

THE LAND OF BIRDS

We bring to the attention of our readers the article by Nadezhda Berkova “LAND OF BIRDS” AND OTHER FILMS ON NATURE: INNOVATIONS OF GENRE GENERATION, published in the Central Asian Journal of Art Studies History.

Since 2011, the series Land of Birds (Strana Ptits) has been aired on the Russian channel “Culture”. In the same year, films about birds attracted the attention of viewers and critics, and the series was awarded the Grand Prize of the international environmental festival “Bless and Save” in Khanty-Mansiysk.

Later it was awarded the National Prize “Laurus” and noted in the nomination “Best Documentary Series” at the festival “Artdocfest”.

The initiator and inspirer of the project is documentary filmmaker Svetlana Bychenko, a few years later she was joined by ornithologist Tatyana Obozova, who took a camera in her hands.

Viewers get acquainted with the films of talented filmmakers at the screenings of “Reasonable Cinema” in Moscow, and in Alma-Ata they watch and discuss at the “Green Lens” club.

News, PROJECTS

Almaty’s Green City Action Plan: a plan for destructive creation?

Аэропорт123The Kazakh city of Almaty joined the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)’s Green Cities initiative in 2019. How does the first Green City Action Plan in Central Asia reflect public participation?

The Kazakh city of Almaty joined the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)’s Green Cities initiative in 2019. In November 2022, Almaty became the first city in Central Asia to approve its Green City Action Plan (GCAP). Bankwatch and Green Salvation have called on the EBRD and local authorities to ensure public participation during the implementation of both the GCAP and some of the more controversial urban development projects in the city. So far, this call has fallen on deaf ears.  

This article was written by Green Salvation, Bankwatch’s partner organisation based in Almaty. 

Аэропорт1234On 4 November 2022, the supposed relocation of Almaty’s airport building, built in 1947, began. But instead of being moved 420 metres to the southeast, as stipulated by a decree from the head of the local government – the Akim of Almaty – dated 11 November 2020, the building was moved to the scrapheap. Excavators and bulldozers paid little heed to the ‘integrity and safety of the monument’ as it was cleared to make way for the construction of a new airport terminal, which proponents say the city badly needs. 

The participants and investors involved in the old airport’s demolition were the local government, the Akimat and several other stakeholders. This is despite the fact that the building is still included in the current state list of historical and cultural monuments of local importance in Almaty, a list approved by the very same Akim. 

This is not the first time the city authorities have taken such a destructive approach to creation. Locals recall the demolition of the Palace of Pioneers and the Alatau cinema, several kindergartens being destroyed, the foothills around the city built up with villas and cottages, and thousands of hectares of apple orchards being cut down. Writing down a complete list of ‘reconstruction projects’ like this would take more than a dozen pages. And then there’s the destruction cause by developers within the Ile-Alatau National Park and the Medeu Regional Nature Park. 

Behind the smokescreen of public hearings

How can these projects possibly comply with the law that ‘recognizes and guarantees’ public participation in the decision-making process, consideration of ‘public interests’ and respect for human rights? After all, many citizens publicly opposed the demolition of the old airport building; even the Akim of Almaty had made a resolution to protect it. If this can still happen, what do the dozens of agencies responsible for keeping order and ensuring the rule of law actually look out for? 

According to ‘highbrow’ scientists, experts and bureaucrats within the city, members of the public don’t understand enough to participate in these processes. One has to wonder what special knowledge is needed to understand that in a state governed by the rule of law, the law must be strictly observed. Still, the city’s experts seem to believe that public opinion can be ignored at the earliest stage of decision-making.  

It seems that their approach is to create a smokescreen of public hearings while never actually making any obligations to the opinion of the people. And from there it is a very simple algorithm: we tear it down, build it, grow it or cut it down, depending on what the investment requires. But the investment’s needs always come first. 

Only in very rare cases does the public manage to preserve natural landscapes, individual city streets, houses and trees. But this is only a drop in the sea of destructive creation that has engulfed the country. 

All of this is already known. What is new in the case described above is that the airport’s destruction was financed by the EBRD. And the bank, together with the city’s leadership, has grand plans. 

On 12 October 2022, the fourth consultation workshop with the interested parties was held in Almaty. The local government gave an advance presentation of Almaty’s GCAP. The initiative is part of the Green Cities programme implemented by the EBRD and funded by the Federal Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Austria. 

After reading the GCAP, Green Salvation has come to the following conclusions, which we have sent to the authors of the document. No response has yet been received. 

  1. The document does not clearly explain how public opinion was taken into account in its preparation. There is no quantitative and qualitative data that could confirm the public’s participation of the public and its effectiveness.
    It talks about the need to involve citizens, consumers and the public early in the processes (pp. 24, 41, 101, 109, 118, 126, 133, 134, 137, 144, 155), but there is no clear statement of how this was achieved. This once again confirms that public participation in the preparation of the plan was and apparently will continue to be reduced to formal participation in workshops and conferences during the project’s implementation. 
  1. The document lacks a detailed analysis of the legal framework for the implementation of the GCAP and specific analysis of the obstacles that may arise. These potential roadblocks could include the high degree of corruption in the country, legal chaos, limited access to information and poor work by government agencies.
  1. One gets the impression that in developing the document, its authors did not use all available sources and data. This indicates that the GCAP was poorly prepared (see appendix for specific comments).

What can we expect from the EBRD’s activities after such a tumultuous start and a long-awaited but poorly prepared action plan? The question is rhetorical, but apparently both officials and bankers are satisfied with everything they’ve done so far. 

Comments about the GCAP, Almaty 2022 

Green Salvation submitted the following comments regarding selected actions within the GCAP: 

Action 10: Transit-oriented design – application of transit-oriented design in the development of satellite cities. 

  1. The plan does not indicate whether new expansion of the city’s boundaries is anticipated.
  1. It does not address the need to move industrial facilities beyond the city limits or to move motor vehicle depots away from residential areas.

Action 16: Develop a citywide blue-green strategy and implementation plan. 

  1. The plan does not indicate when the 2030 Green Space Strategy was adopted or where the public can read it.
  1. It does not analyse the condition of the city’s green fund (it does not indicate the percentage of trees that have taken root, diseased trees and the financial costs of replanting).
  1. It is not clear what is meant by ‘withdrawal of lands due to their location in specially protected natural areas of the region’.
  1. It does not take into account that Ile-Alatau National Park is included on Kazakhstan’s preliminary list for nomination to the List of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
  1. It does not mention the creation of a structure for the unified management of the city’s green fund.

Action 18: Increase the water permeability of the city of Almaty. 

  1. The plan does not mention the need to upgrade the ‘aryk’ system of irrigation ditches, which prevents soil from absorbing moisture.
  1. It does not consider what measures need to be taken against spot and compressive development that reduces the amount of open space.

Action 19: Prevent and address landslide emergencies. 

  1. The plan does not analyse the legal causes of landslide hazards.
  1. Existing landslide hazard maps and studies have not been taken into account in the development of the plan.
  1. It does not take into account that the violation of architectural and urban planning laws is one of the most serious legal problems in Kazakhstan.

Action 21: Develop a comprehensive waste management strategy. 

  1. Local governments do not have sufficient authority to develop their own waste management strategies.

Action 22: Establish a construction and demolition waste recycling facility. 

  1. The plan does not address the issue of reducing waste production by reducing the destruction and demolition of existing facilities, including those already built during independence and illegally built facilities.
  1. It does not consider the possibility of reconstructing exploitable facilities instead of demolishing them.
  1. It does not take into account that the inexpedient ‘relocation’ (and in fact demolition) of the old airport building (which is a GCAP project) will be a source of construction and demolition waste.
  1. It fails to consider that one source of construction and demolition waste is substandard construction and outdated technology.

Action 27: Develop a water conservation plan. 

  1. The plan does not take into account that water loss occurs in large part due to the destruction of watersheds, forests and air pollution over mountain ranges.
  1. It does not take into account that water resource shortages are increasing due to spontaneous urban growth.

Translation into English — CEE Bankwatch Network:

https://bankwatch.org/blog/almaty-s-green-city-action-plan-a-plan-for-destructive-creation