Marina Rikhvanova
She talks to Natalie Hoare about her organisation’s current efforts to
halt the construction of a uranium enrichment facility close to the lake
How did you first get involved in campaigning on behalf of Lake Baikal?
I was born and bred in Irkutsk [one of Siberia’s largest cities, located 72 kilometres from the lake] and ever since my childhood, I’ve always taken a keen interest in nature. I went to Irkutsk University, where I studied biology and chemistry, specialising in genetics, so that I could understand more about the plants and animals that surround us. My thesis was on the impact of a pulp and paper plant located on the shore of Lake Baikal. Through studying the effects of the waste ejected directly into the lake, I realised that the Baikal biological system is extremely fragile and we must evaluate the consequences of this and other human activity closely.
When did you set up Baikal Environmental Wave (BEW)?
When I worked at the Limnological Institute in Irkutsk [limnology is the study of bodies of fresh water, their plant and animal life, physical properties, and geographical features], I also began to study English at a club run by an English lady called Jenny Sutton, who came to Irkutsk during the 1970s. In 1990, she came up with the idea of transforming the English language club into an environmental club. Some of the other students supported this idea, but now only Jenny and I remain.
Our aim is to preserve the environment and promote clear policies for sustainable development while encouraging public participation in decision-making processes. We work with tourist businesses, schools and teachers, we produce brochures and leaflets, we make films and conduct seminars and, if there is a threat to Lake Baikal, we organise public protests and campaigns against that threat.
Tell me about your campaign to reroute the Siberia–Pacific oil pipeline
In 2002, Transneft [the state-owned company responsible for a 50,000-kilometre network of oil pipelines] planned to build the longest pipeline in the world along an earthquake faultline, close to the northern shores of Lake Baikal, despite obvious concerns about oil spills and leakages. During initial environmental impact assessments, the organisation that conducts the assessments changed and the new management did everything it could to secure a positive decision on the pipeline route, despite the fact that the majority of experts consulted concluded that it wasn’t viable.
But the management didn’t listen; they prolonged the term of this assessment and consulted new experts who would help to deliver a positive outcome. We spent four years leading a national campaign: we wrote letters, set up a public environmental impact assessment, organised rallies of thousands of people across Russia and delivered to the Kremlin a petition against the route of the pipeline that contained 20,000 signatures . Due to these [and other] efforts, in April 2006, President Putin ordered the pipeline to be rerouted away from the lake’s watershed, marking a tremendous success for civil society and the Russian environmental movement.
What campaigns are you conducting now?
In late 2006, the Russian government announced plans to construct an international uranium enrichment centre near Angarsk, close to the river Angara [a tributary of the Yenesey], 90 kilometres from the lake. It’s the only river that flows from the lake and the four largest towns and cities of the Irkutsk region are situation along its banks (about a million people rely on it as their main source of water). The centre will enrich uranium transported from other countries and then return it for reuse.
Once uranium is enriched, only ten per cent of the radioactive material can be reused –
the rest will be left behind for storage in Russia, posing significant environmental and health risks. Uranium tailings [leftover waste in the form of sand] contain extremely harmful radioactive and toxic uranium hexafluoride, but Russia is willing to take these materials from other countries for processing, long-term storage and, eventually, burial in special containers. If these are damaged, material could leak into the air and form highly dangerous fluoric acid. This could be deposited on vegetation and be washed into rivers and lakes, causing contamination and entry into the food chain. We’re demanding that an independent environmental impact assessment and review be carried out, and have been holding protests against this and other proposals to build 40 new nuclear power plants across Russia.
What kind of challenges have you faced in running your campaigns?
Our computer was confiscated by the state when we were protesting against the pipeline. Then, when we had a public assessment in 2004 and were preparing for the public hearing, our business bank accounts were mysteriously closed. We managed to get them reopened eventually, but it did cause some disruption to the campaign. And then, last summer, participants in a protest camp run by radical political groups were attacked and one person later died in hospital.
My 20-year-old son Pavel, who was among those who attacked the camp, was arrested on suspicion of murder and many local media outlets tried to link the attack, and my son’s alleged involvement, with BEW in an attempt to spoil our reputation so that people would stop supporting us. More than 20 people were arrested after the attacks, and although Pavel has denied any involvement in any violence, only his name was given to the press. He has been in police custody in Angarsk since last July. Whatever else happens, we will continue our efforts to stop the construction of the uranium enrichment plant and my son has given us his full support. We must do everything we can to protect Russia’s natural riches.
For more information about Marina Rikhvanova’s work and Baikal Environmental Wave, visit www.baikalwave.eu.org
June 08
How did you first get involved in campaigning on behalf of Lake Baikal?
I was born and bred in Irkutsk [one of Siberia’s largest cities, located 72 kilometres from the lake] and ever since my childhood, I’ve always taken a keen interest in nature. I went to Irkutsk University, where I studied biology and chemistry, specialising in genetics, so that I could understand more about the plants and animals that surround us. My thesis was on the impact of a pulp and paper plant located on the shore of Lake Baikal. Through studying the effects of the waste ejected directly into the lake, I realised that the Baikal biological system is extremely fragile and we must evaluate the consequences of this and other human activity closely.
When did you set up Baikal Environmental Wave (BEW)?
When I worked at the Limnological Institute in Irkutsk [limnology is the study of bodies of fresh water, their plant and animal life, physical properties, and geographical features], I also began to study English at a club run by an English lady called Jenny Sutton, who came to Irkutsk during the 1970s. In 1990, she came up with the idea of transforming the English language club into an environmental club. Some of the other students supported this idea, but now only Jenny and I remain.
Our aim is to preserve the environment and promote clear policies for sustainable development while encouraging public participation in decision-making processes. We work with tourist businesses, schools and teachers, we produce brochures and leaflets, we make films and conduct seminars and, if there is a threat to Lake Baikal, we organise public protests and campaigns against that threat.
Tell me about your campaign to reroute the Siberia–Pacific oil pipeline
In 2002, Transneft [the state-owned company responsible for a 50,000-kilometre network of oil pipelines] planned to build the longest pipeline in the world along an earthquake faultline, close to the northern shores of Lake Baikal, despite obvious concerns about oil spills and leakages. During initial environmental impact assessments, the organisation that conducts the assessments changed and the new management did everything it could to secure a positive decision on the pipeline route, despite the fact that the majority of experts consulted concluded that it wasn’t viable.
But the management didn’t listen; they prolonged the term of this assessment and consulted new experts who would help to deliver a positive outcome. We spent four years leading a national campaign: we wrote letters, set up a public environmental impact assessment, organised rallies of thousands of people across Russia and delivered to the Kremlin a petition against the route of the pipeline that contained 20,000 signatures . Due to these [and other] efforts, in April 2006, President Putin ordered the pipeline to be rerouted away from the lake’s watershed, marking a tremendous success for civil society and the Russian environmental movement.
What campaigns are you conducting now?
In late 2006, the Russian government announced plans to construct an international uranium enrichment centre near Angarsk, close to the river Angara [a tributary of the Yenesey], 90 kilometres from the lake. It’s the only river that flows from the lake and the four largest towns and cities of the Irkutsk region are situation along its banks (about a million people rely on it as their main source of water). The centre will enrich uranium transported from other countries and then return it for reuse.
Once uranium is enriched, only ten per cent of the radioactive material can be reused –
the rest will be left behind for storage in Russia, posing significant environmental and health risks. Uranium tailings [leftover waste in the form of sand] contain extremely harmful radioactive and toxic uranium hexafluoride, but Russia is willing to take these materials from other countries for processing, long-term storage and, eventually, burial in special containers. If these are damaged, material could leak into the air and form highly dangerous fluoric acid. This could be deposited on vegetation and be washed into rivers and lakes, causing contamination and entry into the food chain. We’re demanding that an independent environmental impact assessment and review be carried out, and have been holding protests against this and other proposals to build 40 new nuclear power plants across Russia.
What kind of challenges have you faced in running your campaigns?
Our computer was confiscated by the state when we were protesting against the pipeline. Then, when we had a public assessment in 2004 and were preparing for the public hearing, our business bank accounts were mysteriously closed. We managed to get them reopened eventually, but it did cause some disruption to the campaign. And then, last summer, participants in a protest camp run by radical political groups were attacked and one person later died in hospital.
My 20-year-old son Pavel, who was among those who attacked the camp, was arrested on suspicion of murder and many local media outlets tried to link the attack, and my son’s alleged involvement, with BEW in an attempt to spoil our reputation so that people would stop supporting us. More than 20 people were arrested after the attacks, and although Pavel has denied any involvement in any violence, only his name was given to the press. He has been in police custody in Angarsk since last July. Whatever else happens, we will continue our efforts to stop the construction of the uranium enrichment plant and my son has given us his full support. We must do everything we can to protect Russia’s natural riches.
For more information about Marina Rikhvanova’s work and Baikal Environmental Wave, visit www.baikalwave.eu.org
June 08
 | |
