|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
ANNEX 1 All questions must be answered or the proposal will not be considered for funding. If the space provided is not sufficient please attached a separate piece of paper for each question. Do not answer the questions in one large essay. English or the national language is equally acceptable.
GEF FUNDS 15 Please list item by item (including quantities to be purchased) the proposed budget for the use of the GEF funds
Counterpart Funds 16. Please provide
details of the contributions (cash or in kind) that will make available
to the project
Target Oriented Planning Workshop Hilton
Hotel Workshop Outline
Goals
Participants
Draft Agenda
Goals
Tuesday 28 November 2000
Goals
Equipment
$22,000 Program
management training course (PEMSEA) The
short report of the meeting of the lead agent and Partner 3. Opening of the
meeting.
5. Dr. M.Badarch, representative of lead agent, distributed to the participants some materials( small grant project, questionnaire and awareness strategy) related to activities on awareness component and called their comments and inputs. There was agreed that the partner institutions will send their comments and inputs to lead agent before 10 of December, 2000. 6. Conclusions. 7. Presentations and discussions on the development of the Regional Education and information and communication strategy and country specific awareness programme took place at the Meeting, and agreed time schedule for their preparation .
8.
Discussed the scope of work of lead agent and partner institutions and
cost beak down at the meeting and agreed.
10. Chinese delegation has been requested to allocate additional fund for education materials. It was agreed that this request will be submitted to the PCU for possibility of funding. Report was drafted by Dr. M. Badarch, Representative of Lead agent, Mongolia. Target Oriented Planning Workshop Beijing,
China List of Participants
R.O.
KOREA NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR UNESCO: INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON ENVIRONMENTAL
SESSION
1: REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN NORTHEAST (I.3)
MAJOR REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
My remarks today draw from a lengthy association (over seven years) with the UNDP-funded Northeast Asian regional economic cooperation programme known as the Tumen River Area Development Programme (TRADP). The institutional mechanisms and procedures governing cooperation among the five mainland Northeast Asian countries of China, DPRK, Mongolia, the ROK and the Russian Federation are unique, and were established under an international agreement signed at the United Nations in December 1995. My remarks also draw heavily from a similar close association with UNDP and UNIDO in China and the DPRK over the period 1992-98, as well as from my own extensive travel in the area, and from my lengthy involvement with the local authorities and people of the Tumen River Area. This workshop session examines a range of regional and trans-boundary environmental problems and their actual and potential threat to communities, neighbouring countries, biodiversity habitats, and peace and security in the region. This case study of the Tumen River Area will highlight the extent of environmental pollution and the threat to the eco-systems of the region, and how these have caused conflict among countries and local communities in a region known for its instability and tension in the past. The case study will also examine how resolution of these problems can be addressed through a framework of cooperative agreements, programmes, and assistance. In particular, it will review what work needs to be done to add substance to this framework and place it into practice, improve its application and effectiveness, and realise substantial impact in terms of pollution reductions, encouragement of cleaner production, and initiate practical steps to implement soil and biodiversity conservation measures. The case study area under discussion today incorporates the Tumen River Watershed of the borderlands of China, Korea and Russia, as well as the surrounding administrative areas of China's Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, Russia's maritime province of Primorsky Territory, and the DPR Korea's North Hamgyong Province and the coastal Rajin-Sonbong Economic and Trade Zone. The Tumen River Watershed is a strategic and globally-significant international waters system, but it has been ecologically in crisis for more than twenty years, with water pollution and sedimentation being the principal causes of the present damage to the environment in the area. Together, these two sources pose the biggest threat to the region's rich but endangered biodiversity and highly-sensitive internationally-significant eco-systems and wetlands which are found downstream in border and coastal areas, especially in Russian territory and offshore marine waters. Rare and endemic species that depend upon the area for survival include the Siberian Tiger, the Far Eastern Leopard, several species of crane and a rich variety of marine communities. The Tumen River Area: Historical Source of Conflict At this stage it is important to note that this same watershed area and the wider areas known as the Tumen River Economic Development Area (TREDA) have been a source of historical animosity, ethnic and civilisational divides, and conflict, in the centre of one of the tensest and most highly militarised parts of the world. The general concern is that environmental threats along the international waterways and downstream near the coast have the potential to create new disputes and conflicts, some involving border demarcation issues. These have occurred as recent as 1992-97, and prevented or delayed trans-border or regional cooperation arrangements. Our concern now is that they still have the potential to disrupt regional cooperation programmes again, including those aimed at reducing pollution and damage to eco-systems. It is therefore worthwhile briefly revisiting the main conflicts that took place in the area as they serve to remind us that this area has been a flashpoint in international relations and an area of instability and tension throughout most of this century. These conflicts include:
It was only in the 1990s that a cautious easing of international and trans-boundary tension took place in Northeast Asia. This included the withdrawal of military forces from the border areas of China and Russia in 1990-1992; the opening of the tri-border area to travel, trade and investment and experimentation with new border economic zones and industrial estates; and the establishment of the Tumen River Area Development Programme (TRADP) by the five mainland Northeastern countries under the sponsorship of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The Extent of the Environmental Threat in the Tumen River Area The Tumen River Watershed, with an area of 33,000 sq. km, is in crisis, as industrial, urban, agricultural, and other sources of water pollution have rendered the river biologically dead. No communities in any country along the river have been able to use the river for drinking purposes in the past thirty years. In 80% of the river's mainstream, the water quality of the river is so poor that it is categorised as unfit for even industrial and agricultural purposes, especially during periods of low water flow. Four dominant types of pollution prevail in the watershed: organic matter (chemical oxygen demand or COD), ammonia nitrogen, suspended solids, and pesticides. High concentrations of hazardous materials (particularly chromium, lead, arsenic and cadmium) and toxic organic substances (such as phenol) exist throughout the water system. As a result, water pollution has inflicted serious damage and imposed considerable costs on downstream industrial activities, municipal water systems, irrigated areas, fisheries, and marine and coastal areas. Above all, high levels of siltation and concentrations of heavy metals, DDT and other toxic pollutants are found at the mouth of the Tumen River and in marine areas north and south of the border river, threatening highly-sensitive eco-systems. Primorsky Territory in Russia, with its extensive wetlands, marine reserves and habitats of highly-endangered species, is seen as the principal "victim". Sources of Pollution by Location China is responsible for 90% of this pollution, reflecting in part the fact that 70% of the watershed is located in Yanbian Prefecture, China, but mainly reflecting Yanbian's larger urban population and industrial capacity and its faster-growing urbanisation and industrial growth rate. The DPRK, which has 29% of the area of the Tumen River Watershed, is responsible for the balance of pollution (10%). Most of the DPRK pollution activities can be sourced to sedimentation from the tailings and mineral separation waste water of the large Musan iron mine located on North Hamgyong Province's border with China. This mining source, however, has been declining in recent years in response to Korean remedial measures, and as a result of declining mine output, caused by power shortages and the downturn in the DPRK's heavy industry sector over the past seven years. Sources of Pollutants In the late-1990s,
63% of the total pollutants discharged into the Tumen River Watershed
on the Chinese side originated from industrial emissions, and 37% of pollutants
originated from urban domestic sewage discharge. This proportion is changing,
however, as untreated domestic sewage discharge is rising fast, in line
with expanding urbanisation in all key cities in Yanbian (currently, no
city in the Tumen River Watershed has sewage treatment facilities, and
the two plants in Yanji and Hunchun planned for the future will only be
able to handle a small percentage of the total volume of sewage being
discharged into the Tumen watershed). If continued unchecked, untreated
sewage discharge will double by the year 2010, and well before this, will
become the dominant pollutant in the watershed. The extent of the threat
can be shown in the case of the Yanbian capital of Yanji City, with a
population of 350,000. It is officially estimated that the volume of untreated
sewage discharge in ten years time from this city will be ten times the
river flow in the dry low season (winter). Of the industrial pollutants discharged into the watershed in the late-1990s, 95% were from the paper pulp and chemical fibre industries, specifically China's two large-scale state-owned paper pulp mills at Kaishantun, and Shixian near Tumen City. These mills date back to Japanese colonial times in the 1930s, and have since expanded greatly with Russian and Chinese technology in the period 1956-1995. For sixty years, these mills, using their obsolete technology, have gone unchecked and poured large volumes of untreated discharge from the chemical pulping process directly into the Tumen River and its tributaries, creating an environmental nightmare. These mills have long evaded national environmental regulations and penalties by arguing an inability to pay owing to their loss-making status as state enterprises. Because of their national importance and owing to the dependence of two large cities and large-scale (mainly Chinese-Korean ethnic minority) employment on their operation, the national and local authorities have allowed them to continue production. Recently, however, both mills have had part of their operations upgraded, and part of their effluent is now treated or further processed. In Kaishantun's case, the recovery of lignosulphates under joint venture arrangements with a Norwegain partner reduced monitored COD levels since 1997 by five times to levels approaching national standards (350 ppm). In Shixian's case, following company restructure, a new effluent treatment facility costing $US 6 million was installed in 1999-2000 under stringent 1997 Central Government (State Environment Protection Agency) clean-up directives, which gave all pulp mills in China three years to reduce effluent discharge levels to national standards or face forced closure. Kaishantun, which comes under a different administration, is planning a similar recycling and waste water treatment plant. However, the mill has asked the Central Government to grant an extension of one year (to the end of 2001) on the grounds that it is a very large state employer of national minorities (70% of the workforce is made up of ethnic Koreans), to enable it to identify and finalise funding and install the necessary treatment facilities, which are estimated to cost $US 17 million. This is by no means an easy task given that this large state-run mill has been unable to generate sufficient revenue to pay its workforce for the past year. Nevertheless, measures taken since 1997 have significantly reduced monitored water pollution from these two mills, and were a major step forward in the overall control of industrial pollutants in the Tumen River. The Consequences of Pollution on Downstream Communities and Eco-Systems However, overall pollution in the river remains serious and has not declined, as new smaller industries on the Chinese side, many in the private sector, discharge effluent direct into the river, and as urban sewage discharge continues to rise at an alarming rate. This has given rise to serious domestic costs, as industries incurred significant treatment costs and urban areas relied more on ground water or the construction of expensive catchments for clean water. By a combination of vastly-reduced levels of oxygen, and the presence of high levels of toxic substances, sedimentation and suspended solids, the once-flourishing fishing industry in the river by 1992 had been decimated. The Tumen River, being the most southern of the salmon spawning rivers along the Northeast Asian coastline, also lost this capacity as salmon were no longer capable of surviving in the river. Similarly, and for over a longer period, these same pollutants had gradually reduced agricultural yields and increased costs, as soil erosion, sedimentation and mine tailings clogged irrigation pumps and channels in areas fed by the river. The downstream and coastal effects of pollution and siltation in the Tumen River are of even greater concern to environmentalists and local politicians, for highly sensitive globally-important eco-systems at the estuary of the river are threatened by this pollution. Extensive wetlands, marine reserves and other valuable eco-systems and habitats for highly endangered species on both sides of the estuary have been under constant threat for more than two decades. The area also contains many remarkable places of unspoilt natural beauty, including rugged mountains, stunning beaches and coastline, and clear clean rivers (other than the Tumen) that provide habitat for one of the world's most biologically diverse community of plants, animals, birds and fish. Home to Siberian Tigers and Far Eastern Leopards, the area retains animals and forests long since vanished from the rest of Asia. The unique significance of this coastal area is that coastal currents, the north-flowing Korean Current mass and the south-flowing Primorye Current mass, interact to produce summertime cyclonic turnovers in Peter the Great Bay and specifically in the vicinity of Posyet-Zarubino and the Tumen River. This creates marine conditions favouring high productivity and high levels of biodiversity (with over 2,000 species of marine invertibrates). However, as industrial and urban growth expanded considerably on the Chinese side over the past decade, this threat accelerated, especially from the bio-accumulation of pesticides in species on Russian territory. The major consequences related to biodiversity loss have already shown up beyond the mouth of the Tumen River. Warning signs are already present in the marine eco-systems of Peter the Great Bay and its inlets and national marine reserves on the Russian side. Tumors and carcinomas on fish and crab are well above normal levels, as are parasite levels and physical irregularities (to the spine, gills and kidneys of fish), also giving rise to behavioral changes in some species. These problems were found in 20% of marine species surveyed by Russian scientists in the Russian Far Eastern State Marine Reserve closest to the Tumen River as recent as 1997-1998. Also of concern are adverse biological effects of pesticides from China on the important and highly-productive mariculture industry (scallops, mussels, oysters and sea urchins) in Expedition Bay near Posiet, and on birds and seabird colonies in the nearby Khasan Wetlands, which stretches for 200 sq. km from the northern shore of the Tumen Estuary. The importance of the concern over marine pollution is that Peter the Great Bay, with its extensive sheltered bays, is the main spawning and nursery grounds for fish populations north and south along the coast and within the East Sea/Sea of Japan. The dangers of the biological effects (through the food chain) of river contaminants and extraordinary flooding of the wetlands by polluted river water on Russia's extensive Khasan Wetlands, have been highlighted for a decade by Russian scientists, NGOs and politicians. To a lesser extent, the DPRK's largest wetland area associated with its two largest lakes, Sobonpo and Manpo, which are located in the same ancient estuary area of the Tumen River to the south, are facing the same dangers. The Khasan Wetlands, in particular, is one of the most important staging sites and breeding areas in one of the four great migratory bird flyways in the world, the East Asian/Australasian Flyway. The area meets the criteria for the Ramsar Convention for the protection of wetland species, supporting over 300 bird species on their way to and from Mongolia and Siberia, 30 of which are globally-threatened. Ten percent of the world's population of Red-Crowned Crane and large numbers of White-Naped Crane are found at the Khasan Wetlands, and 100,000 seabirds and up to 200,000 waterbirds (geese, duck, waders) breed in the area annually. Sedimentation and Flooding: Threats to Security The threat of flooding, and problems of sedimentation from Chinese plans for quarrying, dredging and construction near the river and border, was seen as potentially capable of altering the course of the international waterway during peak summer flood time or during once in every 10-15 year record flood levels, endangering Russian sovereignty and creating new border demarcation problems. The DPRK also began to complain about siltation and changes in the lower course of the river opposite Russia during peak flood season where tracts of Korean territory and agricultural lands had been annually swept out to sea. Border changes nearly happened in August 1986, when record floodwaters covered the Khasan Wetlands in polluted waters, and the Tumen River altered course through Russian territory. At this time, a new river channel was gouged along an ancient bed of the river in the Tumen River Delta, emptying its polluted discharge into Expedition Bay near Posiet. For a week there was danger that this would lead to the permanent loss of sovereign Russian land with an area of 200 sq. km.to China or the DPRK, to the destruction of invaluable wetlands and bird colonies, and to irreparable damage to the entire eco-system including marine reserves and nearby fishing and mariculture industries. Fortunately, the waters receded and the Tumen River returned to its old channel. But Russian politicians, the scientific community and the local population of Khasan District did not forget the potential of this threat. Later, in 1992-95, Chinese construction work on embankments and roads along the lower reaches of the river and alongside (within 20-50 metres) Russian territory, upset Vladivostok. This coincided with border re-alignments (1992-93) concluded between the Foreign Ministries of Moscow and Beijing in the same area without consultation with the Primorsky authorities in Vladivostok. When China, including the private sector, began openly planning to quarry the sandhills and dredge the river in 1994-95, followed shortly afterwards with a proposal to built a 400,000 tonne per annum river port at Fangchuan (aimed at the export of sand and other quarry materials) as part of a strategy to resurrect Jilin Province's old right of passage along the river to the sea, alarm signals rang louder in Vladivostok. The Russian NGO and scientific community, in response, warned against such development and highlighted the threat that dredging, siltation and breaches of embankments during extraordinary floodtime would have on the wetland eco-system, including the potential loss of Russian territory. This little-known issue became the centre of a major domestic political row in Primorsky Territory throughout the period 1992-97, which soon extended to Moscow (in which Russian President Yeltsin unsuccessfully sought the removal of Primorsky Governor Nazdratenko in April 1997), and between Moscow and Beijing. By this stage it had erupted into a border demarcation dispute in the Khasan Area, in which Vladivostok demanded that Moscow further revise the border concessions in the area that were given to China in 1992-93. These disputes disrupted the implementation of a range of trans-border and economic cooperative programmes under the TRADP, and slowed progress in regional economic cooperation until they were resolved (in Vladivostok's favour) through a final border revision agreement signed in November 1997 in Beijing. The disputes also clearly illustrate how international and tri-national disputes can have an environmental origin, or how border-located pollution, ecological, and biodiversity threats combine, fueled by historical animosities or careless national policies, to escalate tension among neighbouring countries. Mechanisms for Environmental Cooperation in the Tumen River Area The TRADP member countries, at the time of concluding their agreement to establish the Tumen institutional arrangements for regional economic cooperation at the United Nations in December 1995, also recognised that they must develop a long term regional framework for dealing with cross-border environmental degradation. Accordingly, they reached agreement to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Environmental Principles that would govern regional cooperation in the Tumen River Area among member countries. This MOU could also become a model for a framework aimed at resolving environmental conflicts in the wider areas of East/Northeast Asia. The TRADP MOU addressed ways in which member countries could cooperate and coordinate with each other to protect the environment of the region, and specifically agreed on the following measures:
In parallel to the MOU, member countries also sought support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in 1995 for the preparation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the region, focussing on the region's international waters and biodiversity conservation needs. This process, in which UNDP worked with the GEF Council in Washington DC, took five years to develop, and involved fact-finding missions to the region, international conferences, planning, costings, documentation and countless approvals. It finally resulted in a $US 5 million GEF-funded 2.5 year programme, based in Beijing, which commenced in July 2000. The GEF funding will provide the means for pursuing the research and strategies necessary for strengthening the MOU in the two sectors mentioned above. It is also aimed at creating an effective investment programme of waste discharge reduction in key polluting enterprises and urban areas (by identifying priority investment projects), and in developing plans to establish biodiversity conservation projects including trans-boundary national parks and ecological corridors. The GEF programme is structured in such a way that, several years later, will allow these key investment projects to be funded in cooperation with the international financial institutions (IFI) and other banks and donors, and the local and national authorities, under cost-sharing arrangements. The $ 5 million GEF/SAP phase will include the following activities:
In contrast to the GEF project, the MOU mechanism is more enduring, covers the full range of environmental threats, focuses on cooperative programmes to alleviate environmental problems, and is supported by a TRADP Working Group on the Environment. Membership of the Working Group is made up of government TRADP and environment representatives from the five member countries, but provides no formal membership arrangements for NGOs, the academic and scientific community, and industry and commerce, although some have, on occasions, been invited as observers. There have been two meetings of this Working Group, both in Vladivostok, in May 1997 and September 1998, the first to identify the principal problems or threats, determine the needs of the region and local and national authorities, and develop support for the Tumen GEF programme and its preparatory activities. The second workshop, building on the needs of the countries as identified at the first workshop and in subsequent exchanges, agreed on a draft TRADP Environment Action Plan, which consisted of four main elements (a number of projects have been suggested for each, aimed at addressing specific aspects of regional cooperation):
This includes the standardisation of monitoring procedures, enhanced public awareness of trans-boundary impact, research on selected eco-systems, biodiversity habitats, and soil/land degradation, preparation of a Red Data Book on endangered species, establishment of an environment networking system, establishment of international wetland reserves in the Tumen Estuary Area, establishment of recovery programmes for endangered species including trans-boundary reserves and ecological corridors, entry of sensitive trans-boundary eco-systems into international conventions and network arrangements (such as the Ramsar Convention and the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve system) and establishment of a Geographic Information System (GIS). Ideally, planning for these should be coordinated with the GEF diagnostic analysis of international waters and biodiversity and the GEF/SAP
This includes establishment of new institutional arrangements for cross-border preventative activities for the protection of the environment and biodiversity habitats, harmonisation of EIA procedures, and establishment of standards which address trans-border effects, promotion of cleaner production systems, and crisis management network (for flood warnings, oil spills, hazardous waste, forest fires, etc), tougher approach to enforcement of environmental regulations, and ultimately the introduction of economic instruments (polluter pays principle) to protect the environment
This includes the exchange of experiences, environmental standards that reflect regional considerations, case studies, demonstration projects, and support to establish and strengthen local environment centres and networks (to be coordinated with GEF training). Of critical and priority importance would be the establishment of properly-equipped Environmental Protection Centre in the DPRK's Rajin-Sonbong Zone (currently there is no credible environmental protection body in the zone, and without one, the DPRK would be unable to participate in any joint activities), and
This includes donor support mobilization, establishment of environmental funds, funding of feasibility studies, and encouragement of state, IFI and private sector investment in wastewater treatment, energy conservation, nature reserve management, and eco-tourism In its busy early phase, 1997-98, activities under the MOU and the Working Group included an early-stage promotion and negotiation programme for project funding (especially from the ROK and the US), preparation of a roster of environmental experts in the region, a successful joint Sino-Russian-American survey of the tiger and leopard populations and the state of their habitats on the Chinese side (Jilin Province) of the Sino-Russian border, and the preparation of an international standard Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Hunchun Border Economic Cooperation Zone in Yanbian Prefecture. It was envisaged that the EIA, based on World Bank standards, would form a model for evaluating the impact of other large projects and development zones in other parts of the Tumen region. Since 1998, however, no other activities were initiated through the Tumen Secretariat in Beijing, in part due to financial limitations under UNDP's support programme for TRADP. Currently, the Tumen MOU is a simple framework for regional cooperation. Little substance in the way of preventative, problem-solving or issue-related institutional arrangements has been added since its signing although work towards this commenced in 1997-98. However, no activities or projects under its auspices were organised in 1999-2000, and not one of the proposed elements or cooperative projects under the Working Group's draft Action Plan had been elaborated, funded or implemented since September 1998. Targeted mobilisation of funds for specific projects ceased (other than the GEF/SAP, which was handled independently of the MOU and the Tumen Secretariat), expert-level sub-groups failed to materialise, and national project submissions for funding made in 1997-98 were not followed-up. The irregular pattern of meetings and lack of follow-up after the second Working Group soon led to disappointment, resulting in a decline in member states' interest in the coordination and project elements under the MOU, and indeed under under the TRADP as a whole. Currently, the biggest challenge facing the MOU's implementation is finding a way to re-activate TRADP member country interest in its cooperative mechanisms, and restore the level of involvement and enthusiasm by member states that prevailed in 1997-98. The commencement of the Tumen GEF Project in July 2000 may go part of the way towards re-activating interest and providing some resources. However, the GEF Project and the TRADP MOU also have quite different mandates, objectives, and time horizons. Progress in enhancing regional and trans-boundary environmental cooperation under the Tumen MOU is therefore likely to remain slow and uncertain unless a pro-active environmental programme under TRADP is re-commenced, addressing the following paramount issues:
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE TUMEN RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA AND NORTHEAST ASIA United Nations, New York, December 6 1995
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
