CENN — June 9, 2004 Daily Digest

Table of Contents:
1. Technip Expects to Get Contract for Shah Deniz Platform
2. Japan to Invest in Yerevan Power Plant
3. Yerevan Adamant In Delaying Metsamor Closure
4. Armenia Undecided on Closure of Nuclear Plant – Minister
5. With A Visit To Armenia’s Largest Dump, UNDP and The Ministry Of
Nature Protection Launch Environment Week
6. NGO Letter Protests Against Weakening of WB Standards fyi
7. EIA Report of the Project on “Processing of the Sand Deposit in
Khashuri Region” by “Progress-2″ Ltd
8. EIA Report of the Project on ” Project on Capture and Bottling of the
mineral spring in Tbilisi ” by “Progress-2” Ltd
9. The Internet Conference


Source: Interfax, June 8, 2004

France’s Technip-Coflexip expects to win a contract to build a second
production platform under Stage-2 of the Shah Deniz gas field project,
stated company manager for the project Sterling Marshal.

“We hope to get the contract for the construction of the second
platform, but that all depends on the speed and quality of work on the
first platform. So far the work is on schedule. We expect the first
shipment of blocks for the platform in September from Singapore. All
construction work will be completed in January 2006,” he said.

Technip-Coflexip has signed two contracts worth $300 million under
Stage-1 of the Shah Deniz project. Once contract includes the design of
a TPG-500 offshore platform to be installed at the field, supply of
materials and equipment, the transport and set up of the platform at
sea, and the other is for the assembly of the platforms at a
construction site in Baku.

Keppel Fells is building the platform in Singapore. The platform will be
delivered in sections to Baku for assembly by Technip.

The contract to develop Shah Deniz field was signed in Baku in June 1996
and ratified by parliament in October of that year. BP is the operator
with a 25.5% share in the project, Statoil holds 25.5%, the State Oil
Company of the Azerbaijani Republic (SOCAR) has a 10% share, LukAgip has
a 10% share, NICO holds 10%, TotalFinaElf holds 10%, and Turkey’s TPAO
holds 9%.

The field holds an estimated 625 billion cubic meters of gas and 101
million tonnes of condensate.

Stage-1 includes the production of 178 billion cubic meters of gas and
34 million tonnes of condensate. Production in later stages is planned
at about 16 billion cubic meters of gas a year.


Source: Interfax, June 8, 2004

The Japanese government plans to invest $4.5 million in the construction
of a thermal power plant in Yerevan with a capacity of 1.5 megawatts
based on a waste incineration plant, Armenian Natural Resource Minister
Vardan Aivazyan told journalists on Monday.

He said that the ministry has approved the construction of the plant and
thermal power plant at the Nurabshen dump, which covers an area of over
60 hectares. Talks are currently underway between a potential
subcontractor for the project – Japan’s Shimizu – and the Yerevan
Mayor’s Office.

Aivazyan said that the project would involve the use of up to 800 – 900
cubic meters of rubbish per day to produce methane to be used in
electricity production.

The minister said that recently Armenia set an output tariff for
electricity produced from burning biogas of $0.08 per 1 kWh. The
investor is happy with this tariff.

He said that the talks should be completed by September 10, after which
construction should begin.

Diana Arutyunyan, the national coordinator of the project, told Interfax
that the Japanese state company New Energy and Industrial Technology
Organization plans to finance the project.

She said that Shimizu has already completed the first stage of work on
an audit and preparation of a feasibility study. She also said that the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is interested in this

Electricity production in Armenia fell 0.29% to 5.5 billion kWh in 2003.


Source: Radio Free Europe, June 8, 2004

The Armenian government remains determined not to close the Metsamor
nuclear power plant in the near future and reaffirmed this position
during talks with senior officials from the European Union last week,
Industry Minister Karen Chshmaritian said on Tuesday.

Chshmaritian headed a delegation of government officials who represented
Yerevan at a regular meeting of an Armenia-EU “cooperation committee”
which took place in Brussels on Friday. The issue of Metsamor’s future
was high on its agenda. “The European side wants Armenia to set a date
[for Metsamor’s closure],” Chshmaritian told a news conference.
“However, Armenia can not set a date without having financing resources
[to replace the facility] and clarifying the entire procedure for the

The EU has long been arguing that the plant is located in a seismically
active area and that its Soviet-built nuclear reactor does not meet
modern safety standards. The bloc’s executive European Commission has
offered to grant Armenia 100 million euros ($123 million) in return for
the decommissioning of the plant which generates about 40 percent of the
country’s electricity.

Chshmaritian reiterated Yerevan’s rejection of the offer, saying that as
much as $1 billion is needed for safely shutting down Metsamor safely
and putting in place an alternative source of inexpensive energy. “The
Energy Ministry presented its calculations [to the EU], according to
which the total cost of the work would be worth that much,” he said. He
added the Armenia-EU body decided to set up a working group that will
look into the issue in detail and present its findings by the end of
this year.

The government wants to keep Metsamor operational for at least another
decade despite its past promise to the EU to decommission the plant in
2004. The European Commission now seems to be stepping up pressure on
Yerevan to do that as soon as possible in line with its policy of
phasing out all Soviet-designed reactors remaining in Eastern Europe.

Still, an EU spokeswoman in Brussels told RFE/RL last week that the bloc
will continue to finance further measures to improve Metsamor’s
operational safety “up to its closure.”


Source: Mediamax News Agency, June 8, 2004

Armenia will not name the precise date for the closure of the Armenian
Nuclear Power Station until all technical and financial issues are
clarified, Armenian Minister of Trade and Economic Development Karen
Chshmarityan said in Yerevan today.

He said this issue was discussed during the fifth session of the
Armenia-EU cooperation committee in Brussels on 4 June. The minister
stressed that representatives of the European Union expressed their
readiness again to allocate 100m euros to Armenia if a decision is made
to close down the Nuclear Power Station.

Karen Chshmarityan stated that the closure of the Nuclear Power Station
is a complicated process linked to technical difficulties. The minister
pointed out that according to preliminary estimations, 1bn dollars will
be required for providing Armenia with alternative sources of energy.


United Nations Development Programme Country Office in Armenia
14, Karl Liebknecht Street, Yerevan 375010, Armenia
Contact: Aramazd Ghalamkaryan
Tel: (374 1) 56 60 73
Fax: (374 1) 54 38 11
E-mail: [email protected]


June 7, 2004

Yerevan, Armenia

Today, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Ministry
of Nature Protection officially marked World Environment Day by
organizing a media event in the country’s largest waste disposal site in
Nubarashen, near Yerevan. In close cooperation with UN Agencies and
local and international organizations, UNDP and the Ministry of Nature
Protection jointly initiated Environment Week, an advocacy campaign
aimed at raising public awareness on environmental issues. Mr. Vardan
Ayvazyan, Minister of Nature Protection, Ms. Lise Grande, UN Resident
Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative, representatives of the
Government, civil society and the mass media participated in the event.

Nubarashen waste disposal site receives almost all the solid waste
produced in Yerevan city and suburbs. As much as 340 tones per day, or
102,000 tones per year, is deposited in the site. Most of the waste in
Nubarashen is domestically produced by the approximately 1,280,000 who
live in these areas. Industrial waste accounts for only a small
proportion. Large quantities of landfill gas, mainly methane gas, are
produced by the waste and discharged into the atmosphere without being
fully utilized.

According to Ms. Grande: “It is very fortunate that Armenia has achieved
high rates of economic growth in the last decade. At this stage in the
country’s transition, is it critically important to focus on the
environmental aspects of economic growth. The sustainable management of
natural resources and a clean environment are key to the country’s
medium and long-term development. If the environment is destroyed or
damaged, the country will suffer. UNDP is currently one of the major
donors in the area of nature protection and we are confident that our
partnership with Government authorities and the civil society will help
to ensure a healthy environment for a healthy people.”

Background: Armenia has acceded to a number of international treaties
and conventions focused on the environment. UNDP’s National Capacities
Self-Assessment (NCSA) project aims to support the Government in
identifying gaps in meeting the requirements of these global
conventions. The goal of Environment Week, a joint advocacy initiative
of UNDP Armenia and the Ministry of Nature Protection, is to: promote
environmental activities at the community level; raise public awareness
of ongoing initiatives in the area of nature protection; highlight
existing environmental issues; and initiate a public debate on the
linkages between human development and nature protection. Environment
Week also aims to bring together major actors in nature protection and
help find solutions to very urgent and important environmental problems
facing the country and the whole Transcaucasian region.

UNDP is the UN’s global development network. It advocates for change and
connects countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people
build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with
them on their own solutions to global and national development
challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of
UNDP and our wide range of partners.

Aramazd Ghalamkaryan
Information and Resource Mobilisation Associate/
Support to UN Resident Coordinator
UNDP/UN Armenia
14 Karl Liebknecht St., Yerevan, 375010, Armenia
Tel: +3741 56 60 73 + 121
Mob: +3749 43 63 12
Fax: +3741 54 38 11
URLs: ;


The following letter was sent to the World Bank’s Board of Directors
today. It protests against the weakening of social and environmental
standards through the Bank’s proposed middle-income country strategy,
and requests that a Mexican pilot project for the new strategy not be
approved as long as there is no agreement about the overall strategy.
The letter was endorsed by 186 NGOs from 60 countries at short notice. A
clear majority of the signatories is from borrowing countries.

Peter Bosshard, IRN

International NGO letter to the World Bank Board of Directors:

International Rivers Network (USA)
Centro de Investigaciones EconÑmicas yPolÌticas de AcciÑn (Mexico)
Manthan Adhyayan Kendra (India)
CEE Bankwatch Network (Georgia)
Kalpavriksh (India)
African Network for Environmental and Economic Justice (Nigeria)

June 7, 2004

International civil society letter regarding the World Bank’s safeguard

International Standards for International Projects

Dear Executive Director,

Civil society groups in the South and North are concerned about proposed
measures that would weaken the social and environmental standards
applied in World Bank projects. The following letter expresses concerns
of 186 organizations from 60 countries. A clear majority of the
signatories are NGOs from borrowing countries.

Our letter responds to the Bank’s proposed new middle-income country
strategy (MIC strategy), and the pilot project in Mexico that has been
submitted to the Board. The MIC strategy proposes that future World Bank
projects in many countries rely on national social and environmental
standards rather than the Bank’s own safeguard policies. The strategy
also proposes that in such projects, the role of the Inspection Panel
will be linked to national standards rather than the Bank’s safeguard
policies. The World Bank argues that these measures would “remove
obstacles to timely quality lending”. (For a detailed critique of the
proposed MIC strategy, see International Rivers Network, The World
Bank’s Safeguard Policies Under Pressure, May 2004, available at:

Civil society groups express the following concerns regarding the
proposed changes:

§ Compliance with national and World Bank standards: It is self-evident
that all World Bank projects should comply with the national standards
of borrowing countries. We support a strengthening of national social
and environmental standards and capacities. But being an international
institution with a development mandate, the World Bank must also comply
with its own safeguard policies. Ultimately, we believe that all
policies of the World Bank, other international financial institutions
and governments should reflect the international environmental and human
rights standards that governments – i.e., the members of the World Bank
– have established through the framework of the United Nations.
§ Confusion about applicable standards: The World Bank expects national
standards to be ‘equivalent’ to its own safeguard policies. It is not at
all clear what this means in practice. The Bank is currently preparing
the Decentralized Infrastructure Reform and Development Project (DIRD
project) in the state of Guanajuato/Mexico as a first pilot project for
the reliance on national standards. The project would bring about a
significant weakening of applicable standards. Its components may cause
involuntary resettlement. Yet neither Mexico nor the state of Guanajuato
have resettlement laws. The World Bank and the borrower have instead
prepared an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) that is
supposed to reflect the ‘spirit of Bank safeguard policies’. What can
affected communities do if the DIRD project violates the World Bank’s
Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12), but not Mexican laws and the ESMF?
§ Access to information: Several safeguard policies require the World
Bank to provide civil society with timely access to important project
documents. Examples are Environmental Assessments under OP 4.01, and
instruments such as the Resettlement Plans under OP 4.12. It is unclear
where civil society could get access to such documents when future
projects rely on national standards rather than the Bank’s safeguard
§ Role of the Inspection Panel: In most countries, governments can be
legally and politically held accountable for the projects that they
implement through the judicial system and through elections. The only
mechanism through which affected people can hold the World Bank
accountable is the Inspection Panel. The Panel was created to
investigate the role of the World Bank, and not governments, in projects
that harm local communities. It is questionable whether national
governments would indeed allow their actions to be investigated by an
international body such as the Inspection Panel. The role of the Panel
would be significantly weakened in the proposed Mexico pilot project.
For the Panel to remain effective, it must continue to hold the World
Bank accountable, and its point of reference must continue to be the
World Bank’s safeguard policies, not national standards and procedures.
§ Need for strengthening social and environmental standards: The
experience of affected communities, World Bank evaluations and
Inspection Panel investigations all document that the World Bank’s
safeguard policies must be strengthened and more strictly supervised and
complied with. This has been confirmed by the report of the Extractive
Industries Review. It will also be important to strengthen the role of
the Inspection Panel in the follow-up to its investigations. We welcome
the recommendations of the EIR, and the measures that private banks and
export credit agencies have recently taken to strengthen their own
standards. Many of these standards are still inadequate, and are often
not implemented in practice. The process of strengthening the social and
environmental standards of financial institutions must therefore
continue. It is worrying that the World Bank management intends to
undermine this trend by shying away from complying with international
standards in Bank projects.
§ Administrative burden: The administrative inconsistencies of the
procedures of international financial institutions create an unnecessary
cost and burden for borrowing governments. The MIC strategy does not
resolve this problem. It proposes that national standards be analyzed
and certified regarding their equivalence with World Bank standards.
Subjecting national standards to international certification could
create additional costs and delays. In the case of the Mexico pilot
project, the borrower for example had to prepare, and will need to
comply with, a new Environmental and Social Management Framework, in
addition to national laws and state regulations. While we support an
administrative harmonization of lending procedures, we are opposed to
any ‘harmonization’ process that will weaken social and environmental
standards but will not create any real administrative benefits for

In conclusion, we support a strengthening of national social and
environmental standards and capacities, but will oppose any measures
that will weaken the World Bank’s safeguard policies, and the
accountability of the Bank regarding compliance with these policies. We
strongly recommend that the Board of Directors postpone a discussion of
the Mexico pilot project until it has had the opportunity to discuss a
revised version of the MIC strategy.

The existing safeguard policies have been adopted based on extensive
consultation with international civil society. Any proposed changes that
affect these policies should therefore be made public for meaningful
discussions by civil society before they are presented to the Board of

Thank you for your attention to these concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Bosshard, International Rivers Network, USA
Gustavo Castro Soto, Centro de Investigaciones EconÑmicas y PolÌticas de
Comunitaria (CIEPAC), Mexico
Shripad Dharmadhikary, Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, India
Manana Kochladze, CEE Bankwatch Network, Georgia
Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh, India
David Ugulor, African Network for Environmental and Economic Justice
(ANEEJ), Nigeria

cc. James D. Wolfensohn, President, The World Bank

This letter has been endorsed by the following groups and individuals:

Endorsements from national and international NGOs:

Jorge Carpio, Foro de Participacion Ciudadana (FOCO), Argentina
Elba Stancich, Taller Ecologista, Argentina

Kate Walsh, AidWatch, Australia
Paul Bourke, Australia Tibet Council, Australia
Cam Walker, Friends of the Earth Australia

Elfriede Schachner, AGEZ – Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, Austria
Hildegard Wipfel, Koordinierungsstelle der Oesterreichischen
Bischofskonferenz fuer internationale Entwicklung und Mission (KOO),

Zakir Kibria, BanglaPraxis, Bangladesh
Arup Rahee, LOKOJ, Bangladesh

Saskia Ozinga, FERN, Belgium

Elisangela Paim, Amigos da Terra, Friends of the Earth Brazil
Marcus Faro de Castro, Rede Brasil sobre Instituicoes Financeiras
Multilaterais, Brazil
Alcides Faria, Rios Vivos Coalition, Brazil

Petko Kovatchec, Center for Environmental Information and Education
(CEIE), Bulgaria
Anelia Stefanova, Za Zemiata, Bulgaria

Akong Charles Ndika, Global Village Cameroon

Graham Saul, Friends of the Earth Canada
Ian Baird, Global Association for People and Environment, Canada
Michael Bassett, Halifax Initiative, Canada

Juan Pablo Orrego, Alianza AysÈn Reserva de Vida, Chile
Jenia Jofre, CODEFF (Comite Nacional pro Defensa de la Folra y Fauna),
Peter Hartmann, Comite Ciudadano por la Defensa de Aisen Reserva de
Cristian Opaso, Grupo de Accion por el Biobio (GABB), Chile

Yu Xiaogang, Green Watershed, China

Margarita FlÑrez, Instituto Latinoamericano de Servicios Legales (ILSA),
Maria Cristina Umbarila, Fundacion Nueva Republica, Colombia
Betsy Mayelis Romaßa BlandÑn, Red Nacional de Mujeres Afrocolombianas
KambirÌ, olombia
MarÌa Elena Unigarro Coral, Taller Abierto Cali, Colombia

Manuel LÑpez & Isaac Rojas, COECOCEIBA – Amigos de la Tierra Costa Rica

Klara Sutlovicova, Center for Transport and Energy, Czech Republic
Pavel Pribyl, Hnuti Duha, Czech Republic

Carlos Zorrilla, DECOIN, Ecuador

Ricardo Navarro, CESTA – Friends of the Earth El Salvador

Peep Mardiste, Friends of the Earth Estonia

Tove Selin, Finnish ECA Reform Campaign, Finland

SÈbastien Fourmy, Agir ici, France
SÈbastien Godinot, Les Amis de la Terre, Friends of the Earth France
Sharon Courtoux, Survie, France
Annie Girard, RÈseau Foi & Justice Afrique-Europe, France

Sophiko Akhobadze, Black Sea EcoAcademy, Georgia
Nino Gujaraidze, Green Alternative, Georgia
Keti Dgebuadze, International Information Center of Social Reforms,
Kakha Nadiradze, World Youth Bank Network Georgia

Dorothy-Grace Guerrero, Asienhaus, Germany
Martin Gueck, KAIROS Europa, Germany
Tsewang Norbu, Tibet Initiative Deutschland, Germany
Knud Voecking, Urgewald, Germany
Carole Werner, World Economy, Ecology and Development (WEED), Germany

Richard Koranteng Twum Barimah, Volta Basin Development Foundation,

Arni Finsson, Iceland Nature Conservation Association, Iceland

Birsingh Sinku, B.I.R.S.A. Human Rights & Training Center, India
Justin Imam, B.I.R.S.A. Mines Monitoring Center, India
Bina Stanis, Chotanagpur Adivasi Sewa Samiti, India
Roy Laifungbam, CORE (Centre for Organisation Research & Education),
Ramamurthi Sreedhar, Environics Trust, India
Leo Saldanha, Environment Support Group, India
Bulu Imam, INTACH, India
Alok Agarwal, Jan Sangharsh Morcha, India
Sushil Barla, Jharkhand Mines Area Coordination Committee (JMACC), India

Smitu Kothari, Lokayan, India
Ravi Rebbapragada & Xavier Dias, mines,minerals & PEOPLE, India
Medha Patkar & Chittaroopa Palit, Narmada Bachao Andolan, India
Ajita Susan George, Oman Mahila Samiti, India
Sanjai Bhatt, Pairvi, India
A. Latha, River Research Centre, Chalakudy River Protection Council,
Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, India
Malavika Vartak, South Asia Regional Programme, Habitat International
Coalition, India
Shanti Sawaiyan, Women & Mining Network, India

Anggara, Bandung Legal Aid Institute, Indonesia
Binny Buchori, International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development
(INFID), Indonesia
Gita Meidita, NADI – Natural Resource And Development Initiatives,
Laura Radiconcini, Amici della Terra, Friends of the Earth Italy
Jaroslava Colajacomo, Reform the World Bank Campaign, Italy
Yoshihito Miyakoshi, A SEED Japan
Ikuko Matsumoto, Friends of the Earth Japan
Yuki Tanabe, JACSES, Japan
Satoru Matsumoto, Mekong Watch, Japan
Kalia Moldogazieva, Tree of Life, Kyrgyz Republic
Alda Ozola, Friends of the Earth Latvia
Saulius Piksrys, Community Atgaja, Lithuania
Ana Golovic, Ecosens, Macedonia
Wong Meng Chuo, IDEAL (Institute for Development of Alternative Living),
Julian Manduca, Moviment ghall-Ambjent, Friends of the Earth Malta

Arturo Morales Tirado, Sociedad Audubon de MÈxico, Guanajuato, MÈxico
Jose Manuel Arias Rodriguez, AsociaciÑn Ecologica Santo TomÀs A.C.,
Susana Cruickshank, Equipo Pueblo, Mexico
Rodolfo Chavez Galindo, Frente por los Derechos Economicos
Socio-Ambientales yCulturales de los Pueblos, Mexico
Fernando Melo, Trasparencia Sociedad Civil, Mexico
Anabela Lemos, JustiÃa Ambiental, MoÃambique
Daniel Ribeiro, Livaningo, MoÃambique
Bertchen Kohrs, Earthlife Namibia
Prabin Man Singh, Arun Concerned Group, Nepal
Bed Prakash Bhattarai, Kali Gandaki A Affected Concerned Committee,
Arun Kumar Shrestha, National Concerns Society, Nepal
Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists (NEFEJ), Nepal
Arjun Dhakal, Nepal Network for Sustaininable Development (NNSD), Nepal
Roy Laifungbam, South Asian Solidarity for Rivers and Peoples (SARP),
Gopal Siwakoti ‘Chintan’, Water and Energy Users’ Federation-Nepal
(WAFED), Nepal
Filka Sekulova, A SEED Europe, Netherlands
Johan Frijns, BankTrack, Netherlands
Henneke Brink, Both Ends, Netherlands
Ricardo Navarro & Janneke Bruil, Friends of the Earth International,
Donald Pols, Friends of the Earth Netherlands
Gordon Abiama, Africa Centre for Geoclassical Economics, Nigeria
George-Hill Anthony, Commonwealth of Niger Delta Youths, Nigeria
Uche Igwe, Community Level Environmental Action Network (CLEAN Nigeria),
Aliyu Noma Usman, Dam Communities Coalition, Nigeria
Bassey Ekpenyong, Initiative Development Network (IDN), Nigeria,
Akpan Anthony Johnson, Pan African Vision for the Environment (PAVE),
Chibuzo Ekwekwuo, Public & Private Rights Watch, Nigeria
Mimidoo Achakpa, womens right to education programme education
programme, Nigeria
Tonje Folkestad, FIVAS (Association for International Water and Forest
Studies), Norway
Muhammad Nauman, Creed Alliance, Pakistan
Sarah Siddiqi, Karachi Administration Women Welfare Society (KAWWS),
Damien Ase, Center for Environmental Law and Community Rights/Friends of
the Earth Papua New Guinea
Jorge Urusoff, Coordinadora de Barrios Afectados por la Entidad
Binacional YacyretÀ, Paraguay
ElÌas DÌaz Peßa, Sobrevivencia, Friends of the Earth Paraguay
Carlos Abanto, Asociacion Civil Labor – Amigos de la Tierra Peru
Nilton Deza, Ecovida, Peru
Joan Carling, Cordillera Peoples Alliance, Philippines
Lidy B. Nacpil, Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines
Clemente Bautista, Kalikasan-People’s Network for the
Leonor Briones, Social Watch Philippines
Joji Carino, Tebtebba Foundation, Philippines/United Kingdom
Andrzej Gula, Institute for Environmental Tax Reform, Poland
Robert Cyglicki, Polish Green Net, Poland
Piotr Dynowski, Polish-Tibetan Friendship Association, Poland
Renato Roldao, EURONATURA – Centre for Environmental Law and Sustainable
Development, Portugal
Aboubacry Mbodj, Co-ordination for Senegal River Basin (CODESEN),
Demba Moussa Dembele, Forum for African Alternatives, Senegal
Rencontre Africaine pour la DÈfense des Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO),
Peter Mihok, Center for Environmental Public Advocacy (CEPA), Slovak
Liane Greeff, Environmental Monitoring Group, South Africa
Philip Owen, Geasphere, South Africa
Gillian Addison, groundwork, South Africa
Rosa Sala, Intermon Oxfam, Spain
Hemantha Withanage, Centre for Environmental Justice, Sri Lanka
Sri Lankan Working Group on Trade and IFIs, Sri Lanka
Penny Davies, Diakonia, Sweden
GÆran Ek, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Sweden
Christine Eberlein, Berne Declaration, Switzerland
Sonja Ribi, Pro Natura – Friends of the Earth Switzerland
Peter Niggli, Swiss Coalition of Development Organizations, Switzerland
Caroline Morel, Swissaid, Switzerland
Benedict Chacha Peter, Foundation HELP, Tanzania
Prasittiporn Kan-onsri (Noi), Community University, Assembly of the
Poor, Thailand
Chana Maung & Carol Ransley, EarthRights International (Southeast Asia),
Shalmali Guttal, Focus on the Global South, Thailand/India
Chainarong Sretthachau, Southeast Asia Rivers, Thailand
Sena Adessou, Jeunes Volontaires pour l’Environnement, Togo
Frank Muramuzi, National Association of Professional Environmentalists,
O.C Afunaduula, Save Bujagali Crusade, Uganda
Francis Kidega, Uganda Youth Network, Uganda
Hannah Ellis, Friends of the Earth England, Wales & Northern Ireland
Najib Afsar, Anti Mangla Dam Extension Action Committee, United
Kingdom/Jammu Kashmir
Jeff Powell, Bretton Woods Project, United Kingdom
Nicholas Hildyard, Corner House, United Kingdom
Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme, United Kingdom
Geoff Nettleton, Indigenous Peoples Links, United Kingdom
Richard Harkinson, Minewatch, United Kingdom
Clare Joy, World Development Movement, United Kingdom

Rick Rowden, ActionAid USA
Bruce Jenkins, Bank Information Center, USA
Beverly Bell, Center for Economic Justice, USA
Nancy Alexander, Citizens’ Network on Essential Services, USA
Stephen Hellinger, The Development GAP, USA
Payal Sampat, Earthworks/Mineral Policy Center, USA
Bruce Rich, Environmental Defense, USA
Jon Sohn, Friends of the Earth USA
Paula Palmer, Global Response, USA
Douglas Norlen, Pacific Environment, USA
Wenonah Hauter, Public Citizen, USA
Michael Brune, Rainforest Action Network, USA
Douglas Hellinger, Structural Adjustment Participatory Review
International Network (SAPRIN), USA
Lhadon Thetong, Students for a Free Tibet, USA
Daphne Wysham, Sustainable Energy & Economy Network, USA
Robert Jacobs, Tibet Committee of Fairbanks, USA
Tashi Tsering, Tibet Justice Center, USA
Sonam Wangdu, U.S. Tibet Committee, USA
Mark Dubois, WorldWise, USA

Individual endorsements:

Jeannie Martin, University of Western Sydney, Australia
Geraldo Browne Ribeiro Filho, Brazil
Prof. Jan Andersson, WestfÄlische Wilhelms-UniversitÄt MÝnster, Germany
Susan George, Author and Associate Director, Transnational Institute,
Heidi Hawkins, University of Cape Town, South Africa
John Riggs, South Africa
Prof. Angana Chatterji, California Institute of Integral Studies, USA
Prof. Jonathan Fox, University of California, USA
Arif Gamal, USA/Sudan
Rafael Friedmann, USA


Source: “Sakartvelos Respublica” (“Republic of Georgia”), June 3, 2004

In accordance with the Georgian legislation, “Progress-2″ Ltd. submitted
EIA report to the Ministry of Environment of Georgia to obtain an
environmental permit for the activity of second category – Processing of
the Sand Deposit in Khashuri Region.

EIA report is available at the press-center of the Ministry of
Environment (68, Kostava str., VI floor) and at the Department of
Environmental Permits and State Ecological Expertise (87, Paliashvili
Str., Tel: 25 02 19). Interested stakeholders can analyze the document
and present their comments and considerations until July 27, 2004.

Public hearing will be held on July 27, 2004 at 12:00, at the conference
hall of the Ministry of Environment.


Source: “Sakartvelos Respublica” (“Republic of Georgia”), June 3, 2004

In accordance with the Georgian legislation, entrepreneur Bagrat
Mezurnishvili – Black Georgia submitted EIA report to the Ministry of
Environment of Georgia to obtain an environmental permit for the
activity of second category – Project on Capture and Bottling of the
Mineral Spring in Tbilisi.

EIA report is available at the press-center of the Ministry of
Environment (68, Kostava str., VI floor) and at the Department of
Environmental Permits and State Ecological Expertise (87, Paliashvili
Str., Tel: 25 02 19). Interested stakeholders can analyze the document
and present their comments and considerations until July 27, 2004.

Public hearing will be held on July 27, 2004 at 12:00, at the conference
hall of the Ministry of Environment.


Dear colleague,

As you might know the development of the “Georgian Business Code of
Conduct” within the Business Ethics Program is coming to an end. On June
7 2004, under the same program we started up the web conference on the
topic: “Georgian Business Code of Conduct Implementation” on
The Internet Conference will discuss the issues of
the implementation of Georgian Business Code of Conduct in Georgia. The
program of seminars will be announced for the businesses.

Those organizations and/or individuals who have websites can provide
information support of the web conference. More detailed information you
can find here:
Please note, we have now 32 supporters.

So you and your colleagues can visit the website, register and take part
in the discussions.

With respect,

Tariel Zivzivadze
Business Ethics Program Director – AmCham Georgia
Tel: +995 77 73 79 64; Mail: [email protected]; Web:

Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN)

Tel: ++995 32 92 39 46
Fax: ++995 32 92 39 47
E-mail: [email protected]