Those dire facts, drawn from the latest "Global Coral Reef Status Report," however, are serving as a springboard for devising strategies to save the world’s coral communities and, by extension, the thousands of marine species that rely on them. The best way to do this, many marine ecologists now maintain, is to focus on a reef’s ability to bounce back from hardship. Where ecologists once talked about saving species, habitats, and biodiversity in a tropical reef ecosystem, many now speak of preserving "resilience."

Nowhere is this approach to reef conservation being put through its paces more rigorously than along Australia’s Great Barrier Reef – dubbed by some the largest living thing on Earth. In fact, the GBR is a chain of 2,900 reefs stretching some 1,200 miles along Australia’s east coast. Slowly expanding its reach as sea levels have risen following the last ice age, the network covers just over 135,000 square miles of coastal ocean.

Beyond its immediate biological value, the reef system represents a ringing cash register for the state of Queensland. Tourism and related activities bring in roughly $1.2 billion (Australian; US$950 million) a year to the region. The reef network also serves as a buffer between the mainland and the high seas that accompany tropical cyclones.

The concern: As global warming heats the ocean surface, bleaching events will happen more often, giving reefs less time to recover – all other things being equal, Dr. Berkelmans and others say. Added to that stress, they say, is the destruction that would come from tropical cyclones, which are expected to grow more intense, if not more frequent, as global warming proceeds.

One potential offset to bleaching could be coral’s potential for adapting to warmer waters. Some coral communities have been able to survive warmer waters by embracing algae that are more tolerant of heat than their previous tenants, according to a team of scientists led by Andrew Baker, a researcher with the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation at Columbia University in New York. Their findings were reported in the journal Nature last August.

But there may be limits to how broadly these results apply, others say. Even without pressure from climate change, reefs also face pressure from overfishing, farm and ranch runoff, and soil erosion.

Last July,?after several years of debate and negotiation, Australia’s federal government took a significant step by declaring fully one-third of the reef a no-take zone – no fishing, capturing live fish, or collecting corals. Previously, no-take areas covered only about 5 percent of the reef.

At the same time, the state of Queensland adopted a program for reducing the silt and nutrients that flow onto the reef from rivers in the region. The silt can cut light and smother young coral before they can replenish a bleached area. The nutrients can lead to explosions of algae and Crown of Thorns starfish, which can turn healthy reefs into drab undersea barrens.

Having figured out the historical impact of silt from rivers (see sidebar), an AIMS team is embarking on a five-year project to pin down more precisely the biological effects of the nutrients and soil across broader reaches of the reef system.

As these scientists head to the reef to get a better handle on the factors that determine the GBR’s resilience, others are using those data to build models to forecast resilience.

For example, Scott Wooldridge is developing a "state of the reef" computer model at AIMS that will allow conservation managers to rank the resilience potential for different reefs or reef segments. The model has the potential for use worldwide. So far, he’s included three elements: adequate levels of grazing fish on the reef to keep algae at bay, water quality, and increased heat- tolerance among coral – which he acknowledges is the weakest link in the chain in terms of biological research.

The model points to some disturbing results. Australia – and specifically, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority – may have chosen the wrong approach when it set up its no-take areas, he says.

His preliminary results suggest that the northern third of the reef probably should get the most conservation attention. The park agency, by contrast, set aside ecologically representative areas scattered throughout the reef. That made sense at the time, Dr. Wooldridge says, given what scientists then knew. But the northern segment is more pristine and faces fewer stresses because fewer people live and visit there. While it will likely feel the bleaching effects of climate change more strongly at first than reef sections farther south, it still stands a good chance of surviving. Thus it will be able to provide the larvae that will ride prevailing currents south to reseed portions of the reef that are under greater multiple stresses.

It’s a controversial notion, Wooldridge acknowledges, and calls into question the strategy over which the government spent so much time and political capital.

"With proper management, you can still have a viable reef by 2050," he says. "But the implications are that we need to conserve more in the north."

Prior to the 1960s, most coffee was grown under the shade canopies of other plants in conditions not unlike natural tropical forests. These traditional coffee plantations harbored a wide range of plant diversity, and therefore provided valuable habitat for large numbers of migratory birds and other wildlife. The abundant flora and fauna also helped keep pests in check while providing a wide range of natural nutrients for the soil.

But over the last four decades, the growing popularity of coffee began to dictate the need for greater production, and coffee growers started clearing their land in order to grow higher yield coffee that thrives in direct sunlight. While financially productive, this sun-grown coffee takes a heavy toll on the environment, on wildlife, and on workers? health by eliminating the surrounding biodiversity and requiring heavy use of toxic fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides.

Among others, the Starbucks chain of coffee shops has been a recent innovator in trying to turn the situation around. In 1998 the company formed a partnership with Conservation International, a leading environmental non-profit, to encourage sustainable, shade-grown coffee production while also ensuring that small farmers and agricultural co-ops earn a living wage for their labors, a concept known as ?fair trade.? Starbucks? Organic Shade Grown Mexico, Decaf Shade Grown Mexico, and Conservation Colombia coffees are all grown in an ecologically sound manner that protects the surrounding natural environment and respects the economic needs of farmers.

Shade-grown brands are also becoming more widely available to those more inclined to brew their coffee at home. The Smithsonian?s National Zoo website features a handy listing of ?bird-friendly? coffee retailers (that is, bean sellers committed to shade-grown coffee only), searchable by zip code. The organization Rainforest Alliance, which also works to get the word out about coffee?s big footprint, certifies several brands, including Oriole Blend and Columbia Me?os de los Santos. And the website Coffee Review lists Green Mountain, Kaldi?s, Thanksgiving Coffee, New Harvest, Kaffe, Caf? Campesino and Coffee Tea Etc. as coffees that top the list in terms of pairing excellent taste with environmentally-responsible growing practices. Many of these brands are available at organic food specialty stores and at natural foods supermarkets like Whole Foods and Wild Oats.

Fannie Mae, the Congressionally chartered company that works with lenders to back mortgages for low and moderate income Americans, is the prime mover of ?green? mortgages through its Energy Efficient Mortgage (EEM) program. To qualify for the program, homeowners must either buy a new energy efficient home, or commit to upgrades of an existing home as recommended by an inspector certified through the Home Energy Rating System (HERS).

Such HERS inspections can run as much as $400, but the projected savings from energy efficiency are considered part of the borrower?s income and can help homebuyers qualify for larger mortgages. By increasing borrowing power, the EEM allows homeowners to fold the costs of energy efficiency into t?e total mortgage amount. Factors such as window efficiency, heating and cooling system efficiency, wall-to-window ratios, insulation levels and local climate–even the solar orientation of the home–determine a home?s HERS rating.

In a home that needs energy improvements, the HERS report will suggest specific improvements and estimate both the cost of the improvements and the expected energy savings. The cost of the energy improvements can be included in the homeowner?s mortgage, but is limited to 15 percent of the home?s value.

A borrower opting for new construction can qualify for an EEM if the home in question is to be built according to guidelines set by the Energy Star Builder Option Program, a project of the Environmental Protection Agency to encourage energy efficient building and design. Once construction on the new home is complete, a HERS inspection is conducted to determine the home?s energy efficiency, which will in turn dictate the specific terms of the EEM.

Eligible borrowers can obtain an EEM backed by Fannie Mae with as little as a three percent down payment. Detailed requirements for EEM qualification are available on the Fannie Mae website, which also posts a list of participating lending institutions from coast-to-coast.

Living in the rugged, mountainous landscapes of the Idaho Panhandle, northeastern Washington and British Columbia, the trans-boundary caribou are the last wild examples of their species to visit the continental United States. The South Selkirk population is one of about 13 herds that are remnants of a rapidly disappearing population that once spanned much of the northern U.S. A 2004 census reports a total of 1,669 mountain caribou, down from about 2,500 in the mid-1980s.

Mike Bader, a consultant for the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, says old-growth forests and lichen that caribou depend on have been threatened by human disturbance such as new roads, timber harvests and recreation. ?We simply have not protected enough habitat for them,? Bader says.

The herd lives in and around the Caribou Recovery Zone, an area set aside by the federal government when the species was listed as endangered in 1984. At that time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) drafted the Selkirk Caribou Recovery Plan, which collared and transplanted caribou into Washington from Canadian herds and monitored their survival, says Jon Almack, a USFWS research biologist who has worked with the herd for nine years.

Almack says the most recent transplant of 43 caribou did not result in a self-sufficient population, with most animals dying from poachers, predators and unhealthy habitat. More than half of the 2,200 square-mile recovery zone is in British Columbia, under a provincial administration that supports increased logging in recovery zones, making it difficult to maintain stable habitats, he says.

?It is very, very difficult to bring any species back from the brink of extinction,? says Almack. ?This population could be down to 20 and we won?t have a chance in hell to bring them back again.? With such low survival rates, British Columbia?s First Nations tribes are reluctant to send more caribou, curbing such efforts for now, says Almack.

Joe Scott, the international programs director for the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, which joins seven other Canadian and American conservation groups in the Mountain Caribou Project, says, ?Every loss of one of these animals is a loss to all of us as stewards of this planet. And when we lose a piece of the natural world, we impoverish ourselves.?

MacLeod is a big man, but he has plenty of headroom inside Hull Wind I, whose 164-foot-tall tower casts a shadow over the football field at Hull High School. A ladder at ground height leads straight up into blackness. The room is full of the computers that operate the turbine, lots of important-looking controls, and an "emergency stop" button we visitors have to be careful not to bump.

A digital readout offers the speed of the 154-foot-diameter rotor (28.7 revolutions for minute) and the turbine’s generated power since it was installed in December of 2001: 5,052,741 kilowatt hours. That’s in excess of five million kilowatts, more than enough reason for Hull to hold a celebration honoring the turbine. The town is so pleased with its wind power generation that it’s adding a second, much bigger unit.

MacLeod gestures out past Windmill Point across the bay, with the city of Boston visible in the distance. "We intend to have 100 percent renewably generated powe? in Hull," he said. "Our next step is the installation of a 1.8-megawatt turbine at the town landfill, which we hope to have up and running by the end of the summer. Then, by 2008, we want to install four offshore turbines totaling 12 megawatts."

There are 40 towns in Massachusetts that have municipally owned electric utilities, a situation that is ideal for public wind power. Towns like Hull can generate a kilowatt of electricity for 3.4 cents, but because of production tax credits and tradable renewable energy certificates (RECs), it takes in 6.3 cents. "It’s a cash cow," MacLeod said. The electricity generated goes straight into the town’s own grid, replacing power that would cost eight cents per kilowatt hour if it were purchased in the energy market.

"We get the financial benefit, plus because it’s a green source of energy the turbine becomes a focus of goodwill for the town," says Hull selectwoman Joan Meschino. Everyone in town will tell you that the wind turbine has not killed a single bird, at least according to the regular checks by the town’s science students. Neighbors are supportive, too, and you can hardly hear the turbine even when you’re standing right under it.

Given the numbers, it’s not surprising that many towns in the state are looking at municipal wind power. Also visiting Hull was Kevin Greely, a member of the town of Arlington’s board of selectmen. Arlington, near Cambridge and 26 miles from Hull, has hillsides that supporters think can generate enough wind to support a turbine. "It’s impressive what they’ve done here in Hull," Greely said. "We want to move forward, and our next step is a wind analysis to see if a project is feasible."

Bill Ford, manager of Ipswitch’s municipal electricity plant, says his town has already done a wind assessment, and results showed promising 11.5-mile-per-hour winds. The town is planning to install a 1.5-megawatt turbine, with operations set to begin in 2006. "I’ve gotten nothing but positive comments on our website and from people who stop me on the street," Ford said. "Dozens have come up to me to say they’re supportive." His experience is in sharp contrast to the reception shown the 130-turbine offshore Cape Wind Project. In Hyannis, a vocal group of opponents under the banner of the well-heeled Alliance to Save Nantucket Sound is pulling out all the stops. The alliance has powerful allies in Senators Ted Kennedy and John Warner, Governor Mitt Romney, and other prominent politicians. Lawsuits are planned if the Army Corps of Engineers grants Cape Wind an operating permit. That process was recently delayed even further, since the Environmental Protection Agency has called for additional environmental review. The first report is "inadequate," argues the agency.

The Hull project would never have happened were it not for the dedicated work of volunteers Andrew Stern (who passed out t-shirts and buttons that read "Hull-E-Luia! I Visited the Windmill in Hull, Mass.") and Malcolm Brown, a retired philosophy professor and member of the Hull Municipal Light Board. Brown sums up what makes Hull Wind work: "The Hull experience shows it is easier to win approval for wind projects if the benefits are enjoyed close to home, flowing to the local residents transparently and directly. This way the project is ours, not theirs. We’re the investors and we’re the beneficiaries."

"We were able to convince the EU, Norway and Switzerland that we need immediate action," said Claudia McMurray, leader of the U.S. delegation. "We can get started on this quickly, whereas agreeing a treaty could take years; but we do have other language saying we will look at this again after a period of time."

Not surprisingly, European delegates accuse the U.S. of railroading the proceedings, which were organized by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to hammer out a binding international agreement, and diluting the outcome accordingly.

One European delegate who spoke under the condition of anonymity told reporters that the U.S. "does not like binding treaties. It generally hates bureaucracy [and] it fears that such a move would weaken its industries."

While mercury is a naturally occurring element in the environment, industrial activities?especially coal-fired power generation?can cause build-ups of the toxic pollutant to unsafe levels. The effects of mercury contamination can cause serious health problems for pregnant women and children, not to mention wildlife.

With bigger majorities in both the House and Senate, though, Republicans have the best chance to get a drilling bill through since 1995, when they passed an ANWR drilling bill only to be stymied by President Clinton’s veto. Despite their powerful position, though, Republican Congressional leaders are divided on when, where and how to present an ANWR drilling proposal. The President’s omnibus energy bill died on the vine last year due to the inclusion of ANWR drilling.

Congressman Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who chairs the House committee writing the new version of the energy bill, says he would rather keep ANWR drilling out of his bill so as to increase its chances of passage later this session. But other influential House Republicans, including majority leader Tom Delay of Texas, have labeled ANWR an important part of the energy bill, and are vowing to include it in the final version.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans fear they won’t have the 60 votes needed to cut off a promised Democratic filibuster. One way around this would be for Republicans to add an ANWR drilling provision to the budget resolution, which maps out how Congress plans to spend its money over the following year. The budget resolution cannot be filibustered and needs only 51 votes to pass. But last year Congress failed to pass an even less contentious budget resolution due to lack of consensus on spending priorities.

While Congressional positioning on ANWR is in the spotlight right now, environmentalists are quietly cheering on BP, ConocoPhillips and ChevronTexaco for pulling out of A?ctic Power, the lobbying group formed to promote oil drilling in ANWR. Only ExxonMobil remains an active member and funder of the initiative, leaving many to wonder why the White House is so keen on scratching its ANWR itch when the industry that stands to gain the most shows relatively little interest.

Belovezhskaya Pushcha lies at the border of Poland and Belarus. It has been protected since 14th century. Its area now makes 87,000 hectares. The average age of its trees is over 100 years, going up to 250-350 years in some places. Pushcha also counts over a thousand of 300-600 year-old giant trees. The flora of the unique area is represented by over 2,000 species, the fauna ? by over 11,000 species. Living creatures that have disappeared in most of Europe find here their home. More than 150 rare species are listed in the Belarusian Red Data Book, including such valuable ones as the Bison, Lynx, Badger, White-tailed eagle, Shorttoed Eagle, Black stork, Grey crane, Great grey owl, Eagle owl, Three-toed Woodpecker, Aquatic Warbler, Silver fir, durmast, Lilium martagon, Astrantia major, etc. Belovezhskaya Pushcha provides a habitat for one of the largest b?son populations in the world (about 300 animals).

In 1994, the Property Management Department of the Belarusian President (PPMD) took control over the unique area. The new administration of the National Park had nothing to do with conservation work and wildlife science in the famous forest. It rather considered its economical value, unleashing an intensive commercialization there. The profit was gained by various means ? by raring cattle, enlarging farming fields, starting trade, putting up a production of birch juice, mushrooms, berries and herbs, and increasing a quota for commercial hunting. But the drastic step in the development of the National Park was made at the end of the 90s by building up sawmills. The biggest mill, which could process a much higher volume of wood than the forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha could supply, appeared in the village of Kamenyuki, the administrative centre of the National Park. High-performance wood-processing equipment for it was purchased in Germany for over $1.5 million. Generations of local people took care to save the primeval forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha that is valuable for abundance of ancient organisms. The organisms can be saved only if the felling of the forest is limited and the rules of forest conservation are observed. All this is a thing of the past now.

The National Park faced economical hardships to call in a credit for the costly wood-processing equipment, and, as a solution to all that, a new director of the National Park, an expert in wood-processing, was appointed in 2001. This led to a large-scale felling in the forest, with ecological problems such as bark beetle infestation often used as a cover-up for it. The felling rather deteriorated the problems than helped do away with them. The felling, timber processing and wood sale reached huge scales at present. Sawmill are equipped by new machines, additional benches for wood processing are purchased. Up to 250,000 cubic metres of wood a year (nearly 800 hectares of the forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha) is harvested at present, which is an impressive figure comparing with 70,000 cubic metres of wood in the past. The scope of the harvesting tells that it is commercialized and the sanitary issue, even though Pushcha has recently seen Bark beetle infestations, is not what is behind it. The very build-up of pro sanitary felling that followed the erection of the sawmills seems to be telling that this is the case. The sanitary issue is just a convenient excuse for the massive commercial felling that the present administration of the National Park has virtually been using to make money out of the unique forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha.

The felling as well as other commercial-driven activities, which often infringe national and international law and conventions ratified by Belarus, prove the indifference the present administration of the National Park has as regards the faith of Belovezhskaya Pushcha. To protect the unique forest and bring an end to the illegal and secret felling, an international campaign was launched in 2003. It helped stop a large scale felling of living forest.

However, all in all, the situation in Belovezhskaya Pushcha did not improve for the better. The massive ?sanitary? felling went on. The sawmill in the village of Kamenyuki works almost round the clock. Moreover, another disturbing development has been seen since 2003 ? that is man-made forest plantations. Every year the area of the plantations grows larger, which means that the area of the primeval primary forest dwindles correspondently. It means the wild reserved forest is replaced by man-made one which is less valuable. The administration does not listen to ecologists, ecological and conservation methods are ignored. As a result, the wilderness of Belovezhskaya Pushcha disappears.

Numerous violations of law and ecological science are still topical for the National Park. The public cannot monitor the economic activities there. Many violations are covered up by a higher authority. Workers of the Park are sa?ked if they protest against it. The National Park itself has become a place for recreation and entertainment of authorities? officials and their kin (the government residence is known to be there). As if the wool over people?s eyes, the residence of Santa Claus was built in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. It is the residence rather than the primeval forest and unique wildlife that is advertised for tourists today.

The concerns are that the ancient and unique forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha is gradually transformed into one of thousands of commonly found in Europe commercial forestries. The transformation is irreversible? Felled areas and man-made forest plantations will not be able to substitute the wilderness, uniqueness and originality of the protected wood. The Belovezhskaya Pushcha Forest becomes an ordinary ?forest? area. But the latest figures show that the volume of felling in 2005 is going to be two times higher?.

Over the course of several years, Belarusian public organizations and activists have been trying to convince the authorities to stop the destruction and environmental degradation of the Europe?s last primeval forest. The Park?s administration reacted to this by virtually making its activity secret. Public activists and independent ecologists can hardly access the area of the National Park. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the PPMD shut their eyes on it and do not react positively to allow the public control. The only way to find out information on the state of affairs in the Park is through reconnaissance. Watchdogs on conservation that arrive to Belovezhskaya Pushcha look all like ?orchestrated?. They seem to overlook the facts of ecological problems. Even the last year?s enlargement of the strictly reserved zone of the forest was rather prompted by the work of the UNESCO, and was more for diverting the public?s attention from problems of the National Park rather than a noble act to conserve the wilderness area.

Alongside this, there is also pressure on reporters, scientists and nature protection activists who try to be independent in their coverage of the situation in the National Park. State-run newspapers tend to present only one side of the story, which focuses on ideologically-weighed (dis)information on real and surreal achievements of the administration of the Park, while the publishing true-fact articles are impossible. Belarus has become an outpost of political systems with strong presidential power. President Alexander Lukashenko exercises virtually a sole control over the government, and first of all, over the work of the PPMD. He must be aware of the real situation in the National Park, as over the last three years there have been lots of materials about it in the press, letters both to him and high government officials and scandals around an illegal activity of the Park?s administration. Moreover, he has the power and administrative resources to know everything first hand, if he wants. President has repeatedly called himself a fighter against corruption and crime. The last year was called a year of ?getting things put in order?. Thanks to it, the ex-head of the PPMD Galina Zhuravkova was arrested and condemned to prison. She was who appointed the present administration of the National Park ?Belovezhskaya Pushcha? that, being under her direct leading, started to provide a rough policy to destroy the protected forest and to fire a ftaff from the Park. After Mrs Zhuravkova?s arrest, president ordered ?to burn out all dirty from the PPMD, from top to bottom, in the most rigid ?red-hot iron? form. Although, the ecological situation in the National Park is getting worse and those responsible for it are not made to answer for it. All this makes the Belarusians grow doubtful that the president gets all-rounded information on the matter, or is misinformed by the administration of the Park. The people get also more assured that he is responsible the policy on destruction of the unique reserved forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha, agrees and covers to provide the present ?black? busin?ss in this sacred wood provided by plotters from the administration of the National Park.

In this regard, we ought to launch an international campaign to protect the Belarusian part of Belovezhskaya Pushcha. We call on all good-will people to help our Belarusian colleagues protect this sacred wilderness area. The Belarusians succeeded in winning one campaign last year, a campaign to enlarge the strictly reserved zone and the World Heritage Site. Experts of the UNESCO helped them with it. Also, two years ago, thanks to an international ?fax? campaign organized by our coalition and supported by international ecologists, there could stop massive and illegal felling of living protected forest. We believe we can win this time. This is the true cause and God helps us about it. The forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha belongs to the world and not to a number of high-ranked officials. Belovezhskaya Pushcha belongs to all people, and we will protect it.

WE CALL ON GOOD-WILL PEOPLE TO HELP THE BELARUSIANS SAVE THE FOREST OF BELOVEZHSKAYA PUSHCHA FROM BARBARIC EXPLOITATION BY SENDING YOUR LETTERS AND FAXES TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS, ALEXANDER GRIGORIEVICH LUKASHENKO. If you do not have a fax, you can send you letter to his email address.

It will be wished if you can also send a copy of your letter to the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Protection, Khoruzhyk Leonty.

********

If you can, please let know mass media and your colleagues about this information. Also, please we do ask you to forward e-copies of your letters to the ecological group ?Pechenegi? at [email]pecheneg@ic.kharkov.ua[/email] .

You can find out more about the campaign to protect the forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha at the Web site of the International Socio-Ecological Union at [url=http://www.seu.ru/projects/belovezha/,]http://www.seu.ru/projects/belovezha/,[/url] or by writing to the initiators of the campaign. Detailed information on the situation in the National Park ?Belovezhskaya Pushcha? can be found at the Web site ?Belovezhskaya Pushcha ? 21st Century? at [url=http://bp21.org.by/ru/ff/]http://bp21.org.by/ru/ff/[/url]

We hope that, if we stand together, we can protect and save the forest of Belovezhskaya Pushcha.

Ukrainian coalition ?For Wildlife?, the International Socio-Ecological Union:
Sergey Shaparenko, the Ecological group ?Pechenegi? ? [email]pecheneg@ic.kharkov.ua[/email]
Vladimir Boreyko, the Kiev ecological and cultural centre ? [email]kekz@carrier.kiev.ua[/email], [email]borey@alfacom.net[/email]
Olga Berlova, the International Socio-Ecological Union ? [email]seupress@seu.ru[/email]

On May 5, 2004, Ecopravo-Lviv (EPL) submitted a communication to the Committee alleging non-compliance by Ukraine with its obligations under Aarhus Convention. The communication concerned a proposal to construct a navigation canal in the Danube Delta passing through an internationally recognized wetlands area.

On February 18, 2005, the Committee found that by failing to provide for public participation required by article 6 of the Aarhus Convention, Ukraine was not in compliance with article 6. The Committee also found that by failing to ensure that information was provided by the responsible public authorities upon request, Ukraine was not in compliance with article 4 of
the Convention.

In addition, the Committee found that lack of clarity with regard to public participation requirements in environmental impact assessment and environmental decision-making procedure on projects indicate the absence of a clear, transparent and consistent framework for implementation of the Convention and constitute non-compliance with general obligation provided by article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee adopted several recommendations. These recommendations request Ukraine to bring its legislation and practice into compliance with the provisions of the Convention. In addition, Ukraine is requested to submit a strategy (including time-schedule) for transposing the Convention?s provisions into the national law and developing practical mechanisms and implementing legislation that sets out clear procedures for implementation of various requirements under the Convention. The recommendations will be considered by the Meeting of the Parties to the Convention in Almaty (Kazakhstan) in May, 2005.

The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights and imposes on Parties and public authorities obligations regarding access to information and public participation and access to justice. The subject of the Aarhus Convention goes to the heart of the relationship between people and governments. The Convention is not only an environmental agreement, it is also a Convention
about government accountability, transparency and responsiveness. See: [url=http://www.unece.org/env/pp/]http://www.unece.org/env/pp/[/url]

More about Danube canal case: [url=http://epl.org.ua/a_cases_Danube_C.htm]http://epl.org.ua/a_cases_Danube_C.htm[/url]
More about EPL: [url=http://www.epl.org.ua/eng/]http://www.epl.org.ua/eng/[/url]

The Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania (PATRIR) is a non-governmental organization founded in March 2001. It uses democratic and participatory processes in order to peacefully transform conflicts and human rights violations. It also promotes sustainable development, diversity and environmental protection.

Gabriel Resources (TSX: GBU) is a junior Canadian mining company which, via RMGC, intends to realize Europe’s largest open-cast mining development in Rosia Montana. The project entails, amongst other, the involuntary resettlement of over 2000 people as well as the destruction of unique archaeological and natural sites. From its onset the development has been beleaguered by scandals, operational problems and vehement local, national and international opposition. The movement to save Rosia Montana has given rise to Romania’s largest civil society coalition; comprising the support of numerous NGOs, universities, academic institutions, churches, personalities and opinion leaders.

As RMGC is desperately trying to obtain its’ environmental license it needs to try appeasing civil society opinion which also involves so-called ?constructive dialogues’ with civil society leaders. PATRIR’s contribution to the save Rosia Montana campaign consisted of a team of volunteers who, for over two years, regularly stayed in Rosia Montana and were actively involved in all of the movement’s aspects. An important policy amongst all involved partners has been to?only talk to the mining company during official and legally constituted meetings; such as public consultations. The ?Save Rosia Montana’ team’s separation is due to senior PATRIR staff holding private meetings with representatives of Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (RMGC) and Gabriel Resources.

?Mining companies all over the world are using these kind of tactics to green-wash their dirty projects and to portray those refusing to engage in ?constructive’ dialogue as ?fundamentalists.’ Truth is that meeting RMGC only consists of listening to their monologue,? says Bogdan Bindea of Greenpeace CEE.

?RMGC has no social license; neither in Rosia Montana or in Romania. Therefore the only way out is for them to fake dialogue and social responsibility,? says Eugen David, president of Alburnus Maior.

?The movement is a colorful and creative action built on values such as integrity and responsibility. It is obvious that we will continue to support and work with those who defend such values,? comments Luminitia Dejeu of Mindbomb’s ?Save Rosia Montana’ working group.

?Our decision to leave will only make us stronger. Just as is the case with the struggle to save Rosia Montana: if you stand up for what you believe in, you will win,? concludes Tudor Bradatan from the ?Save Rosia Montana’ team.