The story of BPPM abounds in nonsense and mismatches, so anything could be expected. However it’s better to make things clear by getting insight from a person directly involved in work of UNESCO mission. In this case this is Andrey Petrov, head of World heritage project at Greenpeace Russia.
According to him, many people simply don’t understand what UNESCO mission is, and use this to interpret what is going on to their own benefit: “Visits like this one don’t imply any concrete actions or decisions on behalf of UNESCO. Experts arrive in order to analyze issues, listen to arguments of different sides.
It should be mentioned that this particular visit, unlike many other missions, provided opportunity for the participants to know not only the opinion of the officials and BPPM proprietors, but also that of environmentalists — voluntary activists and scientists. This information will provide base for a report that will, in its turn, underlie the decision of UNESCO World heritage committee. Only the Committee can make a decision. No matter how eminent the mission’s participant is, he cannot decide, support or disapprove anything.
This is why information appeared in media recently is not worth a farthing. Being personally acquainted with both mission’s participants, I can affirm that final report will be far from what BPPM management and some media are trying to make it seem. This will be a weighed document, based on facts.”
Therefore the messages stating that high experts from UNESCO came and supported plans of BPPM proprietors are untrue at the moment. This propagandistic fuss extends the absurdity raised by Putin’s Decree #1 as of 13.01.2010.
Supporters (real and compelled) of BPPM are head over ears in paradoxes. The softest of them is being mentioned quite often these days: the point is that “without BPPM Baikal will perish, and with BPPM it doesn’t have a future”. This odd thesis was once again presented in June to surprised Belgian journalists by Baikalsk mayor.
BPPM management persists in saying that the mill is absolutely safe. Surprisingly, some people believe them. Among them President Medvedev, who says that there is no forbidden ground, and this issue is not closed, but at the same time states that there’s nothing extraordinary going on.
Experts, on the contrary, are sounding the alarm. In a special letter scientists from RAN Siberia department cited a list of arguments for urgent closure of the mill:
- BPPM is the major source of super-toxins — dioxins; its air emissions affect area of dozens of kilometers.
- The mill’s manufacturing equipment is desperately outdated and hampers transfer to new, more environmentally friendly technologies.
- BPPM is unprofitable since long ago, losses amount to 80 000 000 rubles per month.
- Functioning of the Mill doesn’t permit to initiate economically and ecologically sound projects.
- Resumption of BPPM activity contradicts Russian and international law, in particular, the World Heritage Convention and others.
Unfortunately there is no reaction yet.
Meanwhile there is more and more disproof of the statement that only BPPM permits Baikalsk to survive. For example, an impressive fact announced at a conference on development strategies for municipal organizations held in Baikalsk the other day. According to information from Baikalsk Ecological Wave members, “the city administration estimated that even at the moment the number of people officially employed in small business is 1 800. This is more than BPPM employs. Thus, an alternative to the mill not only exists, it is already reality.”
At the same time, new investments in BPPM are still being made — it was recently reported that this year more than 90 million rubles will be spent on construction and renovation.