|
FROM THE NGO PERSPECTIVE In connection with the 4th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity which is currently taking place in Bratislava, Slovakia, we have witnessed statements of self-satisfaction or even self-congradulation from top Slovak political levels. It is typical mainly for the Slovak Minister of the Environment Mr. Jozef Zlocha, who does not hesitate to declare Slovakia as an example for the World in the protection of nature and the environment. At the same time, public opinion has been manipulated (both directly and indirectly) in such a way that the current Slovak government, and in it’s framework the Ministry of the Environment, is responsible for the alleged excellent quality of state nature protection in Slovakia. Slovakia has two real advantages in the previously mentioned field: an extraordinary diversity of natural and/or landscape ecosystems, and scores of enthusiasts (both professionals and volunteers), in the sphere of both the state nature protection and NGOs, who did not resign, yet. Both these positive features exist not as a result of, but despite of the contemporary government, which is responsible inter alia for the state of nature protection. The general public of Slovakia is misled about the real situation in the field of Slovak nature and problems with its protection by official propaganda that uses pictures of Slovak natural areas that create the illusion that everything is OK. That is the reason, that official proclamations concerning the excellent and consistantly improving relations of the Slovak Government to the environment and natural resources are not as evidently absurd, like official propaganda concerning the alleged excellent situation in the Slovak economy, culture, education, health care, tolerance, or respect to the human rights, or law in general acceptance. In reality, the general decline in natural values protection, which occurred during the contemporary Government of Minister Zlocha, is even greater than the decline in the fields of education, health care, culture or real standard of living of the Slovak people. Despite this fact, Slovakia is where the 4rd Biodiversity Convention Conference is taking place, and it is possible to see it as an honour, but at the same time as a special form of memento. More important than finding out why the 4th "Biodivesity Summit" is being held in Bratislava, is the answer to this question: what is the state and development of nature protection in the wider context, including the relationship of decision-makers, political parties, entrepreneurs, communities and citizens to the problem of endangered species and ecosystems’ richness and diversity? This relationship never was ideal, but the contemporary state and development in respect to the Slovakian environment are among the worst in recent history. Evidence supporting this position is available in all relevant fields: In the institutional and personal field, a rapid decrease in nature protection bodies is evident during last 2 - 3 years. Among the reasons is a cynical liquidation of the special environmental district and sub-district authorities, which existed between 1991 - 1996 and was almost generally accepted just before their liquidation. If in 1991 - 1992 the implementation of a pro-ecological decision into reality was relatively frequent, the same is almost impossible now. The authority and operativeness of state nature protection has been reduced by the violent centralisation of dozens of organisations under the already centralised Slovak Environmental Agency. Unprepared, undiscussed, unqualified and one-sided politically oriented restructuring of the state administrative organisation of Slovakia created losses for nature protection, too. Probably, the most negative effect was the massive cadre-personnel (both quantitative and qualitative) regress in the state nature protection administrative and super ordination of party member criteria over the ethical and professional ones and even purges related to the current Government enter in as well to the new administrative organisation. Out of all the evidence, probably the most telling is the example of the oldest and most valuable national park in Slovakia, The Tatras National Park, which has evolved into a territory concerned with economic and hedonistic, selfish interests in nature protection. According to the law, the dominant function of it has been more and more marginalised. In the field of the financial arrangement: the state nature protection in Slovakia is more and more marginalised and its budget has consistantly been lowered. Manager of the protected areas live poorly, and the Managers of the Tatras National Park has recieved a token amount of money officially from the State budget during last 3 years.. A generally accepted truth is, that state nature protection, without the assistance of NGOs and the public, can not be successful (UNCED in Rio stressed it many times, too). Despite this fact, financial support from the Slovak State budget for NGOs has decreased 10 times since 1992. Moreover, two years ago, The Slovak Parliament adopted the Foundation law (with implications for the entire non-profit NGO sector), prepared by the Government. This law, due its highly restrictive character liquidated a majority of the existing foundations, including environmentally oriented ones. Even more negative impacts on Slovak nature in comparison with the above mentioned restrictions is limiting nature protection itself has surplus financial means and support for nature protection devastation (see activities like huge water dams, highways constructions boom, development of consume forms of tourism and its infrastructure in the territory of national parks, car transportation/parking development vs. greenery, not speaking about heavy industry support as well as support of highly centralised harm forms of the energy sector). In the field of legislation: Nature and Landscape Protection Law was adopted before the entry of current Government. Since that time, not too much in legislation related to the nature protection has appeared. On the other hand, several recently adopted legislative norms (e.g. amendments of the Construction low) made nature exploitation and devastation easier. A positive development has been the declaration of two new national parks: Poloniny and Muránska planina. On the other hand, this act did not mean any surplus money for their nature protection management. From this perspective it seems to be a camouflage. A big peril for the fundaments of nature and its protection in protected areas which are not Governmental properties, is the absence of compensation of users rights restrictions resulting from the nature protection. Respect for the lw in the field of nature protection, which started to improve after 1989, is decreasing again. The influence of coruption in this field is more and more evident. In the field of education, public relations, mass media and access to information: It can be stated, that in all this field of nature protection, the situation did not improve since 1989, enough and in some cases it is even worse. Evidence to this effect is that only a symbolic proportion of ecologically oriented subjects exist in the schools curricula, minimum number of pedagogues able to lecture on these issues is informed enough and at the same time it is understandable and attractive. Amount and/or frequency of educational and enlightenment programmes related to nature protection are even smaller than before November 1989. To monitor and assess all mass media activities is impossible, but using only 3 basic indicators: - small and passive presentation of journalists in relevant press-conferences as well as mass media response, - decrease of number of journalists, who can be called as eco-journalists to an amount even smaller in comparison to the situation before 1989, - zero representation of nature protection problems oriented programmes in the Slovak TV, and liquidation of several popular programmes, including a children’s eco-educational one. It started to be evident that the situation could hardly be worse, not even considering the open or silent support to anti-ecological activities from the side of almost all influential media (the culmination of which was declaration of the Water Work Gabcikovo to be "an ecological project!!!"). Then there is the hard censorship against key environmental agencies (e.g. against the chairperson of the Greenpeace office in Slovakia), misinterpretation of environmentally sensitive cases, refusal to provide information about environmental activities on the side of the official Slovak Press Agency TASR, prohibition to give relevant information on the side of officials and a general lack of actual information related to the nature protection issues, general unwillingness (even ignorance) to answer environmentalists’ questions on the side of Ministry of Environment, obstacles and manipulations with the aim to marginalise public and NGO participation in the process. The list goes on. In the field of respecting of international conventions and agreements: In many fields, the respect of power to bodies dealing with nature and environmental protection issues is smaller than before the UNCED conference in 1992. Ignoring the AGENDA 21 recommendations concerning governmental support to NGOs has been mentioned above several times. Unlike majority of other post-communist countries, NGO representatives were not incorporated into ministerial delegation for Pan-European environmental ministerial conferences. NGO activists were removed from any governmental advisory bodies, boards, etc. International conventions concerning nature protection, like the Ramsar convention, are violated frequently, also by the state administrative. Case studies 1. Tatras National Park The alarming situation in the territory of the Tatras National Park (TANAP) has been introduced above. It is hard to imagine, but on the this about 740 km2 territory, only 7 persons serve as the professional staff, and any ranger services are virtually missing. On the other hand huge economic activities related mostly to tourism, hunting and wooden industry are increasing. 2. Winter Olympic Games 2006 candidacy The Slovak Government (including Minister of the Environment) supported the Poprad-Tatry candidacy for Winter Olympic Games in 2006 despite the fact that this huge technocratic project is not able avoid the territory of the most valuable Slovak National parks and even National Nature Reserves!!! No EIA procedure has been conducted, before the final decision was made in contradiction to the Slovak Constitution, Environment, Nature and Landscape Protection, EIA and other acts. Environmental experts and NGOs are practically ignored in this process. 3. Large dams (Gabcikovo-Nagymaros, Zilina, Turcek, Slatinka...) The case of Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Danube water works project is well known. About 40 square km, mostly covered by valuable natural (forests and water) inland delta ecosystems were destroyed. To understand the basic data concerning the environmental impacts of this project on the rest of inland Danube delta is almost impossible, but from analysis which were published as outcomes from the Danube monitoring project, it is evident that biodiversity of original species ecosystems has been reduced, and these natural values are substituted by more synantrophic ones step by step. The pressure of the so-called concrete lobby to build new dams in Slovakia is tremendous, using the support of a massive demagogic campaign of contractors who stand to gain quite a lot. 4. Wetlands Despite the fact that Slovakia signed the Ramsar convention recently, the destruction of the most valuable wetland ecosystems in Slovakia is even more intensive than before Slovak joining the convention. 5. Dreveník and World Culture and Nature Heritage sites in Slovakia Dreveník is a national nature reserve located just on the territory the World Heritage locality called Spišsky hrad castle in Eastern Slovakia. From the geological point of view, Dreveník is built from the travertine stones. The industrial exploitation of travertine, which was in strict contradiction to both natural and aesthetic values of the landscape was reduced rapidly after 1989. Now there are new initiatives to enlarge this exploitation and to endanger even World Heritage Locality. 6. Highways too fast and unprepared construction and nature devastation Negative impacts of highways on nature are well known in general. If the construction of highways is too quick, then the related risks and hazards are doubled. There is not enough time to make principal nature sciences investigations before the arrival of bulldozers, trucks and concrete (another manifestation of the concrete lobby). 7. Trees (both in forests and settlements) Slovak forest protection should be a top priority. Both legal and illegal cutting of trees, even in the territory of national parks, lack of money for sensitive forest management and increase of wood exportation present just the opposite evidence. The situation of greenery, and especially of trees, (including the oldest and most valuable) in the cities has become catrastophic. Almost all of the "islands" of trees in Bratislava are under attack by new construction, transportation, etc. The state administration, responsible for nature protection is not enough opposing these activities, and sometimes even supports them! Conclusions It was not the aim of the authors of this statement to minimize or to underestimate the activities of enthusiasts, who are often even spending their free time and money on activities concerning the protection of nature. We have the greatest respect for them. On the other hand, we wanted to protest against politicians who co-opt the activities of other people and use them for self-propagation, and at the same time they are among the greatest devastators of nature and exploiters of natural resources. We are protesting against camouflaging the situation for the international conference participants. We are also protesting the creation of an illusion of a non-problematic situation in the field of nature protection with the aim of demobilising the citizens of Slovakia. Bratislava May 6, 1998
|