T Kornyesz!

Valamikor a tavasz vege fele Diana feldobott egy hirt, hogy a CEU nyari
egyetemet (SUN) szervez a Kornyezeti Hatasvizsgalatrol. Sikerult bejutnom 
a kb. 20 fonyi resztvevo koze.

Egy-ket mondatot irnek rola, mert egyreszt innen jott a hir, masreszt jovore
is biztos lesz vmi hasonlo, lehet, hogy vki kedvet kap.

A SUNt a Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy fonoke, Prof. Edward 
Bellinger iranyitotta, aki magaval hozta Norman Lee-t is a University of 
Manchesterrol. A hires angol humor sajatos hangulatot kolcsonzott a ket 
hetnek. 

A SUN celja az volt, hogy kideruljon, mely orszagban milyen a KHVt erinto
jogi megkozelites, illetve hogy gyakorlaban hogyan mukodik. E celbol minden
resztvevo elkuldott egy par oldalas tanulmanyt a fennt megadott temarol. A
SUN elso heteben reggeltol estig az ment, hogy az eppen sorra kerulo orszag
"kepviseloi" (1-3 fo) kb. fel oran keresztul nyomtak az informacio hegyeket, 
mint hulye gyerek a fogkremet. Ez volt szerintem a neheze. A masodik heten
kicsit konnyebbe valt a helyzet, mert tematikus csoportok kozul lehetett
valasztani.

Nekem ugy tunt, hogy ott volt az egesz volt Beketabor. A vegen kiderult, hogy
eszaki szomszedunk, Szlovakia kimaradt. Pedig ott volt: Bulgaria, Cseho, 
Eszto, Feheroroszo, Horvato, Kazahsztan, Lengyelo, Letto, Litvania, 
Magyaro, Moldava, Ormenyo, Oroszo, Romania, Szlovenia es Ukrajna. Szeles volt
a foglalkozasi paletta is. A resztvevok tudomanyos kutatok, kornyesz tanacsado
cegek alkalmazottai, diakok, miniszteriumi alkalmazottak, oktatok kozul 
kerultek ki.

Egy-ket altalanos eszrevetel:

Procedura
A volt SZU utodallamok, a balkani harom es Ormenyo. kivetelevel nem tertek at
a nyugati KHV megoldasokra, jelentos szerepe van az allami szerveknek. Erdekes
modon Lengyelo is hasonlo, ahol a helyi kormanyzati szerv a felelos a KHV 
szakszeru veghezviteleert es elbiralasaert. A torvenyek vagy rendeletek 
altalaban egy-ket evesek, azaz figyelembe vettek a 85/337/EEC direktivat es
az Espoo konvenciot is.

Szakertok
A KHV kivitelezeset vegzoket altalaban a kivitelezo valasztja ki, a legtobb
orszagban egy hivatalos listara felvettek kozul (pl. Bulgaria, Lengyelo, 
Litvania), de van olyan orszag is, ahol barki csinalhat KHt (pl. Oroszo, 
Romania, Magyaro). A legrosszabb megoldas talan Ukrajnae, ahol "Authorities
choose, developer pays."

Hany darab?
Azon orszagok, melyek igazi EIAt csinalnak, nem buszkelkedhetnek nagy 
szamokkal. Az evi termes 1 millio allampolgarra atszamitva 30 alatt van, de
a 3.5 millios Ormenyo.ban az is nagy eredmeny, hogy ilyen belpolitikai helyzet
mellett mar 6 darab osszejott, pedig a torveny csak tavaly szuletett meg. 
Abban bizva, hogy jelentos kulfoldi beruhazasok varhatok a terseg orszagaiban,
valoszinu, hogy ezek a szamok jelentosen noni fognak.

Es utana?
Gyakorlatilag minden tanulmanyozott orszagban jelentos gondot okoz a beruhazas
befejezese utan esedekes monitoring. Tobb mint az orszagok feleben nincs is 
torvenybe/rendeletbe foglalva, hogy a KHV es a beruhazas lezarasa utan vmit
meg csinalni kene. A tobbi orszagban gyakorlatilag nincs jelentosege. Magyaro
es Eszto annyiban kivetel, hogy a megfelelo hivatal elrendelhet monitoringot.

Ennyire futotta. Remelem, vmi kepe mindenkinek kialalkult a KHV (EIA)
bevezeteserol. 



Aki tobbet akar tudni a mindossze 1 eves magyar KHV torveny + rendelet 
parosrol, annak figyelmebe ajanlom a Kornyezet es haladas '96 3.-4. osszevont
szamat, ahol Radnai Anikonak egy szep irasa szol errol.


		Udvozlettel:
			      deak gabor

Kedves Gabor,

egykoron megigertem, hogy valaszolok kerdesedre. A PCBekrol, DDT-rol, 
pesticidekrol diskuraltunk. En azt allitottam, hogy az USA-ban csinaljak ebbol 
a 
legtobb penzt, fokent ugy, hogy a 3. vilagot arasztjak el vele. Sajna a ket 
honap alatt nem akadt ujra a kezembe az a cikk, ahol ezt olvastam, ezert ne is 
hidd el.
Felvetetted, hogy a DDT a multe es nem hiszed, hogy barmely kormany megengedne 
ennek hasznalatat, akar Afrikaban.

Valoban, hivatalosan nincs olyan torveny, amelyik engedne pl. a DDT hasznalatat
, 
viszont a tiltasara sem hoztak mindenhol torvenyt, ezert aztan pl. a malaria 
ellen bevetik. De talan meg ennel is fontosabb, a DDT mindenhol ott van, habar 
legtobb orszagban mar regesreg tiltott. A steril Svajcban ugyanugy megtalalhato
k 
nyomai -Afrikara mutogatnak, hogy onnan jon a legkorrel a szennyezes- mint 
mondjuk a balatoni halakban. (Ezt csak onnan tudom, mert epp ezt csinalom.) 

A DDT-rol es tarsairol sok mindent lehet talalni az Interneten. Itt egy pl.

>DDT and Toxaphene in Fish at the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge, 
Louisiana 10.Jan,1996
The final report on organochlorine pesticides in fishes and sediments from the 
Tensas River Basin has been completed.  Results document ELEVATED and chronic 
levels of DDT and toxaphene in fishes and sediments collected in the northern 
portion of the Tensas River Basin (i.e., in and upstream of the Tensas River 
NWR). Copies of the report are available upon 
<

Ez meg az Ambio Vol.21. No.8. Dec, 1992, p.560. -ban olvashato:

> This is known to occur for structurally related lipid soluble compounds, for 
example DDT, which IS OFTEN PRESENT IN INFANT HUMAN TISSUES at nearly half the 
level found in maternal tissue due to placental transfer...<

Szep uj vilag, ugye. 
Tudom, en mindig csak riogatok.

szia, 
O.Edit

WE DON'T NEED CORPORATIONS TO FUND OUR NATIONAL PARKS

Most Americans haven't heard of the government's plan to commercialize the
national parks.  I've run into only a few who have, and they are furious.  Some
of their outrage is based on a misunderstanding of the plan, which, as
currently envisioned, is no big deal.  But if these folks are typical, clearing
up the misunderstanding doesn't take away the anger.  The idea of corporations
funding our national parks to any extent, in any way, seems like a final straw,
a step over a crucial line, a proof that we have gone way too far with our
recent national experiment in shifting from public to private responsibility.

The park proposal is NOT an invitation to corporations to plaster their logos
across Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Memorial, or the Grand Canyon.  Rather it is
an opportunity for ten or so selected companies each year to contribute
something like $10-$15 million apiece to the national parks.  In return they
can use in their advertising a special symbol -- like the five rings of the
Olympics -- to proclaim themselves "official sponsors" of the national parks
system.

The bill currently in Congress says that the Park Service will ensure that 
every use of the symbol is tasteful.  Companies will not be associated with
particular parks or attractions.  (No "Coca-Cola brings you Old Faithful!").
Corporate logos will not appear within the parks.

The $100 million or so brought in by the sponsorships certainly could be put to
good use.  Annual budgets for our 369 national parks, memorials, battlefields,
historic sites, and recreation areas have been cut by over $200 million in real
terms since 1983, while the number of visitors has increased from 207 to 270
million a year.  For lack of funds some campgrounds had to be closed this
summer, and there were 900 fewer rangers.  Research programs have stopped.
Paint is peeling.  Roads are potholed.  The Park Service says it would take $4
billion to catch up with all the postponed maintenance.

The private sector has been brought into the parks before to accomplish what
the government would not do.  In 1986 corporations contributed to a $300
million drive to refurbish the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.  You may
remember the burst of ads in which companies proudly displayed -- and took
credit for -- the restored Miss Liberty.

That experience engendered plenty of criticism.  The essence of charity is
anonymity, some said.  If you have to brag about it -- especially if you spend
more money bragging about it than you gave in the first place -- that isn't
charity, it's marketing.  Furthermore, it's marketing based on false claims.
The corporate contributions (and ads) were tax-deductible, so in fact they were
taken from taxpayers' hides. And twice as much money was contributed by
individuals and fraternal, ethnic and community groups as by corporations.

So not only did companies buy fake nobility through association with a beloved
symbol totally unrelated to their own activities, but the rest of us, who
carried most of the burden, got no affirmation.  The whole episode reinforced
the destructive myth that virtue and competence can be found only in private
corporations, not in our capacity to act together for the public good.

But the impoverished Park Service got the money it needed, so it is repeating
the strategy.  The cracked surface of the Washington Monument needs repairing.
A number of firms, led by Target discount stores, are contributing $1 million
apiece to get the job done.

The National Parks Commercialization Act aims to turn these sporadic infusions
of corporate money into regular practice.  In the current plan companies will
cover only eight percent of the Park Service's annual budget.  But one has only
to contemplate the Olympics to imagine a slippery slope that could carry us
quickly into a commercial swamp.  There may be a soul somewhere who believes
golden arches or Mickey Mouse will not follow the money into the parks, but
there is no such innocence in the advertising world.  I've seen a slick
brochure developed by an ad agency depicting the symbol of one of the nation's
dirtiest industries mounted prominently in front of one of the nation's
loveliest vistas.  The agency suggests that this form of advertising will be
possible soon and will erase the industry's bad environmental image.

There are, of course, other ways to fund the national parks.

We could raise entrance fees, and indeed there is another bill before Congress
to do just that.  In most cases entrance fees haven't gone up since the parks
were established.  The new bill would not only allow parks to raise fees (a car
entering Yellowstone, for example, might pay not $10 but $25), but would let
each park keep the money instead of, as at present, passing it to the general
Treasury.

More money could also come from park concessions.  Over 650 private companies
earn a total of $700 million a year operating campgrounds, restaurants, hotels
and such in the parks.  They pay $19 million a year for their monopoly
licenses, which are granted for 10-30 years and are usually renewed
automatically.  Another 1200 licenses go to companies that run raft,
snowmobile, and pack trips through the parks.  Here's a place where market
principles could benefit our parks, but bills to open park concessions to
competitive bidding passed Congress overwhelmingly last year and then were held
back by the Republican leadership, so they never reached the president for
signature.

Another way to pay for the parks is -- shocking thought! -- through our taxes.
Doubling the present $1.5 billion operating budget would cost $5 per American
per year -- call it $15 per family.  If we, the least-taxed people in the
industrialized world, feel too poor to raise our taxes that much, we could get
the money by building one less B-2 bomber.

Generations of Americans poorer than we are somehow managed to maintain the
parks, commonly owned, commonly supported.  We inherited them, the crown jewels
of our citizenship.  Is there really something different about us, something
less wise, something weaker or cheaper or meaner, that prevents us from passing
to our children these beautiful lands, well-kept, proudly and commonly
supported, refuges from the commercialism that dominates every other part of
our world?

(Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at
Dartmouth College.)