Union News

Join us!

Join EEIULIST!

New Links

Brochures

Chapters

Resources

Fellows

Members

Sponsors

Letters and Discussions

Constitution

Contact

Disclaimer

Report, 8 December 2004 (Chair Alexander Zvyagintsev)

Attendant members: A.Y. Zvyagintsev (Chair), V.S. Levin, D.I. Vyshkvartsev, M.Y. Kovalev, I.A. Beleneva, I.G. Syasina, I.R. Levenets, A.A. Gulbina, S.Sh. Dautov, Y.N. Zaslavsky (IMB FEB RAS), O.N. Lukianova (TINRO-Center), T.Y. Zvyagintseva (Amur Bay Ecocenter), N.V. Pecheneva (SakhNIRO), E.V. Lepskaya (KamchatNIRO).

-----

A.Y. Zvyagintsev
I am glad to welcome veterans and new members of the EEIU to the regular meeting of our Primorsky Branch. Being Chair, I shall venture to be the first with a small report. First of all, I would like to remind you that ecoethics is based on scientific research, knowledge and compatibility of man with nature. So, all our ecological studies, completed in this manner, are at the same time a part of the program of the EEIU. Since we are participants of the international program, I was asked to make a report about our organization on the meeting of the Presidium of FEB RAS. I prepared a report and a visual presentation, but as I was on expedition, the report was made by EEIU member Academician V.L. Kasianov and approved by the audience.

I am maintaining permanent contact with the senior state inspector of the Ussurijsky fishery protection inspection, M.F. Levchenko. Last time he sent to us an annual report on the activity of the Ussurijsky fishery protection officers on Razdolnaya River. This time he sent a recently issued monograph entitled 'Successors of fishery guards', a wonderfully illustrated and informative publication of the federal state Primorrybvod (Primorsky branch of the state fishery inspection) agency about the activity of this organization. It contains complete information about the work of Primorrybvod in water basins of the Primorsky Krai territory. In addition, Mikhail Fedorovich sent a copy of a document which is very important for us — the Order of the Federal State Administration of Primorrybvod about the establishment of limitations for commercial catches of water biological resources in Razdolnaya River in the area from Tavrichansky Estuary to Smerinka Canal up to restoration of commercial resources. I wrote more than once about the necessity of such prohibition in the reports for Primorrybvod and in a series of popular scientific articles, and at last, it has come true.

M.F. Levchenko estimates the results of this prohibition in the following way: 'Prohibition for commercial fishing definitely promotes the increase of quantity of commercial fish species. Such prohibition on Razdolnaya River was implemented long ago as well — from 1964 to 1969, and it was very efficient. In the following years commercial fishing was very active, which considerably ran down the stocks of commercial fish species. Unfortunately efficiency of the actual prohibition can be canceled by the present weather conditions. The River comes in winter with extremely shallow waters. If there are no abundant precipitations, there is a total-lot threat of winter frost and loss of fish. We are preparing materials on the recommencement of fishing in winter up to renovation of water mass in spring. In the current year spawning of red-eye, smelt, masu and chum salmons took place at a very unfavorable hydrological regime, which will result in minimal replenishment. As for poaching, its level does not change. If in the previous years fishing was a hobby for the overwhelming majority, at present illegal fishing is the only source of income for the residential population, taking into account the present unemployment. It is necessary to note that intensity of poaching (illegal fishing) is reduced in good years for cedar nut crops.'

In addition to the copy of the decree on fishing prohibition M.F. Levchenko encloses a document entitled 'Ecological condition of fishery basins under the supervision of Ussurijsky fishery inspection'. The detailed investigation has shown that there are no substantial changes.

-----

T.Y. Zvyagintseva
Results of project 'Serebriany kluch (Silver source)'
Financed with the help of the Hewlett Fund within the limits of the ISAR-FE grant program

In order to complete the Silver Source program within the period from April 15 to July 15, 2004, it was planned to carry out the following actions:

• to conduct an adjusting seminar;
• to make information boards;
• multiplication and distribution of leaflets about the problem of pure water;
• conducting studies on the subject with schoolchildren;
• land improvement near the natural monument 'Silver Source';
• conducting a round-table discussion;
• to issue an informational bulletin.

The total number of people involved in public ecological activity through this project came to 300 schoolchildren (pupils from grades 1-8) and 17 adults (6 men and 11 women aged 23-58).

-----

A news release of the program 'Social control for oil pipelines!' sent to T.Y. Zvyagintseva from ISAR-FE was read.

-----

RESULTS OF COLLECTION OF SIGNATURES UNDER THE APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT AGAINST CONSTRUCTION OF AN OIL-LOADING TERMINAL IN PEREVOZNAYA BAY: 4450 SIGNATURES WERE COLLECTED

November 25, 2004

Dear colleagues!

We reviewed the results of the collection of signatures under the appeal to the President against the construction of an oil-loading terminal in Perevoznaya Bay, Khasansky District, Primorsky Krai for the projected oil pipeline 'Taishet-Primorye'.

During three months beginning from September 25 a total of 4450 signatures under the appeal to the President were collected. This appeal was signed not only by residents of Primorsky Krai, but also by residents of the other regions of the Far East: just in Tynda, Amur Oblast, more than 700 signatures were collected and sent to the President. Many Far-Eastern residents spend their recreation time in summer on the warm coast of the south Primorye and highly appreciate the unique nature of this wonderful area.

We are sending this appeal to the President as to the higher authority and the guarantor of justice concerning people and nature in our country. Unfortunately, up to now neither the local administration of Primorsky Krai nor leaders of 'Transneft' projecting company consider the categorical opinion of the Primorsky Krai community, which was unanimously expressed at the public meeting on this project conducted in July 2004 in Vladivostok: it is necessary to work out an alternative location for the oil pipeline terminal. Perevoznaya Bay as an option is the worst variant and a great disaster for the entire Primorsky region. The common opinion of the meeting was precisely expressed by the Honored Ecologist of Russia Professor B.V. Preobrazhensky: 'If I had happened to be a malicious person and looked for an opportunity to damage the economy and social industry of Primorsky Krai more efficiently, I would not have been able to choose a better place than Perevoznaya Bay.'

We hope that this public action will help to attract the attention of all decision taking structures and to break through the impediments of systematic concealment, suppression of information and derogation of importance of this problem when considering the project of oil pipeline construction as a whole. You know that in July 2003 this project was already rejected in connection with the unaccounted threat of this pipeline for our national property — the Baikal Lake. We think that the choice of place for the terminal construction in Perevoznaya Bay presents no less threat for our region, which should be estimated properly and in full measure. We insists on abeyance of the State ecological examination of the project 'Grounds for investments in construction of "Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean" oil pipeline system' up to 4 months and on provision of necessary project documentation to the concerned public for the competent participation in the ecological examination of the mentioned project.

-----

D.I. Vyshkvartsev
I would like to express my opinion about the disastrous effects of oil pipelines. Not all people have a realistic notion about real disasters in the process of their operation. First of all, a question arises: why should one sell crude oil, but not refining products? Why not build refineries on the money, planned for construction of the oil pipeline, and sell abroad their products, which are dozens or even hundreds of times more expensive? Concerning the place where the pipeline runs into the sea. When reloading oil, only planned losses make 70 thousand tons per year, at that oil concentration, which is created in water, poisons all the living. But you know that 'Kedrovaya Pad' and 'Barsovy' reserves are in immediate proximity to this pipeline, not to mention the only (in Russia) Far Eastern State Marine Reserve! There will be the same bottom wilderness in the Amursky Bay as in the Golden Horn Bay, which nevertheless has pollution control ships. The influence of oil pollution will affect not only Perevoznaya Bay: there are cyclonic currents, which will make a benthic wilderness of the Khasansky District coasts, and a planktonic one of the water mass. One should also not forget about mephitis, which will be brought by western winds even to Vladivostok! Reviewing all the above-said, it is necessary to come to the conclusion that maintenance of the oil pipeline in Perevoznaya Bay will be so disastrous for the Primorsky Krai economy, that this problem must be considered by our Government.

-----

N.V. Pecheneva
Oil spill from Belgian ship in Kholmsk City

As the Russia Information Agency 'Novosty' has stated, recently the Belgian ship 'Christopher Columb', designed for dredging and pipe laying, was cast ashore by a storm between the Sakhalin western seaport and the Kholmsk commercial port. Representatives of the European Dredging Company, owner of the ship, confirmed that two tanks were broken and about one hundred tons of heavy black and diesel oil leaked into the sea. In total, about 200 tons of oil were aboard.

The Christopher Columb was chartered by the Saipem Company, which carries out works for the Sakhalin Energy Company under a construction contract for a sea pipeline. Part of the spilled oil reached the Kholmsk municipal beach. Specialists of the Ecoshelf Company came to the site and a rescue party from Kholmsk City was also mobilized.

Ecoshelf specialists are conducting an investigation at the site. A helicopter was engaged for visual supervision and estimation of the scope of the accident. Sakhalin Energy Company will soon launch a full-scale investigation of the accident.

Experienced rescuer agencies, informed about the accident, are studying performance attributes of the ship and possible variants of rescue operations. Sakhalin Energy prepared the ship 'Smith Sakhalin' for possible assistance. According to the RIA Novosty information, in southwestern Sakhalin a five km coastline near the port of Kholmsk is polluted with a thick layer of black oil and diesel oil from the spill.

Waves 1.5 m high and a northwestern wind with the speed of 10 m/s continue to strand oil products near Kholmsk. According to the preliminary data, the master of the ship, receiving a storm warning, did not put out to open sea but stayed on the roadstead. An investigation is being carried out.

As to the consequences of the spill, in just over a month, when specialists from SakhNIRO took samples, no signs of the spill were observed. The coast of Kholmsk and higher was sufficiently clean, not taking onto account household rubbish. There was no smell of oil. Students of Sakhalinsky State University and youth organizations cleaned the coast for two weeks. Stones were rubbed clean by cloth, and polluted soil was removed. At the time there was stormy weather in the Strait of Tatar, and the oil not removed by people was swept by waves into the sea. Analyses for soil pollution by NU are not yet ready.

-----

E.V. Lepskaya
Report Excerpt: 'ECOETHICS AS A POSSIBLE BASIS FOR WORLD OUTLOOK IN FUTURE SOCIETY'

'It is impossible to build an Ethosphere in a separately taken country. It is high time to realize that our Planet is our true Motherland, and the problem of its preservation is a problem for the whole of mankind. But now we should admit that the huge multitude of hungry, poorly dressed people, living in brutish conditions, which neither can nor want to change anything, is an unsuitable basis for application of bioethical (ecoethical) principles. The same twisted mercenary morals fastly remain with not many people who have broken away from this mass and who created their welfare, considerably exceeding the average level, (yes!) by means of labor. There are many examples of such people. These 'people' build houses in the reserved areas near Moscow and on Baikal lakesides. They pump oil on the Sakhalin shelf in the bay, which for centuries was a 'maternity hospital' for whales. And it looks like "reasonable self-restriction" is an Utopian category which cannot be realized basically.'

-----

Irina Levenetz
In September 2004 Irina Levenetz took part in the 'Open World' program, administered by the US Library of Congress. For ten days forty-three delegates from different regions of Russia visited Washington and other states to discuss topics including the creation, implementation, enforcement, and compliance of environmental regulations, environmental education, and eco-tourism. The program consisted of visits to the state and federally protected lands and of the meetings with environmental agencies and organizations. Levenetz's group consisted of eight Russian environmentalists. They traveled to San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, and South Lake Tahoe in California and to Reno and Virginia City in Nevada. They had the opportunity to meet with the members of the policy-making community, members of non-profit and non-governmental organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies. Delegates had a successful exchange of ideas and culture.

All participants spent three days in Washington for orientation seminars at the US Library of Congress. They had meetings with members of the US Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and others. Russian environmentalists discussed the role of governmental structures in environmental protection.

In California Levenetz's group attended a workshop organized by the Tahoe-Baikal Institute, which deals with protecting mountain lake watersheds around the world and promotes sustainable development using models found in the Tahoe Basin. Eight participants visited various national parks in California. In Point Reyes National Seashore Park they had discussions on the role of visitor centers in eco-education and that of the role of national parks in developing tourism and management of land under the parks system and on federal lands. They visited Muir Woods to hike along special trails and view the tallest trees in the world. They discussed how hiking trails can attract tourists, and how trails are designed and built.

The advantage of the American system of environmental regulations is the federal laws, for example, about fresh water or clean air. The strictest law concern protecting wild animal and plant species. The laws act from 1967. Over 9 thousand of cases of ecological problems came up for hearings in the federal courts since then. Using DDT and pesticides, felling of the forests in western America has been prohibited. Federal laws establish minimal ecological standards for the states. For the felling of a tree officials impose a fine of five thousand dollars per day till a new tree is planted. The EPA and the US Department of the Interior don't deal with the protection of seas and oceans, except for some species of fishes, marine birds and mammals.

On the third day in California the Russian delegates travelled south from San-Francisco to Anyo Nuevo State Park. They met with the park superintendent on the topics of how regional and national parks work with schools to enhance environmental education and the role of parks in protecting endangered species. Then they hiked 2 km to a specially protected area where sea elephants gather. In winter there are several thousands of marine mammals on this beach. On the fourth day they went for Lake Tahoe with a stop in Sacramento, the capital of California. They had a meeting with CalTrans for an introduction to the transportation issues facing the Tahoe Basin.

Lake Tahoe is situated in two states: California and Nevada. The strictest laws in the US exist in the Tahoe Basin because it is the only reservoir of fresh water in the area. For the next three days the group had meetings with the US Forest Service Lake Tahoe, the US Bureau of Land Management and with the South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce. They visited the research vessel on the Tahoe, a dude ranch in Nevada, and El Dorado Beach in South Lake Tahoe.

During her participation in the 'Open World Program' Levenetz made contacts to the non-governmental environmental organizations Tahoe-Baikal Institute, Friends of the Land, Sierra Club, Citizen of Society, and Pacific Environment.

-----

O.N. Lukyanova
Russian EEIU members in Hawaii

In October 2004 about 20 marine biologists from Vladivostok, Russia, participated in the 13th PICES Annual Meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii. PICES is a North Pacific Marine Science Organization cooperating with some Pacific countries: Canada, China, Japan, Korea, Russia and the US. The members of the Russian Far Eastern Eco-Ethics group presented their scientific reports on PICES Workshops and Committees. Among the main PICES items the following topics were discussed: Ecosystem-based management science and its application to the North Pacific; Aquaculture in the 21st Century — the intersection between ecology, socioeconomics, and production. The discussions and decisions of these meetings are very close to the goals and objectives of Eco-Ethics Union. The 2005 PICES XIV Annual Meeting will be held in Vladivostok, Russia. Its theme is Mechanisms of Climate and Human Impacts on Ecosystems in Marginal Seas and Shelf Regions.

-----

A.Y. Zvyagintsev
Dear colleagues, are there any more persons who want to tell anything? I greatly appreciate your high activity. Our candidate to the 'honored ecologists of Russia' D.I. Vyshkvartsev was even hurt by a short time-limit for his speech. We are planning to have the next meeting in March-April 2005. See you in the New Year!

Report, 07 February 2004 (Chair Alexander Zvyagintsev)

EEIU Vladivostok Projects

EEIU Vladivostok reports continuing activity: members (mostly scientists) work according to basic eco-ethical principles: scientific research and knowledge of compatibility between nature and mankind. We organize group assemblies in which we discuss eco-ethical problems. The Chair has dispatched Russian brochures to colleagues working on Sakhalin Island, Kamchatka Peninsula and in Vladivostok.

The most significant achievement of EEIU Vladivostok's recent work was the creation of the Sea Ecological Museum and Eco-Center 'Amursky Bay', with support of EEIU Members of the Institute of Marine Biology FEBRAS.

Project N1: Creation of a Children's Sea Ecological Museum in Volno-Nadezhdinskoe Village

School ecological museums play an important role in the study of regional features of flora and fauna. This museum promotes deeper study of sea creatures. Children from the countryside have far fewer opportunities than those of city children for the organization of leisure and development of their abilities. The museum's creation in Volno-Nadezhdinskoe village provides, in any measure, an answer for this problem. The basic participants of the organization and for the work of the museum are the schoolboys: they collect, study, exhibit and propagandize museum exhibits.

Project N2: Creation of a Children's Ecological Centre

The project provided the creation of the children's ecological centre in Volno-Nadezhdinskoe village with the purpose of forming an ecological consciousness in the teenagers and attracting them to active nature protection activity. The basic tasks of the Eco-Center: maintenance of interest, natural in childhood, in an alive nature; creation of favorable conditions for a deepening knowledge of the schoolboys; inculcation of the teenagers of research work skills; attracting students to active independent activity. The main directions of the work include a study of a nature of native edge during campaigns and excursions, revealing ecological problems in the Nadezhdinsky area, and tax and distribution of the ecological information. The ecological centre 'Amursky Bay' was created on the basis of a Sea Ecological Museum and previously existing children's circles in school N1.

Chief of the Museum and Eco-Center is T. Ya. Zvyagintseva, EEIU member.

These projects were carried out with the financial support of the Far East branch of the Centre on the protection of the environment ISAR/USAID within the program 'Tomorrow begins today'.

This page was last updated on 13 January 2005.