 | To Our Readers |
Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? |
In violation of Russian law and the International Convention for Protection of the World Natural and Cultural Heritage, Transneft, Russia's oil pipeline monopoly, is considering a route that passes by Lake Baikal, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, coming within one kilometer of the lake and crossing many rivers, including the lake's largest tributary, the Angara.
Even more bizarre is the proposed terminal location at Perevoznaya on Amur Bay. Ecologists believe that it would be impossible to select a site along the Primorye region's extensive coast that would do more damage to the environment.
At a well-attended public hearing in Vladivostok last year, 20 panelists, including the directors of local nature preserves, scientists and conservationists, made five-minute presentations. While the arguments varied, their conclusion was the same: Do not build the terminal on the Amur Bay.
The proposed terminal site at Perevoznaya is right in the middle of Russia's foremost biodiversity hotspot. Thirty percent of Russia's endangered species live there, and some 50 species are found only on this small sliver of land between China and North Korea. The pipeline route and terminal would threaten several important protected areas including Russia's only marine preserve and Russia's oldest nature preserve, which is home to the only remaining population of Amur leopards. With only 30 to 40 individuals remaining in the wild, the Amur leopard is probably the world's rarest big cat.
Oil spills would potentially threaten the coast of Vladivostok, located across Amur Bay from the proposed terminal. The waters at Perevoznaya are shallow, and the terminal would have to be built approximately two kilometers offshore. Oil spills in open waters several kilometers from the coast would prove almost impossible to contain, and currents would rapidly spread oil over a wide area. Tankers sailing to and from Perevoznaya would have to navigate through a string of islands. These circumstances, combined with frequent gales and fog banks, dramatically increase the probability of disaster.
The selected terminal site is equally hard to understand from an economic perspective. Primorye's most popular sand beaches, visited by tens of thousands of tourists annually, are located near the proposed terminal and the tanker routes. Amur Bay is also a critical economic zone for fishing. The local population relies on this industry and strongly opposes construction of an oil terminal nearby.
Better terminal sites are easy to find. The best options are near Nakhodka, Primorye's largest port. The route to Nakhodka would not pose any threat to protected areas or endangered species, and local sea currents would be less likely to spread oil spills. The Nakhodka option would be more cost effective. Large amounts of oil destined for shipment to Japan and other countries are already transported to Nakhodka by rail. At Perevoznaya, in contrast, the proposed oil terminal, storage tanks and oil refinery would be built from scratch.
Nakhodka featured in earlier plans as a location for the terminal. Why was the Nakhodka option abandoned?
The strong lobby by Primorye Governor Sergei Darkin and his administration probably played a major role. According to Viktor Cherepkov, the former mayor of Vladivostok, Darkin and his business associates acquired land at Perevoznaya before promoting this spot as the terminal location. A former head of the Primorye regional branch of the Natural Resources Ministry, Alexander Savvin, told a local activist in a private conversation three years ago that Darkin had invited him to a private meeting shortly after the plan to build the Pacific pipeline to Nakhodka was made public. Savvin said that Darkin had requested his assistance in opening lawsuits against the oil companies in Nakhodka in order to force them into bankruptcy and acquire their assets, according to the activist.
Later, Perevoznaya became the site of choice. Darkin has denied accusations that he has a financial interest in a Perevoznaya terminal. However, Darkin and Deputy Governor Viktor Gorchakov continue to promote the site, and Vladivostok journalists report that they have been strongly advised by local authorities not to give the site any bad press.
Financing for the project would consist of Japanese public funds from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. The JBIC, however, abides by environmental and social guidelines that take into consideration damage to protected areas, endangered species and vulnerable ecosystems, as well as the opinion of citizens, scientists and environmentalists. The terminal at Perevoznaya would never meet JBIC's environmental criteria, and therefore the bank could not make a loan to finance the terminal. However, loans could be made to fund the rest of the pipeline project, if the terminal were to be built without international money before a loan request was made.
And this is exactly what Transneft plans to do. Transneft recently gave a presentation to the Primorye regional Duma and invited deputies on a junket to an oil terminal on the distant Baltic coast. Thus, Transneft is serious about Perevoznaya. Once the terminal is operational, Japanese financiers and Transneft could argue that the additional environmental damage from linking the existing infrastructure to the pipeline would be marginal. Russian and international nongovernmental organizations have repeatedly invited the JBIC to discuss its oil projects in Primorye. The bank has refused the invitation.
There is one last glimmer of hope for Amur Bay and the Amur leopard. The Natural Resource Ministry must conduct an environmental impact assessment, or EIA, of the pipeline project. Transneft can build the terminal at Perevoznaya only if it gets the green light after an EIA. The ministry's Primorye branch has publicly stated its opposition to a terminal at Perevoznaya. It is an open secret that Deputy Minister Valentin Stepankov, who is responsible for the EIA, also favors Nakhodka. But many fear that the ministry will crack under pressure from pro-Perevoznaya forces.
The EIA will be a major test of Russia's willingness to protect its still-rich biodiversity. The Russian and the international environmental communities are following the developments with much interest, but little hope.
Roman Vazhenkov is campaign coordinator at Greenpeace Russia. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.