Архив рубрики: 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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 2022the 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 2020the 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

Monitoring of national parks. We need more Nature!

Обложка_Мониторинг 2020_Arial_с правками 16.02.2022The Ecological Society Green Salvation has released the next edition in Russian “Results of monitoring of national parks of the Almaty region in 2020-2021.”

This material is a continuation of the “Results of monitoring of national parks in the Almaty region” for 2017, 2018 and 2019 previously published by our organization.

National parks are invaluable for preserving the biological diversity of the region, forming a microclimate, providing fresh air, high-quality water, maintaining the health and well-being of the residents of the Almaty agglomeration.

By destroying especially valuable natural areas under the plausible pretext of developing tourism, we are destroying the foundations of our existence. “Unprecedented biodiversity loss, pollution, climate change and the rise of zoonotic diseases have showcased the symbiotic relationship between humans and nature. The human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as other human rights, can only be realized where biodiversity thrives and ecosystems are healthy”(https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/states-have-these-13-duties-when-it-comes-biodiversity-and-human-rights).

“Ecosystems support all life on Earth. The healthier our ecosystems are, the healthier the planet—and its people. The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration aims to prevent, halt and reverse the degradation of ecosystems on every continent and in every ocean. It can help to end poverty, combat climate change and prevent a mass extinction. It will only succeed if everyone plays a part.” (The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021-2030: https://www.decadeonrestoration.org).

To breathe fresh air, drink clean water, eat quality products, we need more Nature!

Towards a people-powered, green transformation in Almaty

MicrosoftTeams-image-2The EBRD must move away from its carbon tunnel vision and widen its perspective on all impacts of climate investments in cities

With its polluted air, chaotic construction and lack of green spaces, Almaty is very much like many cities in Central Asia: it needs to improve the living conditions for its residents. To achieve this, the city is greatly in need of sustainable investments.

The investments are coming, as the ‘green economy’ was named as a priority for EBRD funding in Kazakhstan, with the bank announcing that already 40 per cent of its portfolio in Kazakhstan in 2021 was for green projects. At the same time, the protests in the country at the start of the year demonstrated the frustration of Kazakhstan’s people with the lack of democratic reforms and decision-making that does not incorporate the needs and concerns of the public.

No green urban development without public participation

In 2019 Almaty joined the EBRD Green Cities initiative. The program will help the city develop a Green City Action Plan (GCAP) in order to deal with its major environmental challenges and define the focus for green investments. In 2019, the city presented the GCAP inception report to the public and held a number of public consultations. According to information from the EBRD, the next round of public consultations will take place in mid-March this year.

To help city residents better understand the GCAP process and inspire their participation in shaping their city’s greener future, Bankwatch developed a citizen’s guide on participation in the Green Cities programme.

One of Almaty’s Green Cities central projects is the Almaty Electric Public Transport. A EUR 58.9 million investment should be provided by the EBRD to Almatyelectrotrans (AET), the municipal company, to modernise the trolleybus fleet in Almaty with 190 electric, energy-efficient trolleybuses. The project aims to support both green and inclusive objectives of the EBRD, which the bank says will lead to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as well as will “support the Inclusive objective through (i) policy dialogue to seek a limited exemption from licensing laws for trolleybus drivers, which especially affect women’s access to jobs, (ii) inclusive HR practices to increase female participation in the workforce for trolleybus drivers and the executives level, and (iii) development and delivery of internally accredited trolleybus driving training programme for new employees out of which at least 35 per cent will be women.”

A question of governance

But residents of the Kairat district in Almaty keep asking a question about Almatyelectrotrans (AET), the EBRD’s client in this project. Kairat residents claim that Almatyelectrotrans violates the national law and their right to a clean and healthy environment by organising a bus depot. The depot was set up near residential houses without a proper sanitary zone, which produce noise and exhaust all day long.

Unable to resolve this issue with Almatyelectrotrans, local residents supported by local NGO Green Salvation decided to address their grievances to the EBRD.

The EBRD responded to residents’ concerns that the project’s scope is not related to the bus depot. It is not clear why the bank is hiding behind the issue of the project “scope”, when according to the Banks’ Environmental and Social Policy it has committed to appraising the client’s “business activities”, to ensure that clients respect human rights and address adverse human rights risks linked to their operations.

The EBRD, however, also added that it looked into the matter and agreed with AET to include an action point in the project’s Environmental and Social Action Plan for the company to relocate the bus depot from Kairat by the end of 2022.

These EBRD efforts to resolve the grievances of Kairat residents are appreciated. Green Salvation on behalf of local people have asked the bank for a meeting to receive more information with regards to the milestones in the bus depot’s relocation and for transparency and public engagement in the implementation of the measure. Residents need more information about the next steps with the process and guarantees that the EBRD will monitor closely if AET will keep its promises and will relocate the bus depot in a timely and participatory way.

Trust in local authorities  

AET, as a municipal company, did not disclose information about the bus depot upon residents’ requests. Previously residents received promises for the relocation of the bus fleet by the end of 2021. Now the promise is for the end of 2022, but they have not received any documents or opportunities for dialogue with authorities or the company.

Therefore, the EBRD should require its client AET to disclose the detailed plan of the bus depot relocation with clear and concrete milestones and to initiate a dialogue with residents affected by its operations. This will contribute to building the client’s capacity with regards to transparency and dialogue with city residents.

Green transformation with and for people

Developing sustainable solutions is possible only when it is done in an inclusive way. From the EBRD’s description of inclusiveness, it appears this is limited to the workforce of the company but excludes public transport service users and residents affected by the company’s operations, like those living in Kairat. EBRD funding to promote green initiatives in Kazakhstan and elsewhere should be grounded in practices of inclusive participation and effective disclosure. The EBRD should also ensure its clients’ capacity to respect human rights and the rule of law in accordance with the bank’s policies. Otherwise, the projects that have a green tag will do so in name only.

Reaching net-zero emissions in cities cannot be achieved without just and democratic reforms that earn the support of the public and affected people. It’s time for the bank and other financiers to see the broader picture of poverty and inequality, affordability of goods and services and overconsumption. These are just a few issues affecting climate investments that need decisive action.

Believing in climate action as a joint cause, Bankwatch together with its partners developed an easy step-by-step guide about citizen participation in green investments of the EBRD. We believe that genuinely green projects are developed together with state authorities and residents, and those will have a lasting and sustainable effect.

Khrystyna Rybachok
International coordinator
CEE Bankwatch Network

https://bankwatch.org/blog/towards-a-people-powered-green-transformation-in-almaty

What you need to know about the Green City Action Plan but your municipality won’t tell you

GREENCITYAPThe European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) will spend over EUR 5 billion on climate action in cities in central and eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East as part of the Green Cities programme.

A big part of this funding will support Green City Action Plans (GCAPs) to help cities deal with environmental issues and adapt to the climate crisis. City residents should have a say in how this money is spent in their cities. Their voices can help make their cities more resilient in the face of climate challenges.

Bankwatch, together with Ecoaction, Ukraine, and Green Salvation, Kazakhstan, developed a step-by-step guide on what the Green City Action Plan is, why citizen participation is important for improving the future of cities, and how residents can participate. The guide explains GCAPs through examples, infographics, success stories and practical advice on how residents can get involved.

What you need to know about the Green City Action Plan but your municipality won’t tell you (pdf).

Almaty residents applied to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

On November 23, 2021, residents of the Kairat microdistrict of Almaty and the Ecological Society Green Salvation appealed to the management of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter—EBRD). They informed the bank about the violation of the residents’ rights to clean and healthy environment by the bank’s client, the Almaty’s electric public transport company.

According to the information posted on the EBRD’s website, the bank plans to provide a loan of 57.4 million Euro for the Almaty Public Electric Transport project with the municipal public transport company LLP “Almatylectrotrans,” (hereinafter—LLP) a municipal enterprise 100 per cent owned by the city. The company owns 4 bus and 1 trolleybus depots. One of the bus depots is located in the Kairat microdistrict.

The Bank considers the Public Electric Transport of Almaty project as a “trigger project” within the framework of the Green Cities Concept, in accordance with which the Green City Action Plan for Almaty is being developed.

The essence of the problem

In mid-2019, a bus depot was organized in the Kairat microdistrict on the territory of the Semirechye market, which is located next to residential buildings.

More than 100 buses leave the territory of the bus depot daily on city routes. Drivers’ working day starts at 5.30 am. The buses run on diesel fuel. When drivers start their engines to warm them up, a cloud of exhaust fumes covers the apartment buildings, and a loud noise rises. The working day ends at 23.00. Buses return to the park, and residents get another batch of noise and smoke.

The Kairat bus depot was established in breach of the Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements for the Establishment of a Sanitary Protection Zone of Production Facilities, approved by order of the Minister of National Economy No. 237 dated 20.03.2015. The regulation states that:

— facilities for servicing automobiles, such as trucks or urban transport buses, are facilities of III hazard class;

— they must have a sanitary protection zone of at least 300 meters (Appendix 1, paragraph 48, subparagraph 4).

The sanitary protection zone around the vehicle fleet in the Kairat microdistrict has not been established. A few meters separate residential buildings from smoking buses. For several years, local residents have been trying to relocate the fleet, but without success.

In order to establish the legality of the location of the car park, at the end of 2019, the Ecological Society, at the request of residents, sent inquiries to the departments of green economy, urban planning control, land relations, urban mobility, to the Department of Quality Control and Safety of Goods and Services, the Department of Ecology and the Specialized Environmental Prosecutor’s Office of Almaty.

From the answers, it became clear that the decision on the location of the vehicle fleet was made without appropriate approvals from the authorized bodies. This is a violation of environmental, sanitary and land legislation.

The Department of Ecology for the city of Almaty said that the project for assessing the environmental impact of the bus fleet has not been submitted for consideration by the state environmental expertise.

On December 23, 2019, the Green Economy Department reported that the company did not receive project documentation for conducting a state environmental review for organizing a bus fleet.

On December 30, 2019, LLP announced that the land plot on which the bus depot is located belongs to “Status construction” LLP. The purpose of the land plot is “for the construction and operation of a multifunctional logistics center.”

Placing a car park on this territory on the basis of a lease agreement without changing the designated purpose of the land plot is a violation of Articles 4, 49-1, 65 of the Land Code.

The Department of Quality Control and Safety of Goods and Services of the Turksib District carried out an unscheduled inspection. During the inspection, it was established that the sanitary protection zone was not observed (there should be at least 300 m from the nearest residential building); the project of justification of the sanitary protection zone was not presented. Experts carried out air intakes and noise measurements. Based on the violations identified, on February 27, 2020, they drew up a protocol on an administrative offense and issued an order to the park management to eliminate the violations.

On March 11, 2020, the Mobility Department reported that in March the Akimat of Almaty city signed a new agreement on the lease of a land plot in the Kairat microdistrict for the “temporary” location of the bus fleet. After the completion of the construction of a new park in the Alatau region, the buses will be moved there.

In the fall of 2021, the situation worsened. With the onset of cold weather, the rumble from the roaring engines of buses does not stop all night. Residents suffer greatly from noise pollution and exhaust fumes that penetrate into the interior of the living quarters. Vibration is felt in some homes. The physical and psychological health of people is deteriorating.

Contacting the EBRD

On November 11, the Ecological Society sent a request to the Bank with a request to provide the following information:

  1. Was the project Almaty Public Electric Transport approved by the board of directors? If yes, then when?
  2. Was there a public hearing on the project, including consultations? If so, detailed information of the course of the consultation should be disclosed.
  3. The Ecological Society asked for project documents including social and environmental information.

On November 23, the Bank announced that the approval of the project is scheduled for the first quarter of 2022. The Non-Technical Summary and Stakeholder Engagement Plan will be updated prior to project approval and will be open for review.

The Bank’s 2019 Environmental and Social Policy states:

2.3 The EBRD does not knowingly finance projects that contradict national laws, countries’ obligations under relevant international treaties, conventions and agreements, the scope of which is determined during the preliminary project appraisal;

2.4. The EBRD is committed to respecting human rights in EBRD-financed projects. The EBRD will require clients to respect human rights in their business activities, avoid infringing on the human rights of others and address the adverse human rights risks and implications of clients’ business.

The Bank’s 2019 Information Access Policy states: “1.2 Accountability.

The EBRD respects the right of people to make comments and suggestions on the Bank’s operations and activities, and to request and receive information about operations and activities that may affect themselves or their communities. The EBRD seeks comments and suggestions from a wide variety of sources, hears comments and suggestions from stakeholders and engages in dialogue.

On November 23, residents of the Kairat microdistrict and the Green Salvation Ecological Society, guided by the above provisions of the Bank’s policy, appealed to its management with the following requirements:

— to postpone the conclusion of an agreement on project support with the municipality of Almaty and LLP “Almatylectrotrans;’’

— to postpone the provision of a loan in connection with the violation by the Bank’s client of the right of residents to a healthy and prosperous environment.

The vehicle fleet must be relocated to another location that fully complies with the requirements for placing an object of III hazard class. Only after the transfer of the vehicle fleet can a contract be signed and a loan granted. The appeal was signed by 27 people.

We believe that the Bank must reaffirm its commitment to the principles of respecting the human rights to an environment adequate to health and well-being. We hope that the Bank will consider the appeal of the public and take effective measures to restore the violated rights of residents. This will contribute to strengthening the credibility of the Bank and the successful development and implementation of the Green City Action Plan for Almaty.

Green City Action Plan: EBRD Changes Timeline

20210420_124118+More than four months have passed since the third consultation seminar – July 7 and 8, 2021 – on the Green City Action Plan (GCAP) for Almaty. The project officially started on September 9, 2020. It is implemented by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) under the EBRD Green Cities programme, and is funded by the Federal Ministry of Finance of Republic of Austria.

According to the Initial Report on the Green City Action Plan, which was prepared in September 2020, the fourth stakeholder engagement workshop was planned for mid-April 2021. The final presentation of the GCAP was scheduled for September 2021.

We quote “3.1. GCAP approval process.

The final presentation of the GCAP in the Local Council is scheduled for September 6, 2021. This date should be discussed with the decision makers and confirmed by them. According to the Law on Public Councils, the document will be made public 10 days before its approval.”[1].

October has come. The public has not received any information about the fourth and final seminars. We decided to ask the main developers and executors of the project about how the work is progressing and when the public will receive comprehensive information.

On October 28, the Department of the Green Economy of Almaty responded to us. “Currently, the consultants have conducted an initial report, a report on the external structure, a collection of indicators for 7 sectors of the GCAP, a database of indicators has been formed, workshops have been held, a report has been prepared, and a technical assessment has been given, in which problems and solutions by industry have been identified.

The final draft is currently not ready. The final project is planned to be completed in 2022.”

Later we received a response not from the EBRD, from the EcoSocio Analysts Company, dated October 27 (Ref. No. 21-72).

“Currently, the Consultants are at the stage of detailing the actions that were identified as priorities during the third consultation workshop. As an interim stage, we are conducting industry technical discussions with Akimat departments to check and improve the list of priority actions that should be detailed and included in the final action plan. Please note that detailing actions is a complex process that requires time and the participation of all experts of the project team, as well as representatives of interested departments of the Akimat.

The fourth seminar will be organized only after we have a draft of the sections “Actions of the green city,” which will be agreed with all interested parties in the same format as in previous consultations. The date of the seminar will be announced later.”

So, the final presentation of the Green City Action Plan has been postponed for an indefinite month of 2022. According to the Bank’s methodology, this is acceptable for the development of such projects, since the project is developed from 12 to 24 months. Only 14 months have passed. However, we hope that when the Plan begins, the city will finally get rid of the smog, noise pollution, illegal development, fetid dumps, and the massive felling of trees will stop.

_____________

[1] Initial Report.  The Green City Action Plan for Almaty. 2020:

https://www.gov.kz/uploads/2021/2/26/73ddae099bb95c6a50e42218ca91d619_original.1669634.pdf

Consultations on the EBRD project “Green City Action Plan for Almaty City” to be held in spring

IMG_9749On September 9, 2020, the presentation of the project of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development “The Green City Action Plan for Almaty City (GCAP)” was held. As part of the work on it, experts will analyze the existing environmental problems of the city and prepare proposals for their solution.

The meeting was attended by representatives of the Bank, Kazakhstani and foreign enterprises, experts and the public. Local authorities were represented by the Green Economy Department of Almaty city. It was announced at the meeting that consultation meetings with the public on certain sections of the GCAP were planned for the near future.

On January 27, 2021, the project manager, in response to a request from the Green Salvation Ecological Society about the timing of the consultations, said: “Given the current non-standard situation with the pandemic, the GCAP project has encountered some delays, so the next consultation workshop with stakeholders is scheduled for early March 2021. … The event will be announced publicly one week before the date of the event.”

According to the Bank, the priority environmental problems of the city are currently being determined based on the pressure-state-response structure. Information is being collected on 7 sectors of the GCAP: land use, water and wastewater, waste, urban planning, energy, industry, transport. The Bank is interested in identifying “reliable sources” of information on these problems.

At the end of 2020, a heated discussion of the General Plan of Almaty with the public took place, which showed that the townspeople had a lot of questions not only to the developers of the Plan, but also to the city authorities. Therefore, the issue of coordination between the specialists of the Bank, Research Institute “Almatygenplan,” the Department of Urban Planning and Urban Studies and the Department of Green Economy of Almaty is of paramount importance.

Without clear coordination, the townspeople will once again receive wonderful, but impracticable projects that carry many reasons for social and environmental conflicts. The city is constantly growing, absorbing fertile agricultural lands, building up river banks, filling the neighborhood with tons of garbage, destroying apple orchards—one of the most famous sights and main values of our region.

The initial report “Green City Action Plan for Almaty City” is posted on the website of the Department of Green Economy of Almaty: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/almaty-eco/press/article/details/36336?lang=ru .

Results of monitoring of national parks of Almaty oblast in 2019

cover-for-site_1080This material is a continuation of the publications “Results of monitoring of national parks of Almaty oblast in 2017” and “Results of monitoring of national parks of Almaty oblast in 2018.” The main focus is on the situation in Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park (hereinafter – Ile-Alatau SNNP). The park has invaluable importance for preserving biological diversity of the region, being essential for health and well-being of residents of the Almaty agglomeration. The report also partially covers the situation in the Charyn State National Natural Park and the “Kolsai Lakes” State National Natural Park.

Results of monitoring of national parks of Almaty oblast in 2019 (pdf, 9 Mb)