|
Local possibilities within the Eastern Partnership.
Problems of reserved water areas in Black sea region
Natalia Milchakova,
Ph. D. in Biology, Institute of Biology n. a. A. O. Kovalevskiy at Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Over the last decades, the mining of mineral and biological resources on the Black Sea Shelf, which is one of the most polluted water basins in the world, is accompanied with growing transportation flows, anthropogenic and recreational burdens on the coastal zone and the most valuable natural complexes. This happens at a time of global climate changes, invasion of alien species, which on an aggregate basis has destructive impact on biological and landscape diversity of the Black Sea ecosystem. Of 3,770 species of marine life, 126 ones are under threat of endanger. And the impact is especially negative on coastal waters where the bottom vegetation is playing environmental role – which is the basic primary producer ensuring a normal functioning of all chains of ecosystem.
New conceptual approaches to protection of the most valuable marine natural complexes and water areas were quite recently presented in îòíîñèòåëüíîíåäàâíîïðåäñòàâëåíûâ UN Declaration on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002), UNEP documents (1992, 2000), a number of European Conventions and Directives (Natura 2000). That speeded up the development of marine protected areas or MPA more than twice in the world. The Black Sea Basin includes 60 ÌÐÀs and swamplands, 41 of which are located at the coast of Ukraine, including 35 ones in the coastal zone of the Crimea Peninsula, which is the established European center of biological and landscape diversity. The majority of ÌÐÀs has small areas and a low watch status and only 7 of them are parts of natural reserves. While the number of marine protected areas in Ukraine is several time higher than in other Black Sea countries, many of them lost their scientific, ecological and esthetic importance and value.
Problems of ÌÐÀs and protection of outstanding natural complexes within the boundaries of Black Sea countries, will be discussed using Ukraine as an example where they are the most prominent. We have picked up three major groups of problems: legislative, organizational and scientific. The first group assumes a possibility to apply differently directed interpretations of environmental legislation, and non-compliance of current regulatory documents and acts with a number of international conventions and treaties signed by Ukraine. Due to the underdeveloped legislative framework, solution of priority governmental problems in the area of environmental protection and reserve management and studies is assigned to local governments which consider them as passing business interests. Many entities of the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine which have MPAs does not have a national status, therefore they are practically not protected. Among organizational problems, the leftover principle of MPA generation is standing out, i. e. MPAs are created as «neighbors» to adjacent protected areas without considering them in respect of natural worthiness and importance. The lack of attention of the State to problems of marine water areas leads to non-regulated and chaotic real estate development of the coastal zone, which is the most noticeable in Crimea, where it is done without reference to effective laws and regional environmental problems. This situation will not be even changed by a drafted Program for Reserve Management and Studies Development in Ukraine (up to 2020), under which generation of a representative network of areas and entities of the NRF, including a network of marine reserve water areas, will refer only to the period of 2018-2020, while the UN Declaration (Johannesburg 2002) provides that the Worldwide MPA Network should be done by 2012. The Decrees of the President of Ukraine (2008) on creation of 19 national nature reserves (NRR) are aimed at elimination of the existing discrepancies, however only one of them has a typical marine water area («Aya-Baydarskiy», Sevastopol Region), the state of which is rapidly deteriorating because of the see coast development. In other facilities created within the NRF of Ukraine (botanical wildlife reserve of the national importance «Zernov Phyllophora Field» and regional landscape park «Small Phyllophora Field»), only biocenosis of phyllophlora is provided. In this regard. we have to admit that the preservation of the Zernov Field, which is the biggest concentration of floating phyllophora in the world, is an extremely difficult task as its reserves reduced over last 100 years by thousand times – from 11,000,0000 tons to 6,000 tons. The consequences of that literally global ecological disaster for the ecosystem of the Black Sea are to be assessed in near future. Moreover, any environment protection measures within the field are hampered by proven gas fields, as well as development of the shelf resources in adjacent water areas, including those near the coast Romania and Bulgaria.
Scientific problems of MPAs are the same acute. While the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine is recognized as a coordinator of environmental protection researches (Law of Ukraine on NRF, 1992), no unified overall program for facilities of the NRF, including MPAs, still does not exist. Often scientific research of specially valuable marine natural complexes are of random and narrowly specific nature, which is exacerbated by a small number of specialists, lack if funding and a special scientific publication under the umbrella of NASU and a series of other problems.
There are some specific examples of the most standing problems in the area of protection of the most outstanding marine natural complexes near the coastal line of Ukraine. In our opinion, the conceptual mistake is that key macrophytes of the Black Sea ecosystem (Cystoseira, Phyllophora and Zostera), which have a high status of protection in Europe (Habitats Directive (92 /43 /EEC, Annex 1), are referred to commercial ones. The existing prices for them as plant roughage are hardly to be understood. Thus, in accordance with Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (No. 448, 1998), the cost of 1 ton of roughage (in US dollars) is 3,2 for Cystoseira, 3.9 for Phyllophora and 0.7 for Zostera. In this situation, no consideration is given to the fact that Zostera is included in Bern Convention (1979), all the above mentioned species – in the Black Sea Red Book (1999), their communities are protected in accordance with European Directives (Natura 2000) and recommended by EU for «Emerald Network» which are Areas of Spec³al Conservat³on ²nterest, ASC³s). According to UNEP, the said biocoenosis are also referred to critical habitats. Because of the rapid reduction of ranges of Cystoseira, Phyllophora and Zostera and Because of the sharp decline in habitat Cystoseira, Phyllophora and Zostera, reduction of their key production characteristics, we recommended to make these species in a new edition of the RBU (2009), but this is done only for Phyllophora, which is obviously due to the creation of NRF facilities in order to protect it. The proposed recommendations to increase the production of macrophytes on the shelf of Ukraine by 25% (Preservation and Non-Exhaustive Use…, 2003, p. 142) are wrong and destructive. Thus, it is expected to increase the production of Zostera to 15 million tons, while its total reserves in the Black Sea have never exceeded 1 million tons it is argued that the extraction of alginates from Zostera alginates provide the population of Ukraine with this compound, while Zostera, as a representative of flowering plants does not contain salt of alginic acid. Obviously, in this situation, the national paradigm of intensification of production of marine plant material must be replaced with their protection and restoration. First and foremost, eliminate Resolution of the Cabinet of Ukraine ¹ 448 should be cancelled and a moratorium on commercial production of macrophytes, which cannot be as such because of their condition, should be introduced.
In general, the combination of inter-state efforts to protect the valuable marine environments and the creation of a unified network of MPA will allow us to maintain the unique biological and landscape diversity of the Black Sea, relating, as the Mediterranean basin, one of the hot spots of biodiversity in the world, (Johannesburg, 2002). This should be a concern of not only scientists and environmental community, but also decision makers, as well as political parties and movements of Black Sea countries, whose aim is the protection of the environment.
Problems of preservation of biological and landscape diversity of Sevastopol region
Lilya Bondareva, Ph. D. in Biology, Institute of Southern Seas Biology nm Kovalevskiy A.O. of National Academy of Science of Ukraine
Preservation of natural biological and landscape diversity is defined as one of the priorities of environmental activities in accordance with the National Program for Development of Research Management and Studies until 2020, and creation of a developed network of natural areas and sites with special protection status is regarded as the most effective way to preserve the gene pool flora and fauna, typical and rare landscapes and maintenance favorable environmental conditions and equilibrium.
Effective implementation of environmental activities in the region of Sevastopol is associated with the need to preserve the natural resources of the Crimea – European Center for Biological and Landscape Diversity, which is recognized by the International Union for Preservation of Nature. Terrestrial and marine ecosystems in the region are unique, its flora and fauna are characterized by a noticeable number of endemic species, many taxons have not only national status of protection but also international ones. Natural complexes of Sevastopol region are vulnerable, they are referred to fragile and in need of preservation, rational environmental management and careful treatment.
Preservation landscape and biological diversity within the nature reserve fund.
Despite the high percentage of preservation of Sevastopol (30.2%), the existing network of entities of the Nature Reserve Fund (NRF) is a non-representative, that does not allow addressing environmental challenges efficiently and in fully. Among its defects, it is the lack of reserves, interfaced location and the unequal distribution of reserve sites and placement of a number of natural monuments in urban and recreational areas. In addition, no protection is given to steppes and natural systems of the Crimean Foothills. This is reflected in scientific literature, which contains a large number of proposals of how to generate new facilities of the NRF.
The long-term perspective network of NRF facilities was almost 10 years ago defined in the regional paper – a Comprehensive Program of Environmental Protection, Rational Use of Natural Resources and Environmental Safety of Sevastopol until 2010, however, its recommendations are not implemented, and no new reserve facility was created in the region. Not take into account the Recommendations of the Association for Support to Biological and Landscape Diversity of the Crimea – Gurzuf-97 to establish priority areas and biocenters were also not taken into account. In this regard, some planned facilities have lost their preservation vale and the most valuable areas are specifically alloted for construction. Almost three years the issue of organization of the reserve «Karansky», for which reserved site and water area were allocated, scientific rationale was prepared and recommended boundaries were described, has not been addressed. Creation of this wildlife reserve is a bright example of cooperation among residents, public organizations, deputies and city administration.
Support was also obtained from the Sevastopol branch Green Party of Ukraine when picket was organized.
Nevertheless, because of imperfections in the environmental legislation of Ukraine the process of harmonization with land users virtually stopped and valuable natural complexes in the vicinity of Balaklava are threat of economic development, which is construction of a large scale recreation complex – Ecopolis «Balaklava Golf Club & Wellness & Spa Resort» on 1 /5 of the reserved area.
Regional ecological network of Sevastopol and realities of modern wildlife management.
Today, the Sevastopol region is one of the few ones in Ukraine, where no Program has been adopted and no Scheme of Regional Environmental Network Formation has been developed, which is contrary to Laws of Ukraine «National Program for Ukrainian Environmental Network Formation e in 2000-2015» (2000) and «National Environmental Network of Ukraine» (2004). As a result, degradation and transformation of natural landscapes are reported almost everywhere, which is caused, first of all, by inconsistency of the Master-Builder Plan of Sevastopol until 2025 and key provisions of environmental legislation and the Comprehensive Environmental Program of Sevastopol. The Master Plan was approved at the session of the City Council in 2005 without a formal examination by the State Administration for Environmental Protection in the city of Sevastopol. From cartographic materials of the Master Plan [http://sev.gov.ua/economy/genplanrazv/] you can see that its disadvantages include the establishment of an urban solid frame, especially on the west coast and the conversion of areas for recreation and military use into lands of resort and recreational and healing facilities with places for long rest.
An example of this transformation is the ongoing and planned recreational construction in the area of the Sarych Cape, the tract of Laspi and Ayazma, in Baydarskaya Valley, near the Fiolent Cape, on the Karansky Plateau on the slopes and heights of Tavros and Mytilino at Balaklava bay. In current conditions, it leads to violation of spatial integrity of structural elements of the ecological network and loss of natural areas with high biological and landscape diversity, which perform basic ecosystem functions.
How the National Strategy and international obligations of Ukraine to preserve biological and landscape diversity are implementation within the administrative borders of Sevastopol? In an effort to bring national legislation to international and European standards, Ukraine has ratified several international conventions, among which the important place is occupied by the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) and the European Landscape Convention (Florence, 2000). The territory of Sebastopol is home to many species of highest protection status, which are included in the Red and Green Book of Ukraine, in the Red List of Threatened Plants IUCN, the European Led List. But, despite the requirements of major environmental laws, in recent years, there have been cases of mass destruction of protected plants and animals and their habitat. This causes resentment and protest from the city residents, professionals and environmental community. Of particular concern is the extermination of protected high-juniper and pistachio woodlands, Stankevich pine communities, representatives of the family of rare orchids and other plants and animals, for which the south-western Crimea is only one in Ukraine or one of few local habitats. It is an irreparable loss for the nature of Sevastopol, the entire Peninsula, Ukraine and Europe.
Biodiversity is the national treasure of each region, its conservation and rational management in fact, not in word should be one of the top priorities for environmental management, environmental security and the prerequisite for a balanced and social development of the entire state.
Possible explosiveness of coal transshipment terminal in Sevastopol
V. Sevrikov,
Professor, Doctor of Technical Sciences Sevastopol National Technical University
The transshipment coal terminal is thoroughly described by representatives of science, environmental community and Green parties in the form of expertise, opinions, references. Most of the assessments is that this facility is an intensive polluter of the environment, and in accordance with the requirements of legislation and normative acts of Ukraine shall not be located in the city of Sevastopol.
The aim of this paper is to provide more characteristics of the explosiveness of the coal terminal and a quantitative risk assessment for those working at this facility and the risk of the population living in its zone of influence.
To understand a degree of danger from operations of the terminal will give only two examples of analog. First – in the seventies of the last century there was an explosion of slagheap ta the Mine nm. A. Zasiadko in Kadievka. The slagheap has of admixtures of coal only, but the rocks of nonhazardous. As a result of this explosion, the significant part of the mining settlement was buried together with the residents. The second example – in 1972 at the Minsk Radio Factory, the wood dust mixed with solvent vapors exploded in the workshop for covers of radio equipment. As a result of that explosion the workshop building was completely destroyed and every last one of 119 people were killed.
It should be noted that wood and coal dust on their organic nature and other properties are similar. We can only deplore the fact that these and other examples, in particular, five explosions at the mine nm A. Zasyadko (Donetsk), each of which killed dozens of miners, and at the last explosion – 112 people, are not an argument for «Avlita and the City of Sebastopol that the placement of transshipment large-tonnage coal terminal in a residential part of the city not only inadmissible, but it is immoral and criminal!
Based on the experience of mining operations and taking into account the self-ignition of coal (especially coking coal) in the faces, storage and waste heaps which may be assumed as the coal terminal, one could argue that the latter is more dangerous than the mine itself and its facilities. Here's why. The coal terminal has much larger ignition sources and conditions of their manifestation than the mine. Here are some of them.
Mine is a classified unit and the descending of workers, visitors into the mine is strictly controlled, as well as matches, lighters, tobacco and other non-permitted substances are strictly forbidden. The terminal does not have such regime.
The mine has all electrical equipment, including lighting, appliances and telephones in explosion-proof form marked PB. The terminal has all electrical equipment in a normal, open performance. It is also a source of ignition for dusty mixtures.
The mine there are no sources of thunderstorm and lightning discharges, and the terminal has them, as well as a large number of sources of electrostatic electricity, the spark temperature of which above is higher than the ignition temperature of dust-gas-vapor-air mixtures. Statements of the supporters of the terminal, that «the coal from Australia and America does not have methane gas, and therefore the facility does not have explosive gas-air mixtures, do not correspond to reality. Here's why.
In a large mass of coking coal, located at the terminal, there are exothermic chemical reactions of oxidation with liberation of carbon monoxide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, hydrogen and other explosive gases in a mixture with oxygen. These reactions are the most intensive in the presence of moisture in the ground array of coal with high temperatures and especially in the area of its ignition.
In addition, the terminal has combustible and flammable liquids (fuel oil and other substances), which evaporate and couple with oxygen in the air, and form explosive mixtures.
The intensity of dust formation in the terminal is higher than in the mine, because there are many places of unloading, loading, handling, transportation and these processes are around the clock. The length of transportation lines is very long. The closed gallery of main conveyor, indoor storage of coal, closed areas uploading-loading and reloading operations contribute to the concentration of dust in the volume which increases its explosion in the terminal.
The number of mechanisms at the terminal, working with high load and in accelerated modes and having multiple torque transfer and the friction surface with a high temperature of heating, and in some cases with sparking, is much more bigger than at the mine, and thus the number of sources of ignition is greater, as the tonnage of the terminal at the first stage is 5 times, and the second phase is 10 times, higher than the capacity of an average mines of Donbass.
The frequency of spontaneous combustion of coking coal in stock is higher at the terminal higher than in the mine because the conditions of storage of coal in bulk in large numbers favor accumulation of heat. Examples of this are the open burning railroad flatcars loaded with coal. The terminal also may be under malicious intent (sabotage, terrorism), which is not possible at mine. All this shows the higher fire and explosion hazards of coal terminal in comparison with the coal mine.
What is the risk of persons working in the terminal, and people living in its zone of influence? Taking a coal mine as analogue of the coal terminal coal mine, using the official statistcs data, we make a conditional comparison of the risk of employees at the terminal with the risk of miners Ðò=Ðø= 10-2.. This means that the risk of terminal workers is 10 000 times greater than standard risk adopted in Europe, Russia and now in Ukraine, which is equal to Ðí= 10-6. At the standard-setting risk, the death of 1 person from one million is acceptable.
Let’s estimate the risk of the population. Assume that in Ukraine 75 000 persons die prematurely by violent death, not including those who have died naturally and perished in combats. The risk of the Ukrainian population with its number of about 43 000 000 people is.
Ðí= 75000 ≈
43000000
1,75-10−3
Given the risk exposure of the terminal to the population living in its zone of influence, the risk would be 10-2…10-3, i. e. on average it will be 5 000 times higher than the standard risk of 10-6.
The question arises, for what interests the terminal supporters want people of Sevastopol to have such a perspective?!
Sevastopol – Geopolitical Center of Business, Academic and Religious International Contacts
PhD Volodymyr Tarasenko,President of Crimean Academy of ScienceChair of Crimean Republican Association «Ecology and World»
Members of the Crimean Academy of Sciences (CAS), representatives of scientific centers of Crimea and KRAEM environmentalists are concerned about the plans to locate a universal transshipping complex (UTC) CJSC Stevedoring Company (UK) «Avlita» as a facility of increased environmental hazards, which may dramatically affect the fate of hundreds of thousands of residents not only of this unique city, but the whole Crimean Peninsula. Members of the CAS, at the request of residents and non-government environmental organizations of Sevastopol, prepared «Expert Opinion» with their findings of the reasons for impossibility of construction of UTC CJSC Stevedoring Company (UK) «Avlita» in Sevastopol Bay.
The researchers came to the following conclusions:
1.Construction of UTC CJSC SK «Avlita» for transshipment of imported coking coal in the amount of 4,0 million tons/year and imported and transit bulk construction materials (sand, gravel) in the amount of 4,5 million tons/year poses a major threat to future development of not only the city of Sevastopol, but the whole resort of Crimea (worsening environmental problems, pollution of air, Sevastopol Bay, adjacent areas on the northern side and along the railway routes of transportation through the territory of Crimea, the risks of contamination in connection with the potential accidents and dysfunction of the UTC, the outflow of tourists and visitors because of the deteriorating environmental situation in the city and region), which will result in great economic losses and further deterioration of public health.
2. Development trends of Sevastopol as a promising center of recreation and tourism on the Black Sea is consistent with the program provisions of the strategic development of the resort Crimea, a sustainable environmental and socio-economic development of the region, established traditional economic activities in Crimea, the existing natural, resource and intellectual potential for the development of resort and recreational and tourist complex, and highly innovative industrial technologies (instrument making, shipbuilding and repair, energy, electronics, household appliances).
3. To address the socio-economic and environmental problems, there is a need for government support, creation of an enabling environment for investment in the resort and utilities sector, financing of environmental programs and incorporation of interests of the population in planning of development of ecoresortpolice of Sevastopol.
According to experts, the construction of the UTC «UK» Avlita» in Sevastopol Bay is not appropriate with regard to environmental, social and economic implications and consequences.
For the city, an alternative strategy for sustainable development as an international center for recreation, tourism and pilgrimage is more acceptable and promising, to which experts draw attention to the city community, the city authorities, the country government and ARC.
The concept of such strategy is already visible: development of recreational and tourist potential, improvement the ecological conditions of the city, an innovative development strategy and post-industrialization, formation of civil society through partnerships between public authorities and socially responsible business, preservation of historical traditions and the City of glory, high intellect, spirituality, heroism, courage, and an international center of recreation and tourism, trade, culture, business and financial activity of the Eastern Mediterranean.
Sevastopol must play its proper role of the geopolitical center of business, scientific, humanitarian, religious, international contacts and productive cooperation for the benefit of Ukraine and the world community. Today, the idea of turning Chersonese and Sevastopol in the place of pilgrimage for Christians of the Orthodox world is of particular importance.
The city which is open to the world will be an effective alternative to acclosed modal city of naval bases.
The city of Sevastopol in the XXI century must evolve in line with global post-industrial trends which are typical in major port cities (Amsterdam, Helsinki, Stockholm, Gdansk, Tallinn, Riga, Saint Petersburg, etc.) with a view to creating an environmentally safe Ecopolise with developed resort and recreation and tourism, industry of high post-industrial technologies and developing mariculture, education, science, etc.
This will require a renovation of the entire city infrastructure. But it will be the development of the entire city community, Crimea and Ukraine, and not an individual private company bearing the environmental threats to the city and region. The final conclusion of the strategic ways of further development of the city must be made by the city community in conjunction with the City, Crimea and Ukraine governments.
 Print version
|