FMS OF “GREAT EIGHT” URGED BAKU AND YEREVAN TO REACH AGREEMENT
Author: E.Huseynov
TREND, Azerbaijan
June 29 2006
The Foreign Ministers of “great eight” called for Azerbaijan and
Armenia to reach an agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2006.
It was stated in the statement made as a result of the meeting held
in Moscow that “great eight” supports the efforts of co-chairs of
OSCE Minsk Group, Trend reports with reference to ITAR-TASS.
“It was mentioned in the document the necessity to come to an
agreement on the principles of peaceful solution of this conflict
within a short time”.
“We call for Azerbaijan and Armenia to use political power and reach
an agreement on this conflict this year and prepare their peoples
for the peace,” told in the document.

AZERI DELEGATION TO PACE HELD A NEWS CONFERENCE ON FACTS OF ARMENIAN VANDALISM
Author: J.Shahverdiyev
TREND, Azerbaijan
June 29 2006
Azerbaijani parliamentary delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe (PACE) held a news conference on 29 June on
the facts of fires, broken up by Armenians in the occupied territory
of Azerbaijan, Gultakin Hajiyeva, the deputy head of the Azerbaijani
delegation to the PACE, told Trend.
Journalists from different countries participated in the news
conference. “Azerbaijani delegates put forward impressive arguments
while responding journalists. It was a next step by the Azerbaijani
delegation under the PACE summer session, which unmasked the Armenian
vandalism,” she underlined.

BRYZA: ARMENIAN TROOP PULL-OUT FROM THE CONFLICT ZONE WOULD HELP REDUCE TENSION
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
June 29 2006
“I was not surprised my first interview in the post of co-chair caused
a stir.
Because we knew — the co-chairs knew — and my predecessor Steven
Mann, the co-chair before I assumed responsibility on the very day of
that interview, knew that what they had just announced at the OSCE
was significant and would make people think twice, and would spark,
as we like to put it, a robust debate in the region. I was simply
in the unenviable position of having been on this newest assignment
for an hour and I was the guy that got to explain the decision that
others had made before me,” Matthew Bryza, the new U.S. co-chair of
the Minsk Group stated in an interview with the RFE/Radio Liberty.
The RFE/RL told the APA that Matthew Bryza said he was not surprised
that a robust debate was sparked.
“What did surprise me though was that people spoke so quickly in
reacting to the interview without reading the publicly available
document that the co-chairs issued at the OSCE in Austria, which
laid out in much greater detail everything. My interview is small
generalization of this document,” the US co-chair said.
Mr. Bryza said the core principles that were over the course of two
years by the co-chairs and [Armenian President Robert] Kocharian and
[Azerbaijani President Ilham] Aliyev and their foreign ministers,
ultimately weren’t agreed to by the two presidents.
According to the co-chair, talk about recapturing Karabakh by force
or any use of force by any party is simply not helpful, “It is not
necessary because there is a viable framework on the table that just
requires a little bit more political courage on both sides to forge
a compromise.
The co-chairs have exerted all of the creativity and all the
negotiating energy that they could and they have gotten this framework
of core principles as honed as possible in their judgment, such that
the presidents, in their mind, need a little time to think things over
and decide whether or not they can accept or adjust this framework. But
what we are saying in the statement is that there is no more room
for diplomatic creativity to make this piece of metal shine a little
bit more brightly. It is honed and you have to decide whether you
want it or not, or the trade-offs that would have to be made are so
significant politically that it requires the head of state to make
the trade-off,” Bryza said.
The American co-chair thinks pulling of Armenian troops back from
the occupied territories will reduce tension.
“Would an Armenian troop pull-out reduce tension? Well, sure as hell
it would. That is why it is a core element of our core principles.
But the Armenians are not just going to pull back the troops because
we say, “Golly, gee, that would help reduce tension.” They will do
it if they get something for it and that is precisely what these core
principles are all about. Therefore, the heads of state need to make
tough decisions.
Matthew Bryza also said the latest statement touched on what steps
to be taken for demilitarization.
“I would just point you to the statement…. It is very clear, and lays
out in a lot of detail what exactly the overall set of trade-offs would
be. Demilitarization is the phrase used for troop pull-back, and that,
as the framework indicates, should be, or could be, accompanied by some
sort of process that would lead to a population vote, or a referendum
vote on the future status of Karabakh. I think that is, in the Armenian
mindset, extremely important, so that is what the Azerbaijani side
would have to offer the Armenians, along with the other things within
this statement to which I refer you. On the Azerbaijani side, I think
that they are willing to consider the possibility of some type of a
vote on the status of Karabakh if many other elements of this overall
package are present. What gets difficult is how you correlate the
withdrawal, or the redeployment, of Armenian troops with the timing
of a vote on the future status of Karabakh,” Matthew Bryza said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZERBAIJANI MPS HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE ON FIRES IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES IN STRASBOURG
Today, Azerbaijan
June 29 2006
The members of the Azerbaijani parliamentary delegation to PACE held
a press conference today with regard to recent massive fires in the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan set by Armenians.
As APA reports, the press conference chaired by parliamentarian
Gultakin Hajiyeva also brought together parliamentarians Aydin
Mirzazadeh, Ganira Pashayeva, Sabir Hajiyev and Fazail Ibrahimli. In
the press conference, media representatives were informed in detail
about Armenians torching the occupied Azerbaijani territories.
The photos of the territories on fire taken by satellite were
distributed to journalists. An Armenian journalist tried to explain
these fires due to natural reasons, in particular hot weather but
parliamentarian Sabir Hajiyev called this argument groundless.
“It is possible natural reasons to cause fires in everywhere and in
Azerbaijan as well but in this case there are attempts to prevent the
fire. Armenians refusing to take any action about it make us think they
deliberately caused these fires,” the Azerbaijani parliamentarian said.
URL:

G8 PRESSES ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN FOR NAGORNY KARABAKH SETTLEMENT
RIA Novosti, Russia
June 29 2006
MOSCOW, June 29 (RIA Novosti) – Foreign ministers from the Group of
Eight industrialized nations called on Armenia and Azerbaijan Thursday
to outline principles for resolving a long-running territorial dispute
this year.
The conflict between the two former Soviet republics over Nagorny
Karabakh, a region in Azerbaijan with a largely Armenian population,
first erupted in 1988, when the region claimed independence from
Azerbaijan to join Armenia.
A statement by the G8 ministers following talks Thursday in Moscow
stressed the need to draft the main principles to solve the conflict
peacefully so that agreement could be reached in 2006, and urged
Azerbaijan and Armenia to display political will and reach an agreement
on the issue this year, while preparing their nations for peace and
not for war.
Over 30,000 people were reported dead on both sides between 1988
and 1994, and over 100 others died after a ceasefire was concluded
in 1994, leaving Nagorno-Karabakh in Armenian hands, but tensions
between Azerbaijan and Armenia have persisted.
Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
the world’s largest regional security body, carried out monitoring
of a section of the border between the countries that has been at the
center of recent accusations from both sides of ceasefire violations.

THIRD ROUND OF TALKS ON PREPARATION OF NATIONAL ACTION PLAN WITHIN EUROPEAN NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY MAY BE HELD IN JULY
Author: I.Khalilova
TREND, Azerbaijan
June 29 2006
European Union (EU) submitted to Azeri Foreign Ministry the project
of National action plan within the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP),
Mahmud Mammadguliyev, Azeri deputy foreign minister, Told Trend.
According to him, at the moment discussions are being held and the
date of conducting the third round of talks on preparation of action
plan within ENP will be defined in the near future.
According to the Ministry of Economic Development and Coordination
Bureau of the technical assistance program to Azerbaijan of EU
(Tacis), the date of conducting the meeting has been scheduled
for the first half of July. The third round had to be held on May
15, but it was annulled due to disagreement upon several aspects
of the document. The document didn’t include the issue that the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be regulated on base of territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan. EU took out this point from the document,
but Azerbaijan was dissatisfied with this. The position of Azerbaijan
was that if this point isn’t included in the document, Azerbaijan
will not continue that talks. Although this point remains open in
the submitted document, there is an agreement with EC and the text
will be formed at the next meeting.
80-90 percent of the economical part of the document has been agreed
and there isn’t special divergence of opinion. But there are several
technical aspects, as long as the issue of Azerbaijan’s entrance to
European Charter on small entrepreneurship and System for business
registration remains open. The proposals of Azeri side in this
direction were not accepted by EU.
It is intended that the third round will be the final. After an
agreement is reached on the document, indicator programs will be
prepared, for 2-3 years. The finance of EU will start from 2007 and
it will be conducted within the two programs – Tacis and MEDA. The
budget of ENP for 2007-2013 is intended in amount of 15 billion euros.

KNIGHT FELLOW ORGANIZES WORKSHOPS IN ARMENIA
International Journalist’s Network
June 29 2006
Young people in Armenia are getting some new journalism skills,
as they start up newspapers and Web sites in their communities with
help from local trainers.
Three Armenian journalists are instructing youth clubs and students
in various cities, as part of their own training in educating fellow
journalists. The training is part of an effort – led by the Knight
International Press Fellowships at the International Center for
Journalists (ICFJ) – to develop more qualified journalism trainers
in Armenia.
Suren Deheryan, a reporter for the ArmeniaNow online newspaper,
talked to students in the village of Lchashen about the “5-Ws.”
Yerevan State University journalism student Siranouish Gevorgyan
discussed reporting techniques with youth leaders in the village of
Vahagni. Finally, fellow YSU student Sara Khojoyan led a discussion
with the youth club in Dilijan, which publishes its own newspaper
and plans to start a community radio station.
Timothy Spence, a Knight fellow working with journalists and trainers
in Armenia, organized the sessions with help from the Academy for
Educational Development (AED). The academy sponsors youth clubs
throughout the country.
For more information on the training, contact Spence at
[email protected].
ICFJ organizes the Knight Fellowships with support from the John S.
and James L. Knight Foundation. The program sends veteran journalists
abroad to train their colleagues around the world. For more
information:

LLOYD: “I WILL PAY MY FIRST VISIT TO AZERBAIJAN AS A RAPPORTEUR IN SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER”
Today, Azerbaijan
June 29 2006
“I’ll take up my duty at once. As rapporteur on Azerbaijan, I’ll pay
my first visit to the country to get acquainted with the situation
in September or October this year.”
“I have much to do,” the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
Monitoring Committee new co-rapporteur on Azerbaijan, British
parliamentarian Tony Lloyd stated.
Mr.Lloyd said all issues related to development of democratic
institutions are interesting and important for him.
“I’ll bring to a focus effecting reforms in the rule of law and legal
system and improving of electoral legislation. Thus, next elections
are upcoming,” the co-rapporteur said.
Lloyd refused to comment on the current situation in Azerbaijan saying
he can do it only after visiting Azerbaijan and having talks there.
Regarding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict to be very serious and
dangerous issue not only for Azerbaijan and Armenia but for the entire
region, the co-rapporteur said he is not yet ready to comment on this
problem either, APA reports.
URL:

NKR DM: “ARMENIANS DO NOT FEAR WAR”
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
June 29 2006
The OSCE Minsk group Co-Chairs should find points of contact with
RA and AR Presidents, resume the negotiation process and find the
issue’s peaceful settlement, Nagorno Karabakh republic (NKR) Defense
Minister Seyran Ohanyan stated while talking to journalists.
In his words, the issue cannot be resolved by force – “it was
resettled by force once – in 1994”, REGNUM reports. “No one wants
a war, especially servicemen, as the first strike is carried out at
them”, stated Seyran Ohanyan and added the meetings held between the
two countries’ Presidents showed that the Azeri party did not wish
to conduct talks.
Touching upon AR Minister of Defense Safar Abiyev’s statement,
according to which “Armenians fear war”, Seyran Ohanyan stated,
“Armenians do not fear war, and, beginning with 1988 up to today,
we have such defense that we are completely sure of ourselves”. He
remarked bellicose statements made by Baku are oriented exclusively
towards inner consumer.

June 29, 2006 03:14:28 PM | <; Archive | <; Russian | < ot_news.html> Hot News |
<; Vacancies in Georgia | <; CENN | 29.6.2006 News From Georgia < > >>

The Fate of Georgian Forests is still unclear

On June 13, 2006 session of Georgian Parliament Committee of Environmental
Protection and Natural Resources has been held. On the session were invited
the representatives of Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural
Resources (MoE), NGOs and experts of this field. On agenda among other
issues was Forest Policy Concept developed by MoE (Document: Position of the
Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia on the
Reform of Governance and Usage of Resources of the State Forests; also
called Concept of Reform).

Legislators wanted to understand the position of MoE on the Forest Reform,
as they were not informed on that issue (MoE has submitted the document to
be reviewed only the day before). At great surprise only one representative
of MoE attended the session – Deputy Minister Mr. Irakli Gvalazde. Besides
informative vacuum confusion of the committee members have been extended due
to the fact that two different documents (“Georgian Forest Policy and
Strategy” and “Concept of Reform”) have been messed up. As Committee was not
satisfied by the answers received from representative of MoE, it was decided
to hold the session dedicated to the Forest Sector of Georgia in the nearest
future.

As Irakli Macharashvili (Association Green Alternative – GA) informed Zviad
Cheishvili, Head of Sustainable Development Department (at MoE) declared
that he was not acquainted with the document that Irakli Gvaladze
represented on the Parliament Committee session, and he is preparing other
presentation on this issues to bring on the State Session (Public Radio;
June 15, 2005 – Debates held between I. Macharashvili and Z. Cheishvili).

Background: On May 30, 2006 State Minister Kakha Bendukidze, the First
Deputy Minister of MoE David Chantladze and Head of Sustainable Development
Department Zviad Cheishvili declared that legislative amendments allowing
state owned forests long-term leasing (for 49 years) were to be brought up
on the agenda of State Session (Rustavi 2).

The First Deputy Minister D. Chantladze declared the aim of this concept is
that after leasing the forest will have the owner (Radio Liberty; May 30,
2006). Z. Cheishvili, Head of the Sustainable Development Department agrees
on that issue: “The Concept of the Forestry Management System Reform means
the change of the current institutional structure; in particular it is
implementation of forestry long term lease. Long term lease leads to
sustainable use of forests because a businessman who has leased the forest
will not unsustainably log the trees. He will be interested in the rational
use of leased resources.” (Georgia Today, 22-29 June, 2006).

Minister of MoE George Papuashvili considers that first of all forest
inventory should be conducted and afterwards it is rational to lease the 20%
of the State forest. As Mr. G. Papuashvili declared on the briefing held
after State session (May 31, 2006) he is planning to raise this issue on the
nearest State Session. At the same time Z. Cheishvili is sure that forest
inventory is not needed; but only categorization should be conducted (Public
Radio; June 15, 2006).

I. Matcharashvili agrees that the reform in the forest sector is necessary,
but to him, it should be implemented properly. I. Matcharashvili is sure
that the reform should be implemented after forest inventory and total
economic valuation of Georgia’s forests.

“NGOs require the conducting of full and detailed description of every tree
in the forests. We are not going to spend time and money for it,” said Z.
Cheishvili (Georgia Today, 22-29 June, 2006).

On the state session Minister Mr. G. Papuashvili have declared that forest
inventory process and forest utilization concept will be developed until the
end of the year. In his words basing on the results of the forest inventory
forest will be categorized and, afterwards the conditions and initial prices
will be estimated. Mr. Papuashvili also declared that partly the areas that
would be never leased were identified; these are areas at high risk of
flooding and Borjomi-Bakuriani Forest Park. He considers that economically
and ecologically long-term leasing is justified. In the case of long-term
leasing forest protection conditions would be strict and MoE will monitor
the implementation of contact condition on annual bases or in each two year.
(Newspaper “Khvalindeli Dge” (Tomorrow), #61 (933); June 17-19, 2006).

It has to be mentioned that in accordance with the agreement between MoE and
UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) before the finalization of the
document: Georgia’s Forest Policy Concept (Goals, Principles and Objectives)
– no serious changes has to be undertaken in the forest sector. On the
meeting held in Gudauri, Georgia (May 22-24, 2006) Deputy Minister, Sopiko
Akhobadze declared that on the basis of this document state statement would
to be developed that would confirm priority principles of forest politics;
Afterwards development of politics document was to be launched that finally
would be approved by President and Parliament statement.

GA considers that reform is going in non transparent way that raises
misunderstanding and confusion not only among general public but also in
members of parliament. All these give government opportunity to manipulate
and ignore all comment/remarks (GA Press Release, June 23, 2006). In the
official letter of GA to the Head of Georgian Parliament Mrs. Nino
Burjanadze (June 19, 2006; #-04/05-31) is written: “Association Green
Alternative twice has held – December 27, 2005 and March 7, 2006 –
discussion of the paper. Although invitation was sent to the Parliament
Committee of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, unfortunately
committee members did not attend the meetings.” (Association has applied
with official letter to the Head of Georgian Parliament Mrs. Nino Burjanadze
(Georgian version of this letter can be seen on the following web site:
nadze.pdf ).

In their Press Release Association Green Alternative expresses its concern
on this issue and hopes that “Georgian Parliament will play positive role in
the fate of Georgian Forests and will contribute to the transparency of the
reform process.”

Prepared by CENN
2006-06-28

< > Tender Announcement –
Special License on Wood Processing
< > Georgia to receive
additional natural gas for shah-deniz
< > International Corporation
< p?ca=Georgia> MCG Signs a Service
Contract with Georgian Gas
< > Civil sector and the
government argue over Georgia’s forests

< a en.php?ca=Georgia&g t; TBILISI NATIONAL PARK REVIVAL has been Launched < > ENERGY MINISTRY CONSIDERS
ACQUIRING ADDITIONAL AZERI GAS BY GEORGIA
< > EU
< gia> EXPERTS IDENTIFYING
POTENTIAL PRIORITIES OF AID TO GEORGIA IN AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
< > Tbilisi Water gets ISO
certificate
< > Georgia to transit 25
million tons of crude oil
< > Czech company’s purchase
of energy assets sparks controversy

29.6.2006
News From < jan> Azerbaijan >>

Azeri official says subsea pipeline “realistic” before Caspian status agreed

Source: Turan News Agency, 2006-06-23

Azerbaijan considers that the construction of a subsea pipeline in the
Caspian Sea is possible before the determination of the sea’s legal status,
the Azerbaijani president’s special representative on the Caspian issues and
deputy foreign minister, Xalaf Xalafov, has told journalists.
“We consider the implementation of trans-Caspian projects quite realistic.
If the coastal Caspian countries and interested states have political will,
projects of this kind could be implemented,” he said commenting on a
possible construction of a trans-Caspian pipeline between Azerbaijan and
Kazakhstan.

As for the construction of subsea pipelines in the Caspian Sea, Xalafov
believes that the countries interested in these projects “consider this
possible” despite various opinions and positions on this issue.

Some opponents of the project on the construction of the trans-Caspian
pipeline between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan claim that the consent of all the
Caspian countries is needed for this. But it is difficult to agree with
this: it was sufficient to reach an agreement between Russia and Turkey when
a subsea gas pipeline between these two countries was built in the Black
Sea.

< jan> Azerbaijan calls tender
for iron ore mine
< jan> Oil tanker shipments –
The shortest-term default for Trans-Caspian oil
29.6.2006
News From Armenia < > >>

GLOBAL GOLD MINING TO INVEST $10 MILLION IN ARMENIA

Source: ARMENPRESS, 2006-06-23

The US-based Global Gold Mining company has invested around $65. million in
the last several years in prospecting Armenian mines. The chief manager of
its Armenian subsidiary, Ashot Poghosian, said the volume of investments
will rise to $9.6 million before the end of 2006.

In 2004 the company was granted a license to prospect mines in Armenian
Tukhmanuk, Hankavan and Getik areas and in Marjan. Poghosian told a news
conference today that prospecting in Tukhmanuk was nearly over. He said some
75,000 tons of gold ore are supposed to be extracted this year. Experts
estimate that every one thousand ton of ore there contains 6 grams of gold
and 12 grams of silver.

He said the company was not planning to prospect uranium ore deposits, for
which a special permission of the government is needed. But he said if
deposits of uranium are found during general prospecting the company would
ask the government to allow it to extract uranium.

< > Canadian Company to Search
for Oil and Gas in Armenia
< > LOSS OF WATER IN GYUMRI

29.6.2006
International < tional> News
>>

U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR GLOBAL WARMING CASE

Source: ENS, 2006-6-27

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it is prepared to wade into the
global warming debate and consider a lawsuit that aims to require the
federal government to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
emissions from motor vehicles. The court’s decision was hailed by a
coalition of states and environmental groups who have long battled for
mandatory federal regulation of emissions linked to global warming.

Full article is available at :

< tional> Oregon Regulators
Adopt Californian Car Emission Rules
< tional> INTERVIEW – British
Climate Change Envoy Sees China as Key
< tional> IEA Says Expanded
Nuclear Power Can Curb Emissions
< tional> EU Consumers Say GMO
Food is Risk to Society – Poll
< tional> Ukraine Emissions
Dive, Risk Swamping Kyoto
< tional> Greening our cities
< tional> New Policy Measures
Needed to Reduce Energy Use in the Home
< tional> BALTIC SEA
COMMISSION TAKES 11 HOT SPOTS OFF POLLUTED LIST
< tional> EU Way Off Course
For Meeting Kyoto Targets Say Latest Figures
< tional> HELCOM announces the
elimination of several major pollution Hot Spots in the Baltic Sea region
< tional> Khalaf Khalafov: “We
plan to hold meeting on Caspian Sea status”
< tional> U.S., EUROPEAN
LEADERS INITIATE DIALOGUE TO AVERT CLIMATE CHANGE

29.6.2006
< ement> Announcement >>

Alert: Stop the commercial planting of genetically engineered plums-the
first temperate GE tree

(Please follow the directions at the bottom of this email to inform the USDA
of your opposition to GE plum trees before July 17th. )
The US Department of Agriculture is accepting public comments between now
and July 17, 2006 on a petition that would allow commercial growing and
marketing of the first genetically engineered (GE) plum trees. If approved,
this would remove all regulatory oversight of this GE variety, a
virus-resistant plum tree known as the Honey Sweet Pox Potyvirus Resistant
plum. This would open the door to GE varieties of many other related stone
fruits, such as peaches, apricots, cherries and almonds, that are
susceptible to the same virus. Ironically, this virus is not even found in
the US today according to the USDA, and is certainly not a significant
agricultural problem here.

The USDA admits that this GE plum will contaminate both organic and
conventional non-genetically engineered plum orchards if it is approved.
Since all commercial plum trees are cultivars that are relatively cross
compatible within the same species, Prunus domestica, contamination via GE
plum pollen carried by bees and other insects will infiltrate the plum
orchards of organic and conventional growers. The proposed buffer zones
between GE plums and other plums will not prevent genetic contamination from
being spread by pollinating insects.

Because this GE plum tree is also the first genetically engineered temperate
tree proposed for commercial planting, it also opens the door to the
commercialization of GE varieties of other temperate trees such as poplars,
pines, and walnuts.

The one GE fruit tree that has previously been approved, a virus resistant
Hawaiian papaya, has caused extensive contamination of organic, conventional
and wild papaya orchards on most of the Hawaiian Islands in just a few
years. This contamination has spread far more quickly than the USDA
predicted in its initial assessment. Once native and cultivated plum
varieties are contaminated with transgenic pollen, there is no calling it
back.

This petition has implications for all other GE tree species, as the USDA
and the industry want to gauge what the public’s reaction will be. It is
critical that all concerned about the threat of GE foods and GE trees
respond to this USDA petition.

[Comments to submit below. Please add any additional comments of your own.]

The following comments are in reference to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0084

I oppose the deregulation of genetically engineered plum trees for the
following reasons:

1. Genetic contamination is a serious threat. Flowers and fruit in organic
and conventional plum orchards will become contaminated with GE plum genes
via pollen transported by bees and other insects that travel many miles in
search of pollen. The result is that organic and conventional plum growers
will lose their markets for non-GE plums as DNA testing confirms the
contamination, as it has with GE papayas in Hawaii. An organic tree might
remain organic itself, but the fruit and seeds will become contaminated.

2. The approval of GE plums would be a precedent setting step by USDA,
opening the floodgates for more GE trees including fruit, nut, ornamental,
and paper-pulp species, as well as trees engineered for soil remediation,
and other traits. Approximately 80 species and varieties of trees are
currently undergoing gene splicing research and development for commercial
use.

3. There is a serious concern about the genetic stability of the inserted
genes in GE plum trees. USDA claims that the plum pox viral resistance gene
and other inserted genes are sufficiently genetically stable, but the
testing has only been performed over ten years and not the entire
pollen-producing life span of a plum tree. Over the life of a tree, an RNA
virus such as plum pox is susceptible to many cycles of recombination,
leading to the creation of new plant viruses that could infect a wide
variety of plants. This can also occur with the viral DNA that has been
inserted into these plums.

4. The plum pox virus is not currently known to exist in the US as a problem
for plum growers. Thus there is no justification for exposing other trees,
plants, insects and people to the various hazards posed by GE plums.

5. The deregulatory petition completely ignores potential effects on bees
and other pollinator species. There are no studies that would allow us to
evaluate the potential hazards of GE tree pollen for a variety of insects,
or for consumers of honey. We also do not know how animals and insects that
browse on plum leaves might be affected.

6. The USDA’s environmental assessment admits that the GE plum readily
hybridizes within its species. Thus, there is a significant potential for
gene flow into native plum varieties. Wild plum trees are perennial species
living for several decades and populations exist in dozens of states from
coast to coast. GE plum trees will be long lived, and capable of
contaminating orchards and native plum tree populations for several decades.
One GE plum tree will be able to produce thousands of GE seeds and extensive
quantities of GE pollen, and will be capable of spreading fertile GE plum
seeds and pollen into the environment for many years. The petition did not
adequately evaluate the relative fitness of GE plum varieties as compared to
native plums; it is possible that the GE varieties would become more
successful in natural settings, and out-compete non-GE varieties. We
challenge the USDA spurious claim that contamination would be positive by
reducing potential reservoirs for harboring the plum pox virus in the wild.

7. There has been no short-term or long-term safety testing or feeding
trials for toxicity and other adverse effects of the genes inserted into the
GE plum trees. GE plums have not been tested on animals, birds or humans for
safety. Toxicity tests are necessary since unintended genetic effects are
known to occur with gene splicing. USDA has ignored the need for scientific
studies of gene splicing and for comprehensive studies of the environmental
consequences of GE plantings.

The US Department of Agriculture is accepting public comments between now
and July 17, 2006 on the petition to formally deregulate and allow
commercial growing and marketing of GE plums.

To submit your comments, send an original and three copies with your name
and address to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0084, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. If you wish to submit a comment using the
Internet, go to In the “Agency” box, select
“Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the drop-down menu; select
“NOTICES” as the Document Type and APHIS-2006-0084 as the “Keyword or ID.”
Then press “submit” to submit or view public comments as well as the
agency’s supporting materials; click just beneath “Add Comments” and scroll
down to submit your letter.

Feel free to copy and paste any or all of the 7 points above, along with any
comments of your own. Please forward this widely among your friends and
other contacts.

Thanks for helping us STOP the genetic engineering of trees!

STOP Genetically Engineered Trees Campaign
<; A project of Global Justice Ecology Project P.O. Box 412 Hinesburg, VT 05461 U.S. +1.802.482.2689 ph/fax [email protected] globaljusticeecology.org <; ---------------------------------------------- Biotechnology Project c/o Institute for Social Ecology P.O. Box 93 Plainfield, VT 05667 [email protected] --------------- ------------------------------- 29.6.2006 Subscribing Information CENN lists are created to maintain e-mail discussions of Caucasus Environmental NGO Network members. CENN has been distributing information since 1998. All the published digests and bulletins issued in both English and Russian languages present incredibly rich environmental information base that give the reader the whole picture of the environmental process taking place during the recent 5 years in the South Caucasus region as well as abroad. To subscribe or unsubscribe from CENN mailing list service, please send an email to [email protected] and place the “subscribe” or
“unsubscribe” command as the first line of the message body.

If you would like the information about your organization and activities to
be distributed via the CENN mailing lists (the current number of CENN
mailing list members represents 11049), if you want your voice to be heard
around the world, please send your information at the following email:
[email protected].

For more information about the program, please visit CENN web-page:

Caucasus Environmental NGO Network 2006
< l?taya&0&digest> BannerDots
Network
< pl?digest>

CENN INFO
Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN)

Tel:+995 32 75 19 03/04
Fax:+995 32 75 19 05
E-mail: [email protected]
URL: <;