The abatement of nature management regime in the CEZ, in
particular, is profitable for the IFC "Metropol", which can't refuse
the idea to develope the Kholodninskoe polymetall deposit. At
present, the development of the deposit is prohibited by the
Government regulation #643 from 30.08.2001 "On Adopting the List of
activities which are prohibited in the Central ecological zone of
Baikal natural territory".
Less than a year ago V. Nagovitsyn decided that mineral resource
industry is not necessary needed for the Republic, as the profit
from its development is lower than the profit from permanently
crisis agriculture sector. At that time the President not only
reproved companies for the insufficient results and even suggested
to deny licenses for the recourses development for some of them. He
stimulated so to say… At the same time he considered it to be
possible to privatize the Buryat coast of the Baikal, he said to
solve some ecological problems, in particular, the pollution of the
coast.
It is not clear who's interest defended Nagovitsyn at that time,
but after the advice of Minister of natural resources U. Trutnev
"to look into the federal legislation more carefully" he could
still to hush up the scandal said that he misunderstood.
Current position of V. Nagovitsyn regarding the Kholodninskoe
deposit is perfectly clear. The license for the recourses
development is owned by the IFC "Metropol". During several years
the owner of the company M. Slipenchuk tried to receive the permit
for the development using the loopholes in the current legislation
and "play" with project documentation. The edges of the Central
ecological zone of Baikal natural territory were approved in
November 2006 (the Government instruction of 27 November 206
#1641-r) and these loopholes were seemed to be closed. However, in
the end of 2007 the Metropol presented project documents for the
Kholodninskiy GOK construction to the Glavgosekspertiza (Senior
agency of state expertise) and… received the negative assurance:
"disagrees with the legislation and threatens to the Baikal lake -
the territory of the world natural heritage UNESCO".
It seems that statement made by the President of Buryatia is the
attraction of notorious "administrative resources". Not much of
economy here. V. Nagovitsyn is obviously lobbing the development of
the Kholodninskoe deposit, in spite of small injections of cash
funds from the profits of various GOKs to the republican budget.
Also nobody guaranties any significant output to the population of
the Buryatia.
Moreover, there is no potential ecological, social, economical
and political losses valuation. These losses may be the consequence
of probable accidents on the projectable GOK and pollution of the
drainage area of the Baikal. The situation gets worse and worse. V.
Nagovitsyn, carried away by illusory benefits, affords to "play"
with legislation and facts.
Quote the "Kommersant - Irkutsk" #40(4095) from 06.03.2009: "The
Government of the Republic of Buryatia does not satisfy with the
ecological restrictions set in the BNT. The President of the
Republic Vyacheslav Nagovitsyn speaking at the meeting of the
Federation Council of the Russian Federation suggested to introduce
changes to the several legislative acts regulating the activities
in the drained area of the Baikal. First of all it concerns the
Government regulation from 30 august 2001 #643 "On Adopting the
List of activities which are prohibited in the Central ecological
zone of Baikal natural territory". In particular this Act prohibits
the establishment of metallurgical, petrochemical, cellulose,
mining plants near Baikal and also to construct highways and
railways, power installations more 100 megawatt, and to store waste
products."
It seems to be that V. Nagovitsyn ignored the recomendations of
the Minister U. Trutnev and did not get acquainted with the federal
legislation till now. However, it is possible that "advisers" from
Metropol cheat him. It is improper for the senior government
official to be in the dark about the fact that Government
regulation #643 applies only to the Central ecological zone of
Baikal natural territory, mostly consisted from the specially
protected natural territories. In addition, the edges of Central
ecological zone of the BNT match with the edges of the territory of
the world natural heritage UNESCO. Therefore, it's not enough to
amend only the Regulation #643. The total system of Russian
environmental legislation and also international legislation should
be changed in that case.
Than, "representatives of the press service" (it seems that the
President did not wish to voice such outright lie personally) said
that "major part of the natural territory located in the territory
of Buryatia (52,2%), in the Irkutsk region (25,2%) and also in the
Transbaikal region (14,4%). Nine municipalities of Buryatia are
included in the BNT." and because of that, allegedly, Buryatia
bears enormous losses.
It is outright and shameless lie. The Regulation #643 applies
only to the Central ecological zone of BNT which extends for 70-80
km from the coast line of the Baikal. Major part of the Buryat
Republic and Transbaikal attributes to the Buffer zone of the BNT.
V. Nagovitsyn or his press service intentionally mixes up the
conception of "Central ecological zone" (where set significant
ecological restrictions for the economical activity) and the Buffer
zone (in which there are no special restrictions).
Therefore, the statement of press service of Buryatia said that
"according to the requirements, the farm in the Buryatia can be
located not less than 10 km from water source flowed into the
Baikal" is absolute nonsense.
The facts say otherwise. According to the article 6 of the
Federal Law #94-FZ from 01.05.1999 "On protection of the lake
Baikal", types of activities negatively influenced on unique
ecosystem of the lake Baikal are prohibited or restricted on the
Baikal natural territory:
• chemical pollution of the lake Baikal, it's parts or drainage
area, connected with discharge and ejection of harmful substance,
usage of pesticides, agrochemicals, radioactive substances,
exploitation of transport, storing waste from production and
consumption;
• physical change in the state of the lake Baikal or its parts
(the change in the water temperature regimes, fluctuations in water
level outside the allowable values, changes in flows into the Lake
Baikal);
• bacterial pollution of the lake Baikal, connected with the
exploration, cultivation and acclimatization of aquatic biological
objects that are not native to the ecological system of the lake
Baikal, performed in the lake Baikal and water bodies which
permanent or temporary related to the lake Baikal.
It is important to understand that if the farm pours waste into
a nearby river, it will be punished by the law regardless the place
where the river flow in.
Why the Buryat authorities are deceiving the public? May be they
feel uncomfortable in the office chair, understanding that their
position is a temporary phenomenon and feel that they should think
"about the future"? So the relationship with the IFC Metropol seems
to be very beneficial as its owner was the candidate in a hundred
richest people in Russia according to the magazine Forbes List.
Actually it is not the main thing. Most importantly, the threat
of chemical pollution of the Lake Baikal becomes almost fatally in
the case of developing Kholodninskoe deposit. There is no guarantee
that the toxic -waste drain from the GOK will not get into Baikal.
The scope of this treat is comparable to the risk that could bring
the construction of the WSPO (West Siberian - Passific Ocean)
pipeline, which was moved to a safe distance from the lake
Baikal.
It should noted that the IFC "Metropol" is a portfolio investor,
thus the company would unlikely be engaged in the developing of the
deposit. The permission for the development is needed in order to
sell this "environmentally dangerous" asset more efficiently.
Currently the sale is failed due to environmental and reputational
risks. Who needs the deposit, which can not be developed? Lundin
Mining and Rostehnologii have already refused from the
deposit...
The problem of Kholodninskoe deposit can be compared with the
construction of the BPPP (Baikal pulp and paper plant) in the 60
years of the last century, that creates a "hot spot" on the Baikal,
which could not be solved more than 40 years. Maybe it is enough to
fall into the same trap?
Additional information:
Preliminary valuation of consequences in case of the waste water
from projectile GOK on the Kholodninskoe deposit falls into the
north Baikal through the rivers Tuya and Kholodnaya (the feeder of
the Verhnyaya Angara). (Prepared by S.G. Shaphaev: assistant
professor of Ecology and Safety of Living department of East
Siberian state technology university, representative of the
Buryatia regional unit on Baikal. The point 1 is performed by P.P.
Sherstyankin - Doctor of physico-mathematical science.
1. Annual water inflow of Verhnyaya Angara and Kichega rivers is
9 cubic kilometers (second largest after the Selenga River - the
main feeder of Lake Baikal), the saltiness of the river water
(0,0600 gram/liter) is smaller then the saltiness of the lake water
(0,0965 gram/liter). There is a strong vertical mixing almost down
to the bottom in inshore part of the North Baikal. Water
circulation in the North Baikal consists of a cyclonic circle
Baikal circulation and closed inside basin circulation near capes
Kotelnikovsky - Amnudakan (the cape, the river and the bay). The
water circulation is observed all the way after the cape
Kotelnikovsky under the West coast to the Middle Baikal in the area
of Academicheskiy Ridge.
These dynamic characteristics of water regime of the North
Baikal could lead to increased concentration of the waste water in
the closed inside hollow circulation. (the firth of the Verhnyaya
Angara and Kichega rivers - capes Kotelnikovsky - Amnudakan) and in
reduced form under the West coast of the whole North Baikal.
North-baikal omul could suffer from depression especially
strong. As the North baikal omul plays sufficient role in the
feeding system of local population, its extinction would lead to
sufficient ecological and economical losses, negative social
implications for local population. If do not go into details
regarding the influence of the waste water on biota of the Baikal,
it could be said that negative impact would be influenced on the
supreme units of the foodchain of the lake ecosystem - omul and
seal.
Electronic (digital) bathymetric data can be used for the
further analysis of this problem (De Batist, Canals, Sherstyankin,
Alekseev, 2002; Sherstyankin et al, 2006).
2. As the clearing pool for initial treatment of pumped mine
water is planed to settle in the drainage area of the Baikal Lake,
the accidental discharge of the waste water to the lake feeders
could happened due to natural and man-made emergency
situations.
3. Probably the toxic mining water would influence on the
underflow of Tuya and Holodnaya rivers. It is not excluded because
of complicated hydrogeological structure of mineral wealth in the
planed district of GOK location (interfluve of Tuya and Holodnaya
rivers).
4. In case the waste water falls into the river Tuya, the main
water intake of Severobaikalsk town with 35 thousands people
located near stream canal could suffer.