Архив метки: EBRD

News, PROJECTS

Who authorized the demolition of the VIP terminal?

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

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

The official version is very clear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) take other measures arising from this resolution.”

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

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

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

Аэропорт1234We decided to ask

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

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

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

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

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

The court decided

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

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

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

What do the documents show?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for the Bank

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

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

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

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

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

© Ecological Society Green Salvation, 2024.

_____________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News, PROJECTS

Bank for Development and Reconstruction… and Reproduction!

Аэропорт123Good intentions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Take other measures arising from this resolution.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Аэропорт новый 6How can we understand you now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sponsors considered three options.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S.

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

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

 

© Ecological Society Green Salvation, 2024.

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

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

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

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

[4] Almaty International Airport expansion.

[5] Akimat is a local executive body.

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

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

[8] Ibid., p.82.

News, PROJECTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behind the smokescreen of public hearings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments about the GCAP, Almaty 2022 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action 19: Prevent and address landslide emergencies. 

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

Action 21: Develop a comprehensive waste management strategy. 

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

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

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

Action 27: Develop a water conservation plan. 

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

Translation into English — CEE Bankwatch Network:

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

News, PROJECTS

Towards a people-powered, green transformation in Almaty

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

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

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

No green urban development without public participation

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

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

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

A question of governance

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

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

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

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

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

Trust in local authorities  

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

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

Green transformation with and for people

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

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

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

Khrystyna Rybachok
International coordinator
CEE Bankwatch Network

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

News, PROJECTS

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

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

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

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

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

News, PROJECTS

Almaty residents applied to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

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

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

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

The essence of the problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contacting the EBRD

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

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

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

The Bank’s 2019 Environmental and Social Policy states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News, PROJECTS

Green City Action Plan: EBRD Changes Timeline

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

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

We quote “3.1. GCAP approval process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________

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

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

News, PROJECTS

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 .