Архив метки: Almaty

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.

 

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

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 .

Summary of Lawsuits in 2019 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation*

* Ecological Society Green Salvation (hereafter, GS)

SECTION No.1

No. 1

Case about acknowledging of inaccurate information provision by the MSE «Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands of the city of Almaty» to be an illegal action, and about obliging it to provide complete and accurate environmental information (see the case No. 6, 2018).

Background.

On May 21, 2018, a citizen K… and other residents of Velikolukskaya street of Turksib District of the city of Almaty, addressed the Head of the Municipal State Enterprise (MSE) «Department of land relations of the city of Almaty» with a statement. It was forwarded for consideration on the merits to the MSE «Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands of the city of Almaty» (hereinafter — Department).

On July 4, citizen K… received a response from the Department, which states that the land plot at the requested address belongs to citizen Y… with a designated purpose — non-residential premises — and is located in a commercial zone.

In accordance with the official response of the MSE «Department of Architecture and Urban Planning of the City of Almaty», with an attached diagram and a reference to the decision of the Maslikhat of Almaty (local representative body), the indicated land plot is located in a residential zone.

Due to the contradictions in the responses of the state authorities, a lawsuit was filed to the court.

The lawsuit in the interests of citizen K… was submitted to the Almaly District Court No.2 of the city of Almaty on September 14, 2018.

MSE «Department for control over use and protection of lands of the city of Almaty» is brought to the court as a defendant.

Legal violations:

Violated the right of the citizen K… on access to environmental information, in particular, the following norms:

— paragraph 2, Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

— Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

— subparagraph 7, paragraphs 1, Article 13 and paragraphs 1, Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

— paragraph 4, Article 6 and Article 18 of the Law «On Access to Information»;

— paragraph 18 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 «On some questions of application by courts of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil matters».

Demands:

  1. To acknowledge the provision of misleading information by the Department to the Ecological Society to be an illegal action.
  2. To oblige the Department to provide the Ecological Society »Green Salvation» with the requested environmental information.
  3. To issue a private court ruling in relation to the head of the Department, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code.

On October 2, review process of the case began.

On November 2, the court rejected the application. The judge allowed an arbitrary interpretation of the concepts of the law «On architectural, urban planning, and construction activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan» and ignored the decision of the XXVI session of Maslikhat of Almaty dated on November 20, 2006, No. 284, namely: «Plan for implementation of urban planning regulations for development of functional areas of the city of Almaty».

For example, the court decision states that the master plan of the city development, that establishes zoning, planning structure, and functional organization of the territory, is only a plan, an intention! And that there is no evidence in the case file that «at the present time, these urban planning regulations have been implemented or their implementation has begun on the territory of Turksib district…»

The judge simply dropped the question of zoning.

On December 7, the GS filed an appeal to the Appeals Board of the Almaty City Court.

On March 6, 2019, the Board cancelled the decision of the District Court and passed the case to the court of the first instance for a new trial by a different panel of judges.

The ruling indicates that during the case trial the court did not consider the Aarhus Convention provision and the regulatory decree of the Supreme Court dated on November 25, 2016, No.8 »On certain questions of courts’ application of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases.»

On April 30, the case trial began.

On May 20, the judge of the District Court No.2 of the Almaly District rejected the application. He justified the rejection explaining that citizen K… has allegedly appealed to the state body (Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands of the city of Almaty), which is not authorized to respond to inquiries about zoning of the city territory. In addition, she has allegedly received a reliable answer about zoning of the territory from the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning of the city of Almaty.

The judge completely misrepresented the facts. Citizen K… did not contact the Department of Architecture and Urban Planning and did not receive a reply from them. She appealed to the Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands with a request to check whether the neighboring land plot was used in accordance with the intended purpose. The latter provided her with false information.

On June 27, the GS filed a complaint with the Appeals Board of the Almaty City Court.

On September 10, the Appeals Board satisfied the demands of the GS. The court ruling said: «To cancel the decision of the District Court No. 2 of Almaly District of the city of Almaty dated 05/20/2019 on this civil case, to make a new decision in the case to satisfy the appeal of the Ecological Society «Green Salvation» in the interests of K… To recognize as illegal the provision by the MSE «Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands of the city of Almaty» of inaccurate (incomplete) information in the reply dated on 06/27/2018. To oblige the MSE «Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands of the city of Almaty» to completely eliminate the violations and restore the violated rights and lawful [interests] of the Ecological Society «Green Salvation» … by providing the Ecological Society «Green Salvation» with the requested information within one months from the date the decision comes into force.»

The decision of the judicial board comes into force from the moment of its announcement.

The trial is completed. Enforcement proceedings continue. (see Section No. 2. Implementation of court decisions, case No. 3).

 

* * *

No. 2

Case about acknowledging the inaction of the MSE »Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands of the city of Almaty» to be illegal and obliging it to fully eliminate the allowed violations (see the case No. 7, 2018).

Background.

After studying the situation on-site and the letter provided by the Department dated on October 12, 2018, the Ecological Society came to the conclusion that the Department is not fulfilling its direct responsibilities in controling protection and use of the lands. The ruins located on an abandoned site within the Ile-Alatau National Park pose a serious threat to lives of the park visitors. The deteriorated building is turning into a dumpsite for construction waste, which is being spread by wind and washed out by water. This damages ecosystems of the park and its tourist attractiveness.

The lawsuit in the interests of undefined number of individuals and the state was filed to the Specialized Inter-regional Economic Court (hereafter – SIEC) of the city of Almaty on November 28, 2018.

The »Department for control over use and protection of lands of the city of Almaty» is brought to court as a defendant.

Violations:

According to the Article 148 of the Land Code and the requirements of the paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Provision on the MSE »Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands of the city of Almaty», the Department has the right to:

— submit materials on violations of land legislation to the relevant authorities to resolve the issue of bringing those responsible to justice;

— make decisions on administrative penalty for violation of land legislation;

— prepare and bring claims to the court on issues of compensation for damage as a result of violation of land laws, of expropriation of land plots that are not used for their intended purpose or used in violation of the law;

— give binding instructions on land protection and elimination of violations of land legislation to landowners and land users.

In the case mentioned above, the Department took no action.

Demands:

  1. To recognize as illegal the inaction of the »Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands of the city of Almaty».
  2. To oblige the Department to eliminate the violations in full.
  3. To issue a private court ruling in relation to the head of the Department, in accordance with the Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code.

 

On December 26, the case trial began.

From January 4 to January 21, 2019, several court hearings were held. The representative of the Department did not provide feedback on the GS’s appeal, thereby violating the provisions of Article 166 of the Civil Procedural Code. No documents about a carried out inspection of the environmental condition of the land plot were provided.

On February 20, the judge of the SIEC of the city of Almaty refused to satisfy the appeal. He claims, without reference to documents, that the defendant conducted an audit and that the site was «formally used for its intended purpose». The judge points to the laws: «The applicant mistakenly believes that since the sports complex is partially destroyed and not used, this is the basis for issuing orders to the owner to eliminate violations of land legislation on the use of the land for its intended purpose. However, in the court’s opinion, the Department’s competence does not include the obligation to control damaged and destroyed buildings.»

The judge ignored subparagraph 4 of paragraph 3 of Article 93 of the Land Code, indicating that «the use of the land, which led to a significant deterioration of the environmental situation», is a violation of the law.

On March 19, the GS filed a complaint with the Appeals Board of the Almaty City Court.

On May 22, the Board rejected the complaint.

The judges justified the refusal by explaining that the Department has allegedly provided the answers to the GS and checked the use of the land for compliance with the intended purpose.

On June 26, the GS submitted an application for familiarization with the case materials. The GS believes that due to the fact that the documents confirming the fact of the audit were not presented to the representative of the GS in the court, they are not in the case, the court actually falsified the evidence.

On October 10, the GS filed a petition with the Supreme Court.

On November 18, a judge of the Supreme Court, having examined the application in advance, refused to refer it to the cassation instance of the Supreme Court. The judge reiterated the arguments of the courts of the first and appeal instances. When a representative of the GS was looking through the case materials, it was found that the documents confirming the defendant’s verification of the intended use of the land plot are not in the materials of this civil case. That is, the court actually falsified the evidence.

The case is closed. Violations are not resolved.

 

* * *

No. 3

Case about acknowledging the act of providing of untruthful information by the MSE »Department of tourism and external relations of the city of Almaty» to be an illegal action and obliging it to provide accurate environmental information.

(see the case No. 8, 2018).

Background.

According to the opinion of the Department, stated in its reply of November 26, 2018 to the request of the Ecological Society »Green Salvation», «… the term «zero» construction option was put into use and appeared due to appeals and speeches of representatives of the GS »Green Salvation».

This is not true, that is, it is false information. According to the paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 5 of the Instructions for Conducting of Environmental Impact Assessment of June 28, 2007, environmental impact assessment is carried out on the basis of the following principles:

»1) obligation – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is obligatory for any types of economic or other activity which can have a direct or indirect impact on the environment and public health.

… 3) alternativeness – the impact assessment is based on mandatory consideration of alternative design solutions, including the design solutions option, including the option of rejecting the planned activity («zero» option).»

The term «zero» option of construction was introduced and emerged due to the current norm of the aforementioned Instruction approved by an order of the Minister of Environmental Protection, and not due to appeals and speeches of representatives of the GS »Green Salvation».

We consider the action of the Department which provided the false information to be an illegal action violating the rights of the Ecological Society provided for by the subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Environmental Code, namely: the right «to receive timely, complete and reliable information from state bodies and organizations.»

 

The lawsuit in the interests of the Ecological Society and an indefined number of individuals was filed on December 10, 2018 to the SIEC.

MSE «Department of tourism and external relations of the city of Almaty» is brought to court as a defendant.

Legal violations:

The right of the public to access environmental information has been violated, in particular, the norms:

— paragraph 2, Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

— Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

— sub-paragraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 13, sub-paragraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 14, and paragraph 1 of Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

— paragraph 4 of Article 6, Article 18 of the Law «On Access to Information»;

— paragraph 18 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 «On some questions of application by courts of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil matters».

 

Demands:

  1. To recognize the provision of false information by the Department of tourism and external relations of the city of Almaty as an illegal act.
  2. To oblige the Department to provide the Ecological Society with reliable environmental information.
  3. To issue a private court ruling in relation to the head of the Department, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code.

 

On January 4, 2019, the case trial began.

On February 4, the judge of the SIEC of the city of Almaty satisfied the appeal of the GS. The decision stated: «The court is convinced that the information presented in paragraph 5) of the Department’s reply of November 26, 2018, that the term «zero» construction option was introduced into use and appeared as a result of appeals and speeches of representatives of the GS »Green Salvation», is not true.»

The judge ordered the Department to provide the GS with accurate environmental information.

The court decision entered into force on March 12, 2019.

The case is closed. Enforcement proceedings continue (see Section No. 2. Implementation of court decisions, case No. 02).

* * *

No. 4

Case about acknowledging the issuance of the sanitary and epidemiological conclusion to «U …» LLP by the Department to be an illegal action and on obliging it to eliminate the violations

Case background facts:

The Department of Public Health of the city of Almaty issued a sanitary and epidemiological conclusion to »U…» LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) that does not comply with the norms of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On the Health of the People and the Health Care System», the law «On Architectural, Urban Planning and Construction Activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan» and the requirements of the Sanitary Rules («Sanitary and epidemiological requirements for identifying a sanitary protection zone of production facilities»).

As a result of the above mentioned actions of the Department, local residents suffer from the activity of the enterprise, which produces concrete, receives, stores, and sells cement.

The lawsuit in defense of the interests of residents of Bokeykhanov Street of the city of Almaty, the Ecological Society and an undefined number of people was submitted on January 17, 2019 to the SIEC.

The Department of Public Health of the city of Almaty was brought to court as a defendant.

Legal violations:

The right of the public to access environmental information and participate in the decision-making process has been violated, in particular:

— paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

— Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

— subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 13, subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 14, and paragraph 1 of Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

— paragraph 4 of Article 6, Article 18 of the Law on Access to Information;

— paragraph 18 of the regulatory decision of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 »On certain questions of courts’ application of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases.»

Demands:

  1. To acknowledge the action of the Department which has issued «U…» LLP a sanitary and epidemiological conclusion that does not comply with the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to be an illegal action.
  2. To oblige the Department to fully eliminate the violations.
  3. To issue a private determination in relation to the Head of the Department, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

 

In February-March, several court hearings were held.

On March 4, the judge of the SIEC of the city of Almaty refused to satisfy the lawsuit.

The judge arbitrarily interpreted the requirements of the Sanitary Rules. As a result, he came to the conclusion that the hazard class is established depending on the actual concentration of pollutants outside the industrial site, and not according to the officially approved Sanitary Classification of Industrial Facilities. That is, the Department can arbitrarily change the hazard class and, on this basis, actually eliminate the sanitary protection zone for construction industry facilities.

On April 8, the GS filed a complaint with the Appeals Board of the Almaty City Court.

On June 5, the panel rejected the complaint.

The judges justified the refusal by stating that the class of sanitary hazard could be allegedly  established by calculation, depending on the actual concentration of pollutants outside the industrial site, and not according to the officially approved Sanitary Classification of industrial facilities. This means that supposedly the Department of Public Health can arbitrarily change the class of sanitary hazard. The panel of judges did not take into account the two letters of the Public Health Committee received by the applicants at their request. The responses clearly indicate that the class of sanitary hazard cannot be changed based on calculations. The size of the sanitary protection zone can be changed.

On November 11, the GS filed a motion with the Supreme Court.

On December 9, a judge of the Supreme Court, having examined the application in advance, refused to refer it to the cassation instance of the Supreme Court. The judge reiterated the arguments of the courts of the first and appeal instances.

The judge did not take into account the two letters of the Public Health Committee received by the applicants at their request. The responses clearly indicate that the class of sanitary hazard cannot be changed based on calculations. The size of the sanitary protection zone can be changed.

The case is closed. Violations are not resolved.

 

* * *

No. 5

Case on acknowledging the provision of incomplete and inaccurate information by the Committee to be an unlawful act and on obliging it to provide complete and accurate environmental information

Case background facts:

Due to the provision of inaccurate information and an arbitrary interpretation of the legislation by the Department of Public Health of the city of Almaty, the GS requested clarification from the Public Health Committee. The questions posed to the Committee were related to the procedure for determining and changing the hazard class of industrial facilities.

The Committee ignored four out of the five questions asked, and gave an unargumented, inaccurate answer to the fifth question.

The lawsuit in defense of the interests of the Ecological Society and an undefined number of people was submitted to the SIEC of the city of Nur-Sultan on April 25, 2019.

The Committee for Public Health Protection of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan was brought to court as a defendant.

Legal violations:

The right of the public to access environmental information has been violated, in particular:

— paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

— Article 4 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

— subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 13, subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 14 and paragraph 1 of Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

— paragraph 4 of Article 6, Article 18 of the Law on Access to Information;

— paragraph 18 of the regulatory decision of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 »On certain questions of courts’ application of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases.»

Demands:

  1. To acknowledge the fact that the Committee for Public Health Protection did not provide an answer to four questions and provided false information to the one question to be an unlawful action.
  2. To oblige the Committee to provide the Ecological Society with complete and accurate environmental information.
  3. To make a private determination in relation to the Head of the Committee, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The lawsuit was withdrawn due to receipt of the complete and accurate information.

 

* * *

No. 6

Case about provision of inaccurate information by the akimat of the Medeu District of Almaty and about obliging it to provide complete and accurate environmental information

Case background facts:

Akimat provided the Ecological Society with false information that the Government Decree No. 1267 of December 2, 2014 on the transfer of the natural tract Kok-Zhailau to the Medeu District from the Ile-Alatau State National Park has expired, according to the Government Decree No. 745 of September 4, 2015 «On recognition of certain decisions of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan as ceased to be active.»

The Decree No. 745 only invalidated the paragraph 3 of the Decree No. 1267. The Kok-Zhailau tract is still located in the administrative borders of the Medeu district.

The lawsuit in defense of the interests of the Ecological Society was submitted to the SIEC of Almaty on July 24, 2019.

Legal violations:

The right of the public to access environmental information has been violated, in particular:

— paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan;

— Article 4 of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

— subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of Article 14 and paragraph 1 of Article 163 of the Environmental Code;

— paragraph 4 of Article 6, Article 18 of the Law on Access to Information;

— paragraph 18 of the regulatory decision of the Supreme Court of November 25, 2016 No. 8 »On certain questions of courts’ application of environmental legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in civil cases.»

Demands:

  1. To acknowledge the provision of inaccurate information by the Akimat of Medeu District to be an unlawful act.
  2. To oblige the Akimat to provide the Ecological Society with accurate environmental information.
  3. To make a private determination in relation to the Head of the Akimat, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

On September 12, a judge of the Specialized Inter-district Economic Court found that «the act of providing inaccurate information to the Ecological Society «Green Salvation» by the Akimat of the Medeu District of Almaty was unlawful.»

The decision of the SIEC of the city of Almaty dated September 12, 2019 entered into force on October 13, 2019.

The case is closed. Enforcement proceedings continue (see Section No. 2. Implementation of court decisions, case No. 04).

 

* * *

No. 7

Case on violation of the requirements of the law by the Committee of Quality and Safety of Goods and Services when developing new rules for designing sanitary protection zones of industrial enterprises

Case background facts:

The Committee for Public Health Protection of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan (presently — the Committee for Quality and Safety of Goods and Services), in response to the GS’s proposal to introduce a requirement for mandatory on-site marking of sanitary protection zones into the draft Rules «Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements for Establishing Sanitary Protection Zones of Production Facilities» declared that such introduction would be unnecessary.

The lawsuit in defense of the interests of an undefined number of people was submitted at the Nur-Sultan SIEC on August 9, 2019.

Legal violations:

The right of the public to participate in preparation of regulatory provisions of direct executive force and other generally applicable legally binding rules by government bodies has been violated.

Demands:

  1. To acknowledge the actions of the Public Health Committee to be unlawful.
  2. To oblige the Committee to fully eliminate the violations.
  3. To make a private determination in relation to the Head of the Committee, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

On September 19, the judge of the SIEC of the city of Nur-Sultan refused to satisfy the lawsuit demands. He made a determination in which he indicated that the appeal of the GS «is not subject to trial in civil proceedings», since «the law does not provide for an appeal against actions of a state institution during development, submission, discussion, and adoption of a legal act». The court did not take into account article 8 of the Aarhus Convention, which reads as follows: «Each Party shall strive to promote effective public participation at an appropriate stage, and while options are still open, during the preparation by public authorities of executive regulations and other generally applicable legally binding rules that may have a significant effect on the environment.»

On September 30, a private complaint was filed with the Appeals Board for Civil Cases of the SIEC of the city of Nur-Sultan.

On November 27, the panel rejected the complaint.

The judge repeated the arguments of the courts of the first and appeal instances word for word. «The law does not provide for an appeal against actions of a state institution during development, submission, discussion, and adoption of a legal act » (Quote from the court ruling).

The judge did not take into account article 8 of the Aarhus Convention, which reads as follows: «Each Party shall strive to promote effective public participation at an appropriate stage, and while options are still open, during the preparation by public authorities of executive regulations and other generally applicable legally binding rules that may have a significant effect on the environment.»

In the ruling, the judge did not even mention Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention.

A petition is being prepared to be submitted to the Supreme Court.

The trial continues.

 

* * *

No. 8

Case on inaction of Akimat of Medeu District of Almaty

expressed in the refusal to maintain order and carry out sanitary cleaning in the Kok-Zhailau tract

Case background facts:

The Akimat, refering to the alleged expiration of the Government Decree No. 1267 of December 2, 2014 on the transfer of the tract Kok-Zhailau to the Medeu District from the Ile-Alatau State National Park, has not fulfilled its direct responsibilities in maintaining order and sanitation on the natural tract Kok-Zhailau for several years.

The lawsuit in defense of the interests of an undefined number of people was submitted to the SIEC of Almaty on August 28, 2019.

Legal violations:

The Akimat does not fulfill its direct duties of maintaining order and sanitation provided for by the norms of the law «On Local Government and Self-Government in the Republic of Kazakhstan» dated January 23, 2001, and the requirements of the provision on the municipal state institution «Administration of the Akim of Medeu District of the city of Almaty».

As a result of the Akimat’s inaction, the rights of an undefined number of people, namely residents of Almaty, who, according to paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 13 of the Environmental Code, have the right to an environment favorable to their life and health, are violated.

Demands:

  1. To acknowledge the inaction of the Akimat of the Medeu District to be illegal.
  2. To oblige the Akimat to eliminate the committed violations in full.
  3. To make a private determination in relation to the Head of the Akimat, in accordance with Article 270 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

 

In September October, several court hearings were held.

On October 18, the judge of the SIEC of the city of Almaty refused to satisfy the appeal.

The judge justified the refusal by stating that by the decision of the Akimat of Almaty No. 1 / 1-227 of February 19, 2019, a right of temporary free short-term land use was granted to the State Authority «Department of Tourism and External Relations of the City of Almaty» for a period of 4 years 11 months on the land area of ​​459.2020 hectares for the construction and operation of the Kokzhailau ski resort, located at: Kokzhailau tract. Therefore: «at the time of the plaintiff’s appeal with a letter dated April 29, 2019, the issue of restricting the entry of vehicles into the territory of the Kok-Zhailau tract and sanitary maintenance was not within the competence of the District Akim Administration.»

This conclusion is incorrect, since the Government Decree dated 12/02/2014 on the transfer of the tract Kok-Zhailau to the Medeu District from Ile-Alatau State National Park, at the time of consideration of this civil case, did not lose force, that is, it was a valid normative legal act. Transfer of land for rent to another institution does not exempt the Akimat from the obligation to improve, provide lighting, plant greenery, and perform sanitary cleaning of the territory of the district.

On November 18, the GS filed a complaint with the Appeals Board of the Almaty City Court.

On January 8, 2020, the Board rejected the complaint.

A petition is being prepared to be submitted to the Supreme Court.

The trial continues.

 

* * * * * *

SECTION No.2

Implementation of court decisions

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 21 of the Civil Procedural Code, court decisions that have entered into legal force are binding on all, without exception, state bodies, local self-government bodies, public associations, other legal entities, officials and citizens and are subject to enforcement throughout the Republic of Kazakhstan.

No.1

A ruling of the Review Board of the Supreme Court on the lawsuit about inaction of the director of the Department of the Committee of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Control in the city of Almaty which expressed in a lack of control over marking of sanitary and protection zones with special signs on-site was adopted on November 27, 2013 (see the case No.9, 2012, and case No.4, 2013).

Background. In connection with the constant emissions of dry cement from the enterprise «U …» LLP, local residents with the assistance of the Ecological Society «Green Salvation» applied to the court demanding to provide information about the sanitary protection zones of «U …» LLP and neighboring industrial enterprises, terrains, special signs indicating the boundaries of sanitary protection zones.

In 2013, the Supreme Court adopted a resolution obliging the Department of Public Health of Almaty (formerly the Department of Sanitary and Epidemiological Control in Almaty) to satisfy the claimants’ demands. Since 2014, local residents, with the assistance of the GS, are seeking to implement the Supreme Court decision.

For more information on the actions taken in 2014 — 2018 to implement the decision of the Supervisory Board of the Supreme Court of November 27, 2013, see «Summary of Judicial Practice of the Ecological Society «Green Salvation for 2018», section 2.

 

On August 2, 2018, the Appeals Board of the Almaty City Court cancelled the ruling of the Medeu District Court of Almaty on termination of the enforcement proceedings of the case and sent it for a new review to the Medeu District Court of Almaty from the stage of acceptance of the complaint.

On September 18, the Medeu District Court of the city of Almaty declared illegal the action of the bailiff of the Department of Justice on enforcement of non-proprietary requirements when issuing the ruling of April 25, 2018 on termination of the enforcement proceedings.

The court ordered the bailiff to eliminate in full the violations of the rights of claimants and take measures aimed at fulfilling the requirements of the executive document.

On December 6, 2018, enforcement proceedings were resumed.

On February 13, again, the debtor was handed a notice of obligation to execute the judicial act.

On February 14, by a resolution of the SIEC of the city of Almaty, the debtor was held administratively liable under Article 669 of the Administrative Aode and fined 75,750 tenge.

On February 27, the debtor was given a notice again about the obligation to execute the judicial act with a simultaneous warning of collecting a penalty from the debtor for each day of delay in execution provided for by the requirement of Article 104 of the Law «On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs».

On March 12, in accordance with Article 104 of the aforementioned law, a statement was submitted to the Medeu District Court of Almaty about collection of a penalty from the debtor in the the state’s favor in the amount of 858,500 tenge for each day of delay.

By the decision of the Medeu District Court of April 5, the statement of the bailiff was satisfied in full, 858,500 tenge were collected from the debtor in the state’s favor.

The statement of the bailiff about initiation of criminal proceedings against the head of the Department is under consideration.

On May 27, by a decision of the bailiff, the executive document of the Medeu District Court of Almaty dated December 26, 2016, issued by order of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 2-7091 / 12 of November 27, 2013, was returned by the claimant. The basis is the renaming of the debtor in accordance with the decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 04/10/2019 No. 177.

On June 5, the applicant filed a complaint with the Medeu District Court of Almaty in accordance with Article 250 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan regarding the actions of the bailiff.

On June 28, the Medeu District Court of Almaty refused to satisfy the complaint. Currently, an appeal is being prepared against the decision of the district court.

On June 3, the applicant submitted an application with the Medeu District Court of Almaty about replacing the debtor.

On July 9, by a determination of the Medeu District Court of Almaty, the applicants’ claim was satisfied, the debtor was replaced by the Department of Control of Quality and Safety of Goods of the city of Almaty.

In August 2019, the determination of the Medeu District Court of Almaty to replace the debtor entered into legal force. Based on the court ruling, the applicants filed an application to the bailiff for resumption of enforcement proceedings. The bailiff refused to resume the enforcement proceedings twice, referring to the fact that the writ was returned to the applicants. The applicants had to turn to the Medeu District Court of Almaty with a request to write out and hand out a writ of execution on the court ruling of July 9, 2019.

Having received a writ of execution, the applicants appealed to the bailiff with a request to institute enforcement proceedings.

Enforcement proceedings were instituted. The debtor is the Department of Control of Quality and Safety of Goods of the city of Almaty.

Regarding the systematic failure to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court, the applicants repeatedly appealed to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The applicants received answers to their appeals from the Department of Justice of Almaty, signed by the head and deputy head of the Department.

Enforcement proceedings are currently at the enforcement stage.

Enforcement proceedings continue.

 

* * *

No. 2

Case about acknowledging the act of providing of untruthful information by the MSE »Department of tourism and external relations of the city of Almaty» to be an illegal action and obliging it to provide accurate environmental information.

(see Section 1, Case No. 3, 2019).

 

On March 12, 2019, the SIEC of Almaty issued a writ of execution.

The writ of execution of the SIEC of Almaty was accepted into proceedings by the Territorial Department for enforcement of non-property related claims of the Department of Justice of Almaty. For this enforcement proceeding, the debtor is required to provide the Ecological Society with accurate information regarding the «zero option».

Until June 30, no accurate information was provided by the debtor. The motive for the non-execution of the writ is that the debtor allegedly provided information on March 13, 2019. The Ecological Society cannot accept the debtor’s reply of March 13 as accurate information due to the fact that the letter of the Department does not refer to the decision of the SIEC of Almaty.

Within nine months, the writ of execution, in which the Department is indicated as the debtor, has not been fully executed. The Department refers to the response provided on March 13, 2019. But in the indicated response, there is no indication of the decision of the SIEC of Almaty dated February 4, 2019.

On December 23, the Ecological Society sent a new letter to the Department with a proposal to immediately execute the court decision. Otherwise, the GS will be forced to go to court.

Enforcement proceedings continue.

 

* * *

No. 3

Case about acknowledging of inaccurate information provision by the MSE «Department for Control of Use and Protection of Lands of the city of Almaty» to be an illegal action, and about obliging it to provide complete and accurate environmental information (See Section 1, case No. 1, 2019)

 

On September 30, because of the defendant’s refusal to voluntarily comply with the decision of the judicial board for civil cases of the Almaty City Court of September 10, 2019, a statement was sent to District Court No. 2 of the Almaty District of Almaty in order to submit it to the Office for Claims Execution of the Department of Justice of the city of Almaty.

On October 15, 2019, the District Court No. 2 of the Almaly district of Almaty issued a writ of execution.

The writ of execution was accepted into proceedings by the Territorial Department for execution of non-property related claims of the Department of Justice of Almaty. With respect to this enforcement proceedings, the debtor is obliged to provide the Ecological Society with accurate information in the interests of citizen K… and other residents of Velikolukskaya Street regarding the intended use of the neighboring site on which the production workshop is located.

On December 31, 2019, a response was received from the Department of Urban Planning Control of the city of Almaty, in which the defendant again provided inaccurate information, completely ignoring the decision of the judicial board of September 10, 2019.

Enforcement proceedings continue.

 

* * *

No. 4

Case about provision of inaccurate information by the akimat of the Medeu District of Almaty and about obliging it to provide complete and accurate environmental information

(see Section 1, Case No. 6, 2019).

On December 24, due to the defendant’s refusal to voluntarily execute the court decision of September 12 within three months, a statement was sent to the SIEC of Almaty to issue a writ of execution for submission to the Department for execution of non-property related claims of the Department of Justice of Almaty.

On January 8, 2020, the court issued a writ of execution to the GS.

Enforcement proceedings continue.

* * *

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

Translated by Sofya Tairova

* * *

Summary of Lawsuits in 2018 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2017 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2016 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2015 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2014 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2013 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2012 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2011 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2010 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2009 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2008 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation
Summary of Lawsuits in 2007 by the Ecological Society Green Salvation


Subscribe to our updates

Is it possible to plant and grow a million trees in Almaty?

At a gala meeting dedicated to the Constitution Day, the akim of Almaty Bakytzhan Sagintayev said: “We need to seriously renew the “lungs” of the city. There are about 2 million trees in the city, but about 500 thousand are in emergency conditions or are sick. Therefore, I propose that in the fall we begin implementation of the three-year Jasyl Almaty project and plant, at least, a million new trees.”[1].
We asked ourselves a question: is it possible to accomplish that, taking into account our reality? And we tried to find the answer.

Lack of information is a profitable business

So, how many trees are there in the city, where do they grow and in what conditions? Many people would say that it is a very vague question. Most importantly is that the trees are not chopped right and left. But this is not exactly true. In the developed countries, you will be given a comprehensive report, because there the trees are not only counted but also accounted for their benefits.

In Paris, Berlin, Vienna, there are special informational services. Each tree has its number and electronic code. This allows to receive information about it through the Internet.

In New York, one can instantly find out about the tree they are interested in.[2] For example, 253,698 trees are marked on the map in Queens. The tree under identification number 4659220 is a swamp oak. Its “address”, diameter of the trunk, and photos are all included! The most interesting thing is that the information includes environmental benefits provided by the tree, calculated in monetary terms. This amount is equal to $345 per year, including $40 for absorbing flood waters, $20 for purification of atmospheric air, $238 for energy savings, in particular it creates a shadow and thereby reduces the usage of air conditioning.

Has any of our officials come up with the idea of calculating the benefits of the trees, and not just the budget costs for their planting, transplanting, pruning and cutting?

The city authorities have repeatedly promised to create a similar map for Almaty. Tree inventory was conducted, developers were involved. In paragraph 22 of the new “Rules for the maintenance and protection of green vegetation of the city of Almaty” in 2018, it is stated that the catalogue of green vegetation is created for:

“1) obtaining reliable comprehensive data on the number and condition of green vegetation in the city of Almaty;

2) monitoring the status and number of green vegetation in the city of Almaty;

3) identifying the main directions of the municipal policy in the field of protection, conservation, and development of green areas of the city of Almaty;

4) development of the most rational approaches to protection, conservation, and development of green spaces;

5) providing the population, state bodies with reliable information about the number and condition of green spaces in the city of Almaty.”

The question on how often it is necessary to update information in the catalogue was also discussed, but … alas, the catalogue hasn’t still been put together[3]. Probably, in the conditions of the rapid destruction of the green fund, it is simply physically impossible and economically unprofitable to spend money on this.

Rules on maintaining green vegetation, or Game without rules

So, what do the new Rules represent?

The key words used in the document make you think: what does the document regulate, after all? The word «cutting» is used in the text 20 times, the word «care» — 4, the word «watering» — 2 times, «treatment» — never! So, are these the rules of maintenance or logging?!

The procedure for compensatory planting in paragraph 35 is poorly spelled out. The size of demolished plantings, their age and sanitary functions carried out by them are not considered. A typical situation develops as follows: a large tree with a large green mass is being cut down, and instead, five tiny seedlings on which you can count all the leaves are planted.

Nothing is mentioned about liabilities and compensatory plantings in cases of illegal cuttings, i.e., when a cutting occurs without a permit of an authorized body.

The point of sanitary pruning and cutting is described very vaguely. Paragraph 27 states that in case of a threat of an emergency situation, sanitary cutting is carried out without coordination with an authorized body. Such cutting can cause conflict with local residents, who, due to the numerous cases of illegal cuttings, lose trust in state authorities and react oversensitivity to any manipulations with green vegetation.

Nothing is mentioned about a mandatory use of State Standards, for example, for the planting stock. Nothing is mentioned about mandatory soil surveys which should be the basis for landscaping projects with consideration of the proposed tree species.

There are no clear instructions for builders to take measures to preserve plants at the construction site, and especially in the surrounding area.

Paragraph 39 of the Rules is simply confusing. It says: «Cutting down trees of historical or unique aesthetic value, species of trees and shrubs included in the Red List is prohibited.» Does this rule apply to all land plots? Or private owners can ignore this rule? No answer!

And finally, planting techniques, pruning, and maintenance deserve a lot of criticism. It is necessary to develop guidelines for establishing and monitoring of green spaces. There used to be such an instruction, but it was cancelled back in 2011 for unclear reasons. And as a result – a game without rules!

Finally, absence of a centralized authority responsible for maintenance of green spaces does not allow for effective monitoring and management of the city’s green fund.

Dry irrigation ditches and polluted air

Why about 500 thousand trees in the city are in emergency conditions or are sick? It is easier to answer the question: why are there so few of them?

Firstly, trees and shrubs die by thousands from droughts, even if they grow within few meters of rivers, ponds and irrigation ditches. Same is true for the downtown area. Why? Because there is not everywhere and not always water flowing along the irrigation ditches. Because many banks of rivers and ponds are covered with concrete. For example, in the Central Park, hundred-year-old oaks dried out within ten meters of the lake. Meanwhile, water flows in abundance through the park’s storm water collection pipes which don’t have any irrigation openings, and discharge back to Malaya Almatinka river. Trees dry out on the streets of Panfilov, Baiseitova, Gogol and many others. Empty irrigation ditches turn into garbage collectors. By the way, during installation of these ditches, roots of the trees are mercilessly cut, and not every tree can survive such a procedure. The expensive irrigation systems installed on Abay and Gagarin avenues and in some city parks either do not work or have been ineffective.

Secondly, hundreds, maybe even thousands of trees, do not have open space around the base of their trunks. The space around the trunks is either filled with concrete or paved. As if they had to deal with the Italian mafia. Even rain cannot help these trees. Most of them die, and only a few miraculously survive. If we add the insanity of covering everything with asphalt and pavers, filling river banks with concrete, and trampling lawns, the percentage of trees that are close to death is significantly increasing.

Thirdly, it is well known that without water, trees weaken and become more vulnerable to pests and diseases. Local parasites are joined by «imported» ones, which come to us in a variety of ways.

In the last 5 years, new pests have appeared: “Oak mining sawfly (Profenusapygmaea Kl.), Elm mining sawfly (FenusaulmiSand), Ohrid miner, or chestnut mining moth (Camerariaohridella Desh. et Dim.), Marble bug (Halyomorphahalys Stål.), bark beetles, barbels. In a short time, they became noticeable pests of oak, chestnut, small-leaved elm and catalpa»[4]. It is not easy to get rid of these foreigners, as evidenced by the situation in Bishkek[5].

Fourth, polluted air has a devastating effect on plants. «Atmospheric pollution primarily affects spruce and pine, then oak and linden. Trees and shrubs that are sensitive to the gases: Norway maple, common horse chestnut, Berberis vulgaris, birch, acacia yellow, clematis purple, ash, Manchurian ash, sea buckthorn, common spruce, common pine, elm (»leather jacket»), mountain ash, common lilac.»[6]

But this does not bother us: the amount of transport is constantly increasing; industrial enterprises, which have no place in the city, do their dirty work; the endless reconstruction of sidewalks, roads, yards, river banks raises tons of dust into the air, not to mention the exhaust gases emitted by construction equipment.

Point and compacted development against trees

Under the windows, there used to be a day-care. Oaks, spruces, maples, flower beds and a fountain. The day-care was closed and privatized, like dozens of others. All the trees got cut down. Only one chestnut was left. The construction is going on for more than ten years now. Nobody knows when it is going to end.

This is a typical situation in the city and its suburbs. Point developers made their way into green zones, squares, and even into the lands of national parks. This is explained by the fact that green spaces are easier to demolish than dilapidated housing, and no one needs to be relocated. And compensatory plantings are sort of a payment for the received plot of land. They do not always make up for the lost green fund, and many trees die without care and watering, even in downtown. Point and compacted development requires territories, therefore it sweeps away all life from the face of the earth.

Tree «hypertension»

Another reason for dying green spaces is dubious projects of landscaping and improvement of urban areas. Special concepts, business plans, and scientific justifications are developed for this.

Here is a striking example. In 2017, 16 million tenge were spent on purchasing trees from Germany. They were planted on Panfilov street and… many of them died. The city akimat staff explained the reason for the occurred incident. «The wilting was due to climatic conditions and sudden changes in pressure, as well as neglect on the part of the population.» “It was also noted that henceforth, when planting new trees, climatic conditions will be taken into account.»[7]

Apparently, the akimat did not realize that we have a climate different from Germany. Moreover, trees suffering from «hypertension» were brought! Well, it seems that no one had ever heard that it is better to plant plants that are native to a given area.

Tree utopia

So, to summarize. Is it possible to plant and grow a million trees in Almaty?

You can plant! You can’t grow! It is impossible until legal issues are resolved; until the project is handed over to specialists; while the ecological awareness of the population remains at a low level; while corrupt officials like woodworms erode the budget and the green fund of Almaty.

Translator: Sofya Tairova.

[1] To plant one million trees in Almaty was proposed by Bakytzhan Sagintayev: https://www.inform.kz/ru/posadit-million-derev-ev-v-almaty-predlozhil-bakytzhan-sagintaev_a3560846, (website visited on September 3, 2019).

[2] New York City Street Tree Map: https://tree-map.nycgovparks.org/, (website visited on September 5, 2019).

[3] Green million. Vecherny Almaty, August 22, 2019. »To the concern of the social activist, we should add that the green spaces zoning map still has not been approved by the advisory committee of the Department of Green Economy»: http://vecher.kz/incity/zeljonyj-million, (website visited on September 5, 2019).

[4] Reply of the Department of Green Economy of the city of Almaty dated on July 5, 2019, to the inquiry of the Ecological Society »Green Salvation» dated on June 25, 2019.

[5] Mining sawfly on oak. Scientists talked about the first results of vaccinations: https://24.kg/obschestvo/121402_miniruyuschiy_pililschik_nadube_uchenyie_rasskazali_opervyih_rezultatah_privivok, (website visited on September 5, 2019).

[6] Effects of pollution on plants: http://landscape.totalarch.com/influence_contamination_plants, (website visited on September 5, 2019).

[7] Almaty Akimat explained why the 16-mln-tenge-trees on Arbat withered away: https://www.zakon.kz/4981351-v-akimate-almaty-rasskazali-pochemu-na.html, (website visited on September 5, 2019).

Thousands of seedlings of Sievers apple trees and tulips of “Nursultan Nazarbayev” variety are abandoned on Kok-Tobe

According to the Akimat of Almaty, on October 13, Jasyl Almaty conducted a tree planting event on the mountain Kok-Tobe. About 500 people, including 200 volunteer students, took part in the event. Overall, 40 thousand Sievers apple tree seedlings and 500 thousand bulbs of tulips of “Kazakhstan” and “Nursultan Nazarbayev” varieties were planted. (https://www.facebook.com/almaty.gov.kz/posts/2339716886150432).

As many Almaty residents, we support the idea of increasing the green vegetation fund of the city. But planting is one thing, and making sure the trees grow and add real beauty to the city and become its »lungs», is another thing. Therefore, the Ecological Society Green Salvation conducts monitoring of the condition of green vegetation of the city.

In order to get the original information for the monitoring, we decided to take a look and make pictures of the new plantings. First of all, we were interested in how the planting was conducted, and how further care for the tree saplings and tulips is going to be organized.

On October 17, we visited Kok-Tobe. We were struck to the core by what we saw. Therefore, on October 18, we visited the planting site again, but this time we invited news reporters.

The soil was not properly prepared for the seedlings. Apparently, no survey of the soil conditions had been carried out either. Many tree seedlings were planted inside thick-set of rosehip bushes at a distance of less than half a meter from each other, which indicates that there wasn’t any preliminary planning involved. It looks doubtful that the seedlings will take root. Garbage and thrown shovels, as well as boxes with hundreds of tulip bulbs were left behind at the planting site. Packages with planting material were scattered everywhere. According to our estimates, about 2 thousand seedlings of the Sievers apple tree were never planted, i.e. died (see photos in the attachment).

It should be noted that the Sievers apple tree is a threatened plant included in the Red List; many scientists and specialists from many countries have been struggling for many years over restoration of this species. It is extremely puzzling to witness this kind of attitude to the Red List plant, listed under No.104 in the “List of rare and endangered species of plants”, approved by the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 31, 2006, No. 1034.

We turn to the akimat with a request to explain how this wonderful undertaking turned into a typical formal action?

PS 

On October 21, the press service of the akim of Almaty informed that an incident was investigated and reprimand announced to responsible staff. The seedlings abandoned on Kok-Tobe are returned to the nursery. Specialists are working to restore them for future landing (Source: https://informburo.kz/novosti/sagintaev-obyavil-vygovor-podchinyonnym-za-broshennye-na-kok-tobe-sazhency-.html).

Comments to the first report of Kazakhstan on implementation of the Decision VI/8g

13Comments of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” to the first report of the Republic of Kazakhstan (RK) on implementation of the Decision VI/8g(1)  on compliance by Kazakhstan with its obligations under the Convention in the Draft Law “On introduction of amendments to certain legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on environmental matters” (hereafter – the Report).

1. The Report states:

“In order to implement the recommendations of the Decision VI/8g of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties of the Aarhus Convention, the following work on improving the legislation has been conducted.”

All references presented in the Report describe actions, which had been undertaken by the Party of the Convention before the Sixth Meeting of the Parties of the Aarhus Convention, i.e. before the Decision VI/8g was made (September 11-13, 2017).

This means that, firstly, the Party of the Convention officially admits that after the Decision VI/8g was made (September 11-13, 2017) and up until the present moment, no actions have been undertaken for changing and amending the legal acts, in accordance with the Decision of the Meeting of the Parties. Secondly, the Report demonstrates a perfunctory attitude of the Party of the Convention to the implementation of the Aarhus Convention.

2. The Report does not mention that “access to all information related to decision-making process” (paragraph 6, Article 6) is still not secured in the legislation of the RK.

The Report refers to the paragraph 3 of the Article 57-2 of the Environmental Code: “Twenty days prior to conducting of public hearings, local executive authorities provide an open access to environmental information related to the procedure of environmental impact assessment of a proposed economic or another activity, and to the process of decision making on this activity through an Internet source, and using other means of informing”. This wording is repeated in the paragraph 12 of the “Rules of conducting of Public Hearings”(2). This wording allows for arbitrary interpretation of the law.

A vivid example of an arbitrary interpretation is a reply of the Department of Tourism and External Relationships of the city of Almaty dated on October 10, 2018, No. 05-04/ЗТ-К-52, to the inquiry of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation”. The Ecological Society in their letter requested to provide all “parts of the draft of the “Feasibility study of construction of the mountain ski resort “Kokzhailau”.

In the reply of the Department of Tourism and External Relationships of the city of Almaty, it is said:

“After considering your inquiry, the Department of Tourism and External Relationships of the city of Almaty reports the following.

In accordance with the requirement of the Article 57-2 “Conducting of public hearings” of the Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, “Twenty days prior to conducting of public hearings, local executive authorities provide an open access to environmental information related to the procedure of environmental impact assessment of a proposed economic or another activity, and to the process of decision making on this activity through an Internet source, and using other means of informing”, environmental information, in particular the Book 1 and Book 2 of the Section “Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment” (hereafter – PreEIA) of the feasibility study of the mountain resort “Kokzhailau” are published on the “Kokzhailau” website www.kokjailau.kz and the website of the Department of Tourism and External Relationships of the city of Almaty www.almatytourism.kz on September 19, 2018, and September 27, 2018, correspondingly.

In order to protect lawful economic interests in accordance with the paragraph 4 of the Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention and legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a request to provide environmental information can be denied, if disclosure of such information negatively affects confidentiality of commercial information.

While the information about emissions related to environmental protection is subjected to disclosure (PreEIA).

No other materials regarding the feasibility study are planned to be published in future, since it is not provided for by the current legislation and the Environmental Code of the RK”.

A similar response (outgoing No.160 dated on October 1, 2018) was received by the Ecological Society from the head of the Almaty Mountain Resorts.

Thus, the Department of Tourism and External Relationships of the city of Almaty which is a structural sub-department of the local executive authority (akimat) not only allowed for arbitrary interpretation of the law, but violated norms of the Aarhus Convention.

On February 18, 2005, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee made conclusions and recommendations based on the statement from the Ecological Society “Green Salvation”. Paragraph 18 of the above mentioned document states: “Information requested from “Kazatomprom” company, in particular, the feasibility study of the draft of amendments, fits the description contained in the paragraph 3 b) of the Article 2 of the Convention”(3).

Conclusion. The Ecological Society “Green Salvation” considers that the first report of the Republic of Kazakhstan on implementation of the Decision VI/8g confirms a perfunctory attitude of the Party of the Convention to the implementation of their obligations and does not reflect the real situation with implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the country.

On behalf of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation”,
S. Kuratov.

October 31, 2018.

(1) First progress report on the implementation of decision VI/8g: http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/conventions/public-participation/aarhus-convention/tfwg/envppcc/implementation-of-decisions-of-the-meeting-of-the-parties-on-compliance-by-individual-parties/sixth-meeting-of-the-parties-2017/kazakhstan-decision-vi8g.html
(2) Decree of the Minister of Environmental Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated on May 7, 2007, No.135-p “On Approval of Rules of Conducting of Public Hearings” (with changes and amendments as of September 8, 2017).
(3) Findings and recommendations regarding compliance by Kazakhstan with its obligations under Aarhus Convention in the case about information requested from “Kazatomprom” company (Statement АССС/С/2004/01 of the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” (Kazakhstan)): http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/pp/c.1/ece.mp.pp.c1.2005.2.Add.1.r.pdf

The public concerned by the condition of ancient settlement Talgar are addressing the International University Sports Federation

The public and the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” concerned by the condition of the World Heritage property — ancient settlement Talgar, are addressing President of the International University Sports Federation with a request to assist in preserving the ancient settlement Talgar and stopping its destruction. Sports shall develop in the name of creation, not destruction.

***

October 3, 2016.

To: President of the International University Sports Federation
Matytsin Oleg Vasilyevich
Maison du Sport International
Av. de Rhodanie, 54
Lausanne, Switzerland, CH-1007
Tel.: +41 (0) 216130810
Fax: +41 (0) 216015612
E-mail: fisu@fisu.net
Website: www.fisu.net

Copy:

To: Head of the State Fund  “Directorate for Preparation and Conducting
of the 28th World Winter Universiade of 2017 in the city of Almaty”
Nurov Nail Faridovitch
050013 Almaty, 280 Baizakova st.,
Tel: +7 (727) 313-23-56 (ext. 217)
E-mail: office@almaty2017.kz

Dear Mr. President, dear members of the Federation!

The 28th World Winter Universiade will take place in the city of Almaty on January 29 through February 8, 2017.  Alatau Cross Country Skiing and Biathlon Stadium will be one of the locations for the Universiade. Competitions in biathlon, cross country skiing, and Nordic combined skiing will take place here during the games. Alatau Cross Country Skiing and Biathlon Stadium is located 50 km away from the city of Almaty, near the Akbulak Mountain Ski Resort in the Gorge Soldatskoe, Talgar District of Almaty Oblast.

Ecological Society “Green Salvation” welcomes and supports development of sports, but we are sincerely concerned by the situation which arose around one of the sites of the Universiade —  Alatau Cross Country Skiing and Biathlon Stadium. At the present time, an auto road “Birlik-Almalyk-Ryskulov-Bereke-Akbulak” is being constructed to this site. Some segments of the road and a bridge across Talgar river are already built. According to the project proposal, the road will pass through archeological monument  of the Republic of Kazakhstan — medieval settlement Talgar (Talhiz), which in 2014, was included into the UNESCO World Heritage List (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1442/). Talgar settlement is a component within the serial World Heritage property Silk Roads: the Routes Network of Chang’an-Tianshan Corridor. There are 33 of such components in this corridor from central China to Kazakhstan. 8 (eight) of these components are located on the territory of Kazakhstan, and 3 are on the territory of Kyrgyzstan.

The auto road will “cut Talgar settlement into two parts”, which will, naturally, cause irreversible damage to the medieval settlement — a World Heritage property.

This threatens to lead not only to an international scandal, but also to a loss of trust and authority which Kazakhstan is eager to strengthen on the international arena.

The 40th session of the World Heritage Committee took place in Istanbul on July 10 through 20. A decision about Kazakhstan’s compliance with the Convention requirements was adopted during a meeting on July 13th. (http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6699/), according to which, it was recommended “to stop immediately the road construction through the settlement, explore other routes outside the boundaries of the Talgar site and its buffer zone, and to dismantle the parts of the bridge that have already been constructed”.

But till the present moment, these recommendations have not been implemented! Construction of the road across the ancient settlement is being conducted in accelerated rates, the bridge has not been dismantled.

The facts indicated above make it evident that some public authorities do not welcome, nor support “responsible approach to environmental protection issues”, do not promote “ecologically sustainable development of sports”, do not contribute to a positive heritage from sports development by the city of Almaty and Kazakhstan in general.

Participants of the Universiade — people who are already becoming members of the Olympic movement, must strictly follow the principles of the Olympic Charter of the International Olympic Committee: “to encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues, to promote sustainable development in sports, …to encourage and support initiatives blending sport with culture and education”.

The public and the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” concerned by the condition of the World Heritage property — ancient settlement Talgar, are addressing you and the International University Sports Federation with a request to assist in preserving the ancient settlement Talgar and stopping its destruction. Sports shall develop in the name of creation, not destruction.

Pardon Us, World Heritage or Ecocide for Personal Gain

2015.05vesna-NasyrovAH2A3903Ecocide is the intentional, intensive destruction and pollution of the natural environment, creating the threat of environmental catastrophe. This is precise characterization of the situation in the Maly Almatinsky Canyon (alongside the City of Almaty), which has developed as a result of the lack of consistent policies to protect the Republic of Kazakhstan’s most valuable natural territories.

In order to preserve and restore the unique natural complexes of the Zailiisky Alatau, which hold great environmental, historical, scientific, esthetic and recreational value, the government of Kazakhstan adopted a decision to create the Ile-Alatau National Park (February 22, 1996, No. 228). Admittedly, no buffer zone was established around its border, and no procedures were established for removing outside land users from the park. But “Moscow was not built in a day”. The key was that the multiple-year efforts of specialists, scientists and the public to create the park were successful and it seemed that there was a real possibility to steadfastly protect nature’s beauty and wealth… but, as is well known, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

In just two years time, by the Presidential Decree “On Changes to the Border of the City of Almaty” (April 29, 1998, No. 3929), 57.9 hectares of the Ile-Alatau National Park in the Maly Almatinsky Canyon were transferred to the city’s administrative jurisdiction. These lands did not lose their status as an environmentally protected territory of national significance. Thus, on the surface, it appeared that this decree was adopted in order to establish the optimal administrative management scenario. Only later did the true meaning of these metamorphoses become clear.

On October 1, 1999, the Akim of Almaty City made the decision to create the Medeu Natural Park in order to preserve the particular environmental, recreational and scientific value of the Medeu Hollow and to decrease pollution and the human footprint on its territory (October 1, 1999, № 906). A clever basis for this action was presented: “The creation of Medeu Park is a measure aimed at protecting the Ile-Alatau National Park from its excessive recreational burden, by redirecting the recreational barrage away from the true natural territories…” (Natural-Scientific Grounds…, p. 144). Had they remembered about the national park’s buffer zone? No, it had never been established. According to the plans, Medeu Park should function as the buffer zone for the Ile-Alatau National Park in the Maly Almatinsky Canyon, created on the city’s territory and a narrow strip wedged in the Ile-Alatau National Park.

On January 31, 2000, the plan to create Medeu Park was discussed at а public hearing. Specialists from Kazgiproleskhoz, Lesproekta*, leaders from the Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park and NGO representatives (including the Ecological Society “Green Salvation”) expressed negative attitudes towards the idea of its creation. They stated that the organization of such a structure was inadvisable, as it would lead to an increasing human footprint on the territory of the national park, as well as to a reduction in the effectiveness of environmental protection measures in the Medeu Hollow as a whole.

Public concerns grew after the results became known of work by a joint panel from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, and the General Public Prosecutor regarding compliance with the legality of Specially Protected Natural Territories (Reference and Resolution…). The panel acknowledged numerous cases of legislative violations, including those in the Ile-Alatau National Park.

Concerned with the deteriorating situation in the Medeu Hollow, the public tried to draw the attention of the country’s leadership to the problem. In September 2000, participants in the Second Ecological Forum of Nongovernmental Organizations of Kazakhstan appealed to the President, members of Parliament, and the Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection to halt the destruction of the territorial and environmental value of the Ile-Alatau National Park (Appeal…). The public received even more weighty arguments for protecting the park when, in December 2000, the park was included in a tentative list of sites nominated by the Republic of Kazakhstan for the List of the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Meeting Decisions…).

Responding to the public appeal, in February 2001, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection also expressed opposition to the creation of Medeu Park (Response from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection No. 03-05-10/507). “In fact, it is envisaged that [Medeu] Park will include the buffer zone of the Ile-Alatau State National Nature Park and the protected forests around the river beds of the Malay Almatinka and Butakovka, in which, under powerful human influences, there are now growing sparse, diseased plantings of Sivers apple trees, apricots, Karkas Kavkazsky trees (Celtis caucasica) and 14 other ancient types of plants included in Kazakhstan’s Red Book… The creation of a city park on the border of a national park and its buffer zone will have extremely negative consequences… Considering the aforementioned, the Republic of Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection considers the creation of the city’s Medeu Nature Park to be unnecessary”. The Ministry did not approve the conclusion of the project’s environmental assessment, conducted by the Almaty City Territorial Department on Environmental Protection (Response from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection No. 03-05-10/507). Nevertheless, the park was created. And it included a portion of the Ile-Alatau National Park—a Specially Protected Natural Territory of a higher level. Such a decision could only have been made by native bureaucrats.

Almost simultaneous to the creation of Medeu Park, chaotic construction of private cottages began on the park’s territory. Wild, fertile forests began to be cut down, water storage areas began to be built, the rivers and their banks became covered in waste, mighty fences were erected, and the inscription “Private Property” began to appear…along with armed guards!

Visitors to Medeu Park are greeted by a sign at the entrance with dual meaning: “Nature is in Our Hands!” Certainly, the basic idea behind the park’s creation lies in this slogan—to privatize, or more simply, to steal the territory of the hollow, which is now at the disposal of Almaty’s Akimat.

Despite the negative conclusion from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, in 2001, under the suitable pretext of “executing the ‘Complex Program for the Development and Arrangement of Specially Protected Natural Territories of the Republic of Kazakhstan until 2030’ and for the purposes of preserving and renewing the unique natural complexes” of the Zailiisky Alatau, the City Akimat renamed the state establishment “Medeu” to the State Natural Park “Medeu” and gave it the state of an environmentally protected establishment! (December 10, 2001, No.3/332). This is not the normal course of things in our homeland!

Subsequent events may be briefly described as an interdepartmental battle for the long tenge, or rather the long dollar, the victor of which emerged…the Akimat.

On February 6, 2002, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection continued to insist that the “decision of the Almaty City Akim to create the State Natural Park ‘Medeu’ was made in violation of norms established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and is subject to repeal via established procedures” (Response from the Ministry, No.02-05-10/375).

Nevertheless, on July 15, 2002, a government decision was issued “On Converting Individual Portions of Specially Protected Natural Territories to Different Land Categories” (July 15, 2002, No. 780), including land from the Ile-Alatau National Park.

In January 2003, the Almaty Akimat was forced to acknowledge that the situation in the natural territory was continuing to deteriorate: the stream of automobile traffic was increasing, private construction was continuing, and the problems of water storage and drainage remained unresolved.

Alas the specialists and the public turned out to be right. Converting a portion of the land from a national park to an administrative jurisdiction of the city and creating Medeu Park not only did not foster the improvement of the environmental situation in the natural territory, but rather made it worse. And what sort of way out did the Akimat suggest?

The Akimat adopted the decision entitled “On Measures to Improve the Environmental Situation in the Medeu State Nature Park and the Chimbulak Mountain Skiing Complex” (January 24, 2003, No. 1/41). Among other things, this decision speaks about the construction of aerial tramways and multi-tiered parking garages for thousands of vehicles as one of the means to improve the environmental situation!?

From all appearances, the Akimat’s decision was strengthened by weighty arguments that convinced even the Ministry of Environmental Protection (formerly the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection). On August 20, 2003, the Ministry replied to a public inquiry that, in accordance with Article 41 of the 1997 law “On Specially Protected Natural Territories”, a state nature park is analogous to a national state nature park, holding the very same tasks and fulfilling the same functions. The difference lies only in that it is a specially protected territory of local significance! The bureaucrats at the Ministry of Environmental Protection were not able to come up with any other arguments. “Considering that the Natural Territory is also a Specially Protected Natural Territory, and its status is analogous to the status of the Ile-Alatau National Nature Park, we consider that the seizure of land from the latter meets the requirements of active legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan” (Ministry of Environmental Protection response No. 02-05-07/4061). But why not do the opposite? That is, convert the land into a national park under the aegis of a central authorized body, ensuring more reliable protection for the territory?

In the conclusion of the letter, it is stated that the “Ministry ensures that continual government control will be exercised over the observation of the environmental protection regime on the territory of the establishment”. It is possible that control was ensured. But legality? No! On more than one later occasion, the Minister of Environmental Protection, A.S. Samakova, hopelessly threw up her hands, calling for the restoration of order to the Medeu Hollow.

In February 2004, six and a half years after the 1997 adoption of the law “On Specially Protected Natural Territories”, a government decision was passed (February 27, 2004, No. 240), defining the procedures for the demolition of buildings, structures and objects located within Specially Protected Natural Territories. To date, there has been no information about the “demolition” of anything from the given parks. But then the list of architectural “masterpieces” erected in their borders is several dozen pages long.

And the fate of the decision itself was unenviable. On November 7, 2006, it was repealed by a new government decision “On Establishing Regulations for Providing for the Rental [!] of Land Portions on the Territories of National State Nature Parks in Order to Realize Regulated Tourism and Recreation” (No. 1063). Since then, the question of demolishing objects and structures is no longer raised, and construction in the parks is proceeding at full speed.

Finally, the President tried to resolve the issue by applying procedures to Medeu Hollow. On June 11, 2004, a Presidential Directive was issued entitled “On Measures to Preserve the Unique and Rare Landscapes on the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan” (No. 474). In this directive, it is written in black and white that “The government of the Republic of Kazakhstan…over a three-month period reviewed the issue of assigning the status of an object of state natural-zapovednik fund** of republic-wide significance to the territory of the Shchuchinsko-Borovsky Recreational Zone, and the Medeu and Shymbulak Hollows, and will ensure their preservation by means of establishing prohibitions and limits to economic activity on these territories…”. So all the same, it was more correct to convert the lands into the disposal of a national park!?

But what was the President’s Directive to Almaty’s Akimat? A simple sound, and nothing more! Therefore, it was simply ignored, the government kept silent, and everything returned back to how it was.

In 2005, the issue was taken up by the Environmental Public Prosecutor of the City of Almaty. She conducted a compliance verification with environmental protection legislation on the territory of Medeu Park (Response from the Public Prosecutor No. 37-05). Yet one more attempt by our environmental protection authorities, government and Presidents at constancy. And it resulted in regular reports and tabulations of violations and destruction, but anything involving the Akimat is like water off a duck’s back.

At the end of 2006, the Almaty Akim, having fully come to believe in his impunity, declared a true war on the nature of Medeu Park and the Ile-Alatau National Park. Let’s develop the Medeu Hollow! Let’s build parking lots, trade/entertainment centers, restaurants, bars, nightclubs…! The latter, clearly, are utterly essential for the preservation and restoration of the unique natural complexes of the Zailiisky Alatau! And next up is the Kokzhailau Hollow, and then the next place, and then the next. And what about the world heritage? There is world heritage here, where one’s head spins from the smell of greasy dollars.

And again everything is decided under the cover of good intentions. The initiators of a new project announced that they intended to put an end to the violations of legality and to establish order at the Medeu Hollow. “On the whole, it is anticipated that the project to reconstruct and develop the Medeu and Shymbulak Resorts [Author’s note: Not Specially Protected Natural Territories, but resorts!] will have a long-term positive impact on Kazakhstan’s economy and will become an example of realizing a strategy of sustainable development of a community with viable infrastructure and the corresponding services and maintenance resources” (Project to Reconstruct…, p. 4).

A recent legend, but one that is difficult to believe! In late April 2007, without a positive conclusion from environmental assessments, and even without the completion of an environmental impact assessment, and without the agreement of the parks administration, the companies began construction of an aerial tramway. And they began by cutting down Tien-Shan Spruce, digging out hollows and, as in the good old pre-environmental times, dumping the soil down a slope into a river.

And, finally, the last point in this history. To bring cynicism to the brim, the National Commission of the Republic of Kazakhstan on UNESCO and the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) is headed by the Akim of Almaty City! The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was developed and signed in 1972, under the initiative of UNESCO. Kazakhstan signed the convention in 1994––13 years ago! But as of yet not one natural object of Kazakhstan has been included in the World Heritage List! In July 2007, the Ministry of Environmental Protection conducted a sub-regional seminar on preparing the nomination for the “Western Tien-Shan”. And the nomination of the Ile-Alatau National Park has been postponed for an indefinite time. It “is distinguished by universal value from a scientific point of view,” and “natural beauty”, obviously, no longer interests anyone (The Convention…, article 2).

The multiple facts of violations and noncompliance with the law “On Specially Protected Natural Territories” in Medeu Park and the Ile-Alatau National Park speak not simply to the inactivity of local bodies of power and the authorized environmental protection authorities. They attest to the paralysis of state power, which is a result of ever growing corruption.

In our opinion, the only way out of this growingly complicated situation is to restore legality and order. Only then can ecocide come to a halt.

***

Notes

* Kazgiproleskhoz is a specialized state organization that plans the forestry economy. Lesproekta is a specialized state organization that studies and inventories forests.

** Objects assigned to the state natural-zapovednik fund are natural objects, including natural territories, animals and vegetation, that require very strict conservation measures and may not be used for economic activities.

References (in Russian)

Appeal from the participants of the Second Environmental Forum of Nongovernmental Organizations of Kazakhstan to the President, members of Parliament, and the Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. September 28, 2000.
Decision by the Akimat of Almaty Сity from December 10, 2001 “On the Medeu State Nature Park” (No. 3/332).
Decision by the Akimat of Almaty City from January 24, 2003 “On Measures to Improve the Environmental Situation in the Medeu State Nature Park and the Chimbulak Mountain Skiing Complex” (No. 1/41).
Decision by the Almaty City Akim from October 1, 1999 “On Questions Regarding the Organization of Medeu Nature Park” (No. 906).
Decision by the government of the Republic of Kazakhstan from February 22, 1996 “On the Creation of the Ile-Alatau National State Nature Park in Almaty Oblast” (No. 228).
Decision by the government of the Republic of Kazakhstan from July 15, 2002 “On Converting Individual Portions of Specially Protected Natural Territories into Lands of Other Categories” (No. 780).
Decision by the government of the Republic of Kazakhstan from February 27, 2004 “On Establishing Regulations for the Seizure (Purchase) of Land Plots for the Creation and Extension of Specially Protected Natural Territories from Land of All Categories, and the Demolition and Taking Away of Buildings, Structures and Objects on Specially Protected Natural Territories, and Providing for the Rental of Land Portions, Buildings and Structures on Specially Protected Natural Territories for Scientific, Tourist and Recreational Activities” (No. 240).
Decision by the government of Kazakhstan from November 7, 2006 “On Establishing Regulations for Providing for the Rental of Land Portions on the Territories of National State Nature Parks in Order to Realize Regulated Tourism and Recreation” (No. 1063).
Decision from the December 25, 2000 meeting of the Working Group on Including Natural Objects in the Republic of Kazakhstan in the UNESCO List of World Cultural and Heritage Sites (No. 1)
Decree from the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan from April 29, 1998 “On Changing the Borders of the City of Almaty” (No. 3939).
The Natural, Scientific Basis for Establishing the Medeu State Nature Park. Explanatory Notes. Almaty, 2000.
Order from the Chair of the Forestry, Fishing and Game Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection from January 23, 2002 “On Measures to Preserve the Mountain Forests of Almaty’s Oblast’s Zailiisky and Dzhungarsky Alatau” (No. 7).
Presidential Directive entitled “On Measures to Preserve the Unique and Rare Landscapes on the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan” from June 11, 2004, (No. 474).
Project to Reconstruct the Medeu and Shymbulak Resorts. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Executive Summary. – Almaty, 2007.
Reference and Resolution from the Panel of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and the General Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Question of Ensuring Legality in Specially Protected Natural Territories (abridged version). –Kokshetau, August 26, 2000.
Response from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection No. 03-05-10/507 from February 23, 2001 to a public appeal.
Response from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection No. 02-05-10/375 from February 6, 2002 to a public appeal.
Response from the Ministry of Environmental Protection No. 02-05-07/4061 from August 20, 2003 to an inquiry from the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” dated July 10, 2003 (No. 028).
Response from the Specialized Environmental Protection Prosecutor of the City of Almaty No. 37-05 from March 24, 2005 to an inquiry from the Ecological Society “Green Salvation” dated February 21, 2005 (No. 012).

Ecological Society “Green Salvation”

January 22, 2008

Translated by Michelle Kinman.

Almaty – city of contrasts. View of a foreign tourist

We continue publication of materials from a series “Almaty – city of contrasts”. While the previous photo collection reflected a view of an imaginary tourist, these pictures were taken by a real foreign guest. One of those who are focused on by the supporters of construction of the mountain ski resort on Kok-Zhailau.

City of contrasts covered with smog aroused controversial feelings. There was a natural desire to visit the mountains which look so attractive from a hotel window. But meeting Zailiyski Alatau was shocking. The nature, so close and desired, was difficult to access because many areas of the national park are fenced and are in private property. Common places of recreation equipped for visitors look miserable. Service is antediluvian. Places of public use are under any critic. Squalor is everywhere, and trash, trash, trash…

Will Kok-Zhailau and other spots of Ile-Alatau National Park look the same after being turned into the mountain ski resort of a world class?

Almaty – city of contrasts

It is being said a lot lately about a necessity to actively develop tourism in Kazakhstan. Overall, the idea is absolutely right, but…

Success in development of the tourism industry, for some reason, is being exclusively associated with construction of a large-scale mountain ski resort on the territory of Ile-Alatau National Natural Park. Now, this idea is absolutely wrong and even contradictory to the national legislation. The saddest thing is that supporters of this idea are not willing to use an integrated approach for development of tourism in the country as a whole.

Even big fans of mountain skiing coming to us from far away will most likely be willing to see the city, visit museums, theatres… So, we decided to have a look at what the tourists can see in Almaty.

The main conclusion from this little excursion: Almaty – is a city of contrasts. Unpleasant contrasts! So, may be the money allocated for destruction of the national park would be better spent if solving the urgent problems.

Material prepared by N.Medvedeva.

Photos by N.Medvedeva.

Translated by S.Tairova. 

The Danger of Renting National Parks

This material prepared for the Ecological Society Green Salvation.

Sierra Perez-Sparks
is a Masters student at Harvard University
and studies democratization, social movements and food politics.
She is especially interested in urban bias within post-Soviet states.
Ms. Perez-Sparks also translates news for the website WatchingAmerica.com.

platnayaIMG_3630In April 2011, head of the Kazakhstani Department of Regulation and Control of Forestry and Protected Areas Kairat Ustemirov announced that the government would lease national parklands for 49 years, primarily for the development of eco-tourism and related infrastructural needs (1). No doubt eager businessmen looking to capitalize on Kazakhstan’s mountainous regions and a government in times of global economic hardship welcome developments of this ilk, and indeed Mr. Ustemirov stated that a number of projects already were underway. However, how the leasing of these lands will impact Kazakhs today and in future decades constitutes a completely different matter. While it is uncertain that the people would even see the revenue from leased lands, it is even more uncertain what unintended ramifications the populace and local eco-systems would encounter as a result of development. Moreover, these concerns say nothing about the tremendous threat that accompanies any sale of public land to the privatized, for-profit sector—the threat against the social fabric.

playnaya_IMG_3632To understand how privatizing the environment endangers the strength and robustness of a people, one must first agree that the value of nature exceeds its weight in gold. Yet, it is easiest to place value on the environment when we consider it in terms of natural resources. The markets straightforwardly monetized, for example, the 421,700 metric tons of copper extracted from Kazakhstan’s deposits in 2008 (2). Recently the China Development Bank signed a memorandum of understanding that added $1.5 billion to its existing $2.7 billion loan to Kazakhmys, a natural resources group, for the development of major copper projects in Kazakhstan (3). Although one rarely associates smartphones, for which copper is used to construct its circuitry, with desert eco-systems and rupestrian whirlpools, nature indeed provides the raw materials necessary to construct such a feat of human ingenuity.

Beyond the strictest definition of natural resources, one quite simply can calculate the value of nature based on various forms of outdoor entertainment. Sport hunting, snowmobiling and skiing are just a few of the popular activities that relocate the human from the urban environment to a liminal setting where industry meets the natural order. In Colorado, the number one ski destination in the United States, the skiing industry generates an estimated $2 billion of revenue each year (4). For many Coloradans, global warming threatens one’s livelihood in addition to one’s surroundings because, as countries the world over keenly understand, a thriving eco-tourism sector supplies a critical stream of revenue. It is hard to fault a properly managed eco-tourism business, i.e. when eco-tourism is in actuality eco-friendly, and it perhaps strikes the happiest medium between the profit from and preservation of nature. Sustainable interaction with the environment simultaneously pleases man on two levels, satisfying his commercial desires and soothing his spiritual concern for his surroundings. Certainly not all projects achieve this balance. For example, Almaty’s Kok Tobe, a commercialized mountaintop park, features an impressive vista of the city and the Tien Shan mountains in addition to an appalling zoological garden. The management of Kok Tobe unwisely pairs the caged animals with descriptive placards that only seem to accentuate the unnaturalness of the animals’ habitat and diet. Far too often, as seen in this particular example, eco-tourism values nature primarily in terms of dollars and cents, and prioritizes the consumer over the inheritance of the public.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAThe inheritance of the public is our Earth; it is our environment and our commons. These spaces are a “living legacy”—a cultural resource that pays political, ecological and emotional dividends (5). In its Cultural Resource Management Guide, the U.S. National Park Service identifies cultural resources as a “unique medium” that has “the ability to connect one generation to another…an inherent capacity to mold and reinforce our identities as social creatures” (6). One observes the manifestation of this social connection in the footsteps that have trodden the Appalachian Trail over the course of nearly a century, or in the unobstructed forest pathways that have been cleared by an Almaty mountain man after a heavy storm. Ancestors and descendants alike can appreciate the same slopes and ravines. Freely accessible public space strengthens the social fabric, not only by passing down a shared cultural identity from generation to generation, but also by providing the opportunity for people to interact independently outside the realm of controlling forces such as economic markets or particular administrations. In this way one appraises a truly precious and renewable natural resource, nature’s buttress against social frailty. Conversely, the absence of this buttress engenders a displaced public insofar as privatizing public lands effectively evicts people from their inherited lands.

platnaya_kom_0443Protecting public lands merits the attention of each and every citizen, especially because those who ostensibly steward the inheritance of the public frequently squander it. History and current practice demonstrate that governments too often cede public lands. And once the land departs from the public trust, the public becomes weaker—an especially undesirable consequence for democracies. However, there are instances of the public reacquiring lost lands and in this we can see greater returns over a longer period of time than in the initial sale of the land. One such example is the White Mountain National Forest. In 1867, New Hampshire Governor Harriman sold the region primarily to logging companies, which in turn disastrously mismanaged the land so that within the course of a few decades the “resounding [public] outcry” spurred the government to action (7). In 1911, the U.S. Congress passed the Weeks Act, which authorized the use of federal funding to purchase forestland for the purpose of conserving it, and in 1914 the U.S. government began to buy back the White Mountains. Now, the White Mountain National Forest spans nearly 800,000 acres, attracts approximately 7 million domestic and international visitors a year, and constitutes one of New England’s richest natural resources (8). Of course, such a happy ending cannot be guaranteed for all formerly public lands, and one simply wonders about the future of Kazakhstan’s national parks, which are now being leased for 49 years. Will the lands be mismanaged? And will this spread the desertification of Kazakhstan to the verdancy of the collective?

As Kazakhstan pushes into the future, developing its many different kinds of resources, the country can decide which type of natural resource to prioritize. Unfortunately, the dazzling process of converting nature into money limits one’s understanding of its resources, and in consequence one tragically ignores an invaluable source of wealth. Though the temptation of riches is great, the advantages of building a vibrant democracy are greater.

August, 2011

——————————

1. “Национальные парки Казахстана сдадут в аренду на 49 лет.” Актау–Бизнес. 21 April 2011. http://www.aktau-business.com/2011/04/21/parki.html (10 July 2011).
2. Levine, Richard, and Wallace, Glenn. “Countries of the Baltic, the Caucasus, the Central Asia and the Eurasia Regions.” 2008 Minerals Yearbook. December 2010. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2008/myb3-2008-aj-am-bo-en-gg-kg-kz-lg-lh-md-rs-ti-tx-uz.pdf (15 July 2011).
3. “Kazakhmys signs MoU to get funding for copper project in Kazakhstan.” Energy Business Review. 14 June 2011. http://mineralsandmaterials.energy-business-review.com/news/kazakhmys-signs-mou-to-get-funding-for-copper-project-in-kazakhstan-140611 (26 July 2011).
4. Irani, Daraius, Ross, Kim, Ruth, Matthias, et al. “Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Colorado.” July 2008. http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/Colorado%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf (15 July 2011).
5. “National Park Service-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline.” August 2001. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nps28/28chap1.htm (20 June 2011).
6. Ibid.
7. “History of the White Mountain.” http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_mountain/about/history/index.php (10 July 2011).
8. Ibid.

Cement democracy, or a story of KSMK-3

The enterprise “Tsentrbeton Ltd.” (old name is KSMK-3) which specializes on storage and distribution of cement and coal, production of concrete and claydite-concrete, started its activity in 1998 in an immediate proximity of the residential houses located on Bokeykhanov street (Almaty, Kazakhstan). The nearest land lots turned out to be located within the sanitary and protection zone of the enterprise. The local residents were deprived from the normal conditions necessary for life and rest. Their houses and yards are constantly being covered by dust. The cement dust enters the soil and damages their home garden plants.

For many years, the people are seeking to be resettled from the sanitary and protection zone of the enterprise. But both, the public authorities and the enterprise owners, ignore their claims. In 2000, the people addressed a court, but were not able to find justice.

In 2004, Mrs. Gatina L., Mr. Gatin A., and Mrs. Konyshkova L. addressed the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee with a statement that the Republic of Kazakhstan does not comply with the requirements of the article 9 about access to justice.

In 2005, the Committee examined the statement. It was admitted that Kazakhstan did not provide effective measures of legal protection in the process of consideration of the Gatins lawsuit. Public authorities did not provide a compliance with the environmental legislation. In their turn, the courts did not inform the parties about the time and place of the hearings in a proper way, nor did they inform about the decisions made. All the above mentioned is “a failure to comply with the requirements of the provision 4 of the article 9, and provision 3 of the article 9 of the convention”.

But even after the Committee’s decision, no corrections were made by the authorities. Meanwhile, the “Tsentrobeton Ltd.” continued to increase its production volumes. Annual freight turn-over is confirmed by the conclusions of the state environmental assessments:
in 2000: cement – 6,000 ton, coal – 2,000 ton,
in 2003: cement – 52,650 ton, coal – 48,400 ton,
in 2004: cement – 62 562 ton, coal – 48 400 ton.
And in 2007: cement – 317 360 ton.

In 2008, the residents addressed the court again. Their lawsuit contained the following demands:

— to recognize as invalid the conclusion of the state environmental assessment dated on February 27, 2007, conducted by the Almaty City Territorial Department of Environmental Protection;

— to require the Akimat of the city of Almaty to suspend the economic activity of “Tsentrbeton Ltd.” until its site facilities are in a full compliance with the requirements of the legislation.

On February 11, 2009, the court made a decision about recognition of the conclusions of the state environmental assessment to be invalid and obliged the public authorities to suspend the economic activity of the enterprise.

The defenders appealed against the court decision, but the people are determined to continue the fight for their rights.

 

September 14, 2010.

Translated by Tairova Sofya