DOCSLIB.ORG

Conserving, Enhancing and Managing Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conserving, Enhancing and Managing Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Appendix 1. Project Document PROJECT DOCUMENT SECTION 1: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION 1.1 Project title: Conserving, Enhancing and Managing Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity in The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone 1.2 Project number: GFL/4634 PMS: 785 1.3 Project type: FSP 1.4 Trust Fund: GEF 1.5 Strategic objectives: GEF strategic long-term objective: BD1 CCM-5 LD-3 Strategic program for GEF IV: NA 1.6 UNEP priority: Ecosystem Management; Environmental Governance 1.7 Geographical scope: National 1.8 Mode of execution: Internal 1.9 Project executing organization: UNEP/ROE 1.10 Duration of project: 48 months Commencing: January 2015 Technical completion: December 2018 Validity of legal instrument: 48 months 1.11 Cost of project in US$ US$ Cost to the GEF Trust Fund 4,863,955 14.65% Co-financing Cash Government of Ukraine 17,300,000 52.10% GMFMC 20,000 0.06% UNEP 70,000 0.21% Sub-total 17,390,000 52.37% In-kind Government of Ukraine 10,700,000 32.23% 1 Appendix 1. Project Document GMFMC 20,000 0.06% UNEP 230,000 0.69% Sub-total 10,950,000 32.98% Co-financing total 28,340,000 85.35% Grand Total 33,253,955 100% 2 Appendix 1. Project Document 1.12 Project Summary The project objective is enhanced conservation and management of carbon stocks and biodiversity in forest and non-forest lands in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (ChEZ). The project aims to expand current use of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone to encompass ecosystem values and in so doing provide ecosystem services to the benefit of local, national and international stakeholders. Biodiversity focused management is to be mainstreamed into the public sectors responsible for the use and management of the natural resources of the ChEZ. In order to do this in a sustainable way, project involvement and support of social and stakeholder engaged processes are ensured where science and policy work together to allow for the uptake of the results of the project. The project consists of local, national, regional and international scale activities which will contribute to development and implementation of an expanded protected area network in and around the ChEZ, and accompanying management processes in the context of a governmental commitment to expand current productive uses in the ChEZ to the social, economic and environmental benefit of all stakeholders. Mainstreaming of project results will be aided by the participation and ownership of stakeholders in this project. In order to facilitate this participation, close communication channels between project managers, governmental ministries, agencies and departments, scientists at national and international levels, and inhabitants around the ChEZ will be established. This communication will inform scientists as they strive to fill important data and information gaps, while communications between scientist and stakeholder will ensure buy-in and ownership. While the central focus of the Project is the ChEZ, officials from Belarus generally, and specifically from the Polessky Nature Reserve (Reserve), were involved during project preparation. Close cooperation and joint activities with the Reserve will continue during project implementation. The project has three substantive components and two additional components for project management and monitoring and evaluation. Component 1 is improved monitoring and research for large areas of forests, wetlands, and other habitat types and associated carbon benefits in the ChEZ. It will result in creation of a Research and Environmental Protection Center, which will take the lead in efforts to collect and synthesize existing research, undertake a gap analysis, and develop and implement a research program consistent with Component 2 is establishment and management of a full protected area network. The new protected area network will enable protection of biodiversity, mitigate land degradation and maintain carbon stocks in large areas of forest and non-forest lands, including wetlands and other habitat within the ChEZ. This component will include a wide reaching dissemination strategy to secure participation, build and strengthen partnerships, and contribute to further understanding and appreciation of the social, economic, and environmental benefits that will accrue to the ChEZ and surrounding area. Civil society engagement will include informal presentations and media communications on the project and its relevance to society at large. Component 3 captures lessons learned, field-testing and dissemination of results. Component 3 will ensure mainstreaming of project results. The communication process of this Component will include traditional scientific publications to demonstrate the credibility and applicability of project results. The participation of international scientific organizations in project activities will facilitate the communication of results as well as help in ensuring replication in other areas as necessary. Lessons learned will be made widely available through written reports, the project website, and through training manuals developed and distributed by the Research and Environmental Protection Center. 3 Appendix 1. Project Document Table of Contents SECTION 1. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION…………………………………………………………….....….1 Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2. BACKGROUND AND SITUATION ANALYSIS (BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION) ................ ……6 2.1 Background and Context…………….……………………………………………………..…..6 2.2 Global significance .................................................................................................................. 17 2.3 Threats, root causes and barrier analysis ................................................................................. 18 2.4 Institutional, sectoral and policy context ................................................................................. 26 2.5 Stakeholder mapping and analysis ........................................................................................... 29 2.6 Baseline analysis and gaps ..................................................................................................... 322 2.7 Linkages with other GEF and non-GEF interventions ............................................................ 36 SECTION 3. INTERVENTION STRATEGY (ALTERNATIVE) 3.1 Project rationale, policy conformity and expected global environmental benefits .................. 39 3.2 Project goal and objective ........................................................................................................ 43 3.3 Project components and expected results ................................................................................ 44 3.4 Intervention Logic and Key Assumptions ............................................................................... 47 3.5 Risk analysis and risk management measures ......................................................................... 49 3.6 Consistency with national priorities or plans ........................................................................... 51 3.7 Incremental cost reasoning .................................................................................................... 522 3.8 Sustainability ......................................................................................................................... 544 3.9 Replication ............................................................................................................................. 555 3.10 Public awareness, communications and mainstreaming strategy .......................................... 566 3.11 Environmental and social safeguards ...................................................................................... 57 SECTION 4. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK/IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ................................... 57 Project Organogram ......................................................................................................................... 61 SECTION 5. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 622 SECTION 6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN ............................................................................. 666 SECTION 7. PROJECT FINANCING AND BUDGET ..................................................................................... 68 7.1 Overall Project Budget ............................................................................................................... 68 7.3 Project cost-effectiveness ........................................................................................................... 69 Appendix 1. Budget by project components and UNEP budget lines Appendix 2. Co-financing by source and UNEP budget lines Appendix 3. Incremental Cost Analysis Appendix 4. Results Framework (Logical Framework Analysis) Appendix 5. Workplan and timetable Appendix 6. Key deliverables and benchmark Appendix 7. Costed M&E plan Appendix 8. Summary of reporting requirements and responsibilities Appendix 9. Terms of Reference Appendix 10. Co-financing commitment letters from project partners Appendix 11. Endorsement letter of GEF National Focal Point Appendix 12. Checklist for Environmental and Social issues Appendix 13. Project Supervision Plan Appendix 14. Tracking Tools 4 Appendix 1. Project Document Acronyms and Abbreviations AEWA African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement ARCH Agenda for Research on Chernobyl Health CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBO Community Based Organization
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 27 September 2019
    United Nations A/74/461 General Assembly Distr.: General 27 September 2019 Original: English . Seventy-fourth session Agenda item 71 (d) Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations, including special economic assistance: strengthening of international cooperation and coordination of efforts to study, mitigate and minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster Persistent legacy of the Chernobyl disaster Report of the Secretary-General Summary The present report is submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 71/125 on the persistent legacy of the Chernobyl disaster and provides an update on the progress made in the implementation of all aspects of the resolution. The report provides an overview of the recovery and development activities undertaken by the agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system and other international actors to address the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The United Nations system remains committed to promoting the principle of leaving no one behind and ensuring that the governmental efforts to support the affected regions are aimed at achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals. 19-16688 (E) 041019 151019 *1916688* A/74/461 I. General situation 1. Since the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident on 26 April 1986, the United Nations, along with the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, has been leading the recovery and development efforts to support the affected regions. While extensive humanitarian work was conducted immediately after the accident, additional recovery and rehabilitation activities were conducted in the following years to secure the area, limit the exposure of the population, provide medical follow-up to those affected and study the health consequences of the incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Present and Future Environmental Impact of the Chernobyl Accident
    IAEA-TECDOC-1240 Present and future environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident Study monitored by an International Advisory Committee under the project management of the Institut de protection et de sûreté nucléaire (IPSN), France August 2001 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Waste Safety Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria PRESENT AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT IAEA, VIENNA, 2001 IAEA-TECDOC-1240 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2001 Printed by the IAEA in Austria August 2001 FOREWORD The environmental impact of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident has been extensively investigated by scientists in the countries affected and by international organizations. Assessment of the environmental contamination and the resulting radiation exposure of the population was an important part of the International Chernobyl Project in 1990–1991. This project was designed to assess the measures that the then USSR Government had taken to enable people to live safely in contaminated areas, and to evaluate the measures taken to safeguard human health there. It was organized by the IAEA under the auspices of an International Advisory Committee with the participation of the Commission of the European Communities (CEC), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The IAEA has also been engaged in further studies in this area through projects such as the one on validation of environmental model predictions (VAMP) and through its technical co-operation programme.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chernobyl Liquidator Medal—An Educational Essay
    Article Chernobyl’s Lesser Known Design Flaw: The Chernobyl Liquidator Medal—An Educational Essay Michael McIntire * and John Luczaj Department of Natural & Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, Green Bay, WI 54311, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-920-465-5131 Received: 26 June 2019; Accepted: 7 August 2019; Published: 9 August 2019 Abstract: The honorary Chernobyl Liquidator Medal depicts pathways of alpha, gamma, and beta rays over a drop of blood, signifying the human health impacts of the Chernobyl accident. A relativistic analysis of the trajectories depicted on the Chernobyl Liquidator Medal is conducted assuming static uniform magnetic and electric fields. The parametric trajectories are determined using the energies of alpha (α) and beta (β) particles relevant to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident and compared with the trajectories depicted on the liquidator medal. For minimum alpha particle velocity of 0.0512c, the beta particle trajectory depicted on the medal is highly unlikely to have come from a naturally occurring nuclear decay process. The parametric equations are used to determine the necessary beta energies to reproduce the depicted trajectories. This article documents the unfortunate misrepresentation of a famous scientific experiment on an honorary medal and illustrates the importance of better communication between artists and scientists. Keywords: Chernobyl; liquidator; medal; radiation; trajectories; physics; design 1. Introduction 1.1. The Chernobyl Power Station Accident and the Liquidators With near universal acceptance of global climate change by today’s scientific community, coupled with a looming energy shortage as carbon-based fuels become increasingly limited, there has been a revitalization of nuclear energy throughout much of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment International 146 (2021) 106282
    Environment International 146 (2021) 106282 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environment International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envint Current radiological situation in areas of Ukraine contaminated by the Chornobyl accident: Part 2. Strontium-90 transfer to culinary grains and forest woods from soils of Ivankiv district I. Labunskaa’*, S. Levchukb, V. Kashparov b,c, D. Holiakab, L. Yoschenkob, D. Santilloa, P. Johnston a a Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Innovation Centre Phase 2, Rennes Drive, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK b Ukrainian Institute of Agricultural Radiology (UIAR) of National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Mashinobudivnykiv str.7, Chabany, Kyiv Region 08162, Ukraine c CERAD CoE Environmental Radioactivity/Department of Environmental Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Aas, Norway ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Handling Editor: Olga Kalantzi Some of the highest 90Sr activity concentrations recorded beyond the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone occur in the Ivankiv district of Ukraine, located approximately 50 km south of the power plant, an area which nonetheless Keywords: remains important for agricultural production. Although characterized by soils with low exchangeable calcium 90Sr values, which can enhance the bioavailability of certain radionuclides, information on the transfer of 90Sr to food Grain contamination crops and trees in the region has remained limited to date. Analysis of 116 grain samples (wheat, rye, oat, barley Wood contamination or Triticale) collected from fields in 13 settlements in the region between 2011 and 2019 revealed 90Sr and 137Cs The Chernobyl accident Effective dose activity concentrations above Ukrainian limits in almost half of those samples, with annual averages exceeding Transfer factor this limit in four of those nine years (most recently in 2018) and with no clear evidence for a declining trend over time.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ukrainian Weekly 1989
    І HCL Г^"^^^'^^^^ ^У ^^^ Ukrainian National Association Inc.. a fraternal non-profit associitiori UbainianWeekl Vol. LVJ! No. 27 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, JULY 2, 1989 50 cents Chornovil accuses Shcherbytsky Tour of Chornobyl plant enmom of crimes against Ukrainian people provides insight into 1986 tragedy JERSEY CITY, NJ. - During his from a prison cell in Zolochiv, Lviv On June 9-18, Dr. David Marples, by Dr. David R. Marples IS^day incarceration last month, Ukrai­ region, was released by the UHU's press author of two books on the Chornobyl nian Helsinki Union activist and Ukrai­ service after Mr. Chornovil's release nuclear accident, visited the Chornobyl I have returned from a most re­ nian Herald editor Vyacheslav Chorno­ from prison on June 6. He was arrested area and Kiev, courtesy of the Ukrai­ markable journey to Ukraine. My vil penned a stingmg open letter to on May 21 on charges of "petty hooli­ nian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In intention at the outset was to visit Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, accusing the ganism" for participating in an April 26 addition to holding interviews with Chornobyl; something that I had been first secretary of the Communist Party Chornobyl demonstration. leaders of the Kombinat production granted permission to do, and to exa­ of Ukraine of "criminal" deeds against Titled "Don't try the people's pa­ association based at Chornobyl, he mine other areas of Ukrainian life as far the Ukrainian people, and called for his tience: an open letter to V. Shcherbyt­ interviewed the plant director, Mikhail as possible. I did much more than that.
    [Show full text]
  • Annoucements of Conducting Procurement Procedures
    Bulletin No�24(98) June 12, 2012 Annoucements of conducting 13443 Ministry of Health of Ukraine procurement procedures 7 Hrushevskoho St., 01601 Kyiv Chervatiuk Volodymyr Viktorovych tel.: (044) 253–26–08; 13431 National Children’s Specialized Hospital e–mail: [email protected] “Okhmatdyt” of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine Website of the Authorized agency which contains information on procurement: 28/1 Chornovola St., 01135 Kyiv www.tender.me.gov.ua Povorozniuk Volodymyr Stepanovych Procurement subject: code 24.42.1 – medications (Imiglucerase in flasks, tel.: (044) 236–30–05 400 units), 319 pcs. Website of the Authorized agency which contains information on procurement: Supply/execution: 29 Berezniakivska St., 02098 Kyiv; during 2012 www.tender.me.gov.ua Procurement procedure: open tender Procurement subject: code 24.42.1 – medications, 72 lots Obtaining of competitive bidding documents: at the customer’s address, office 138 Supply/execution: at the customer’s address; July – December 2012 Submission: at the customer’s address, office 138 Procurement procedure: open tender 29.06.2012 10:00 Obtaining of competitive bidding documents: at the customer’s address, Opening of tenders: at the customer’s address, office 138 economics department 29.06.2012 12:00 Submission: at the customer’s address, economics department Tender security: bank guarantee, deposit, UAH 260000 26.06.2012 10:00 Terms of submission: 90 days; not returned according to part 3, article 24 of the Opening of tenders: at the customer’s address, office of the deputy general Law on Public Procurement director of economic issues Additional information: For additional information, please, call at 26.06.2012 11:00 tel.: (044) 253–26–08, 226–20–86.
    [Show full text]
  • Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology the Report Prepared in a Framework of GEF UNEP Project &
    Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology The report prepared in a framework of GEF UNEP Project "Project entitled "Conserving, Enhancing and Managing Carbon Stocks and Biodiversity in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone" (Project ID: 4634; IMIS: GFL/5060-2711-4C40) Revision and optimization of the systems of routine and scientific radiological monitoring of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the ChEZ Slavutich - 2016 1 Analysis by Prof. V. Kashparov Director of UIAR of NUBiP of Ukraine Dr S. Levchuk Head of the Laboratory of UIAR of NUBiP of Ukraine Dr. V. Protsak Senior Researcher of UIAR of NUBiP of Ukraine Dr D. Golyaka Researcher of UIAR of NUBiP of Ukraine Dr V. Morozova Researcher of UIAR of NUBiP of Ukraine M. Zhurba Researcher of UIAR of NUBiP of Ukraine This report, publications discussed, and conclusions made are solely the responsibility of the au- thors 2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 System of the radioecological monitoring in the territory of Ukraine alienated after the Chernobyl accident 8 2. Exclusion Zone....................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Natural facilities11 2.2 Industrial (technical) facilities 12 2.2.1 Facilities at the ChNPP industrial site.....................................................................................12 2.2.2 Facilities
    [Show full text]
  • Construction of the Protective Shelter for the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Faces Schedule Delays, Potential Cost Increases, and Technical Uncertainties
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Ranking Member, GAO Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives July 2007 NUCLEAR SAFETY Construction of the Protective Shelter for the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Faces Schedule Delays, Potential Cost Increases, and Technical Uncertainties GAO-07-923 July 2007 NUCLEAR SAFETY Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Construction of the Protective Shelter for Highlights of GAO-07-923, a report to the the Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Faces Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, Schedule Delays, Potential Cost Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives Increases, and Technical Uncertainties Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In 1986, an explosion at the Although two of three construction components—site preparation and Chernobyl nuclear power plant in stabilization of the existing shelter—are nearly finished, construction of the Ukraine destroyed the reactor new shelter has fallen about 7 years behind schedule. Over the past couple building and released massive of years, the main reason for schedule slippage has been the failure to award amounts of radioactive a construction contract. The lack of a contract is partly the result of a contamination. A temporary lengthy disagreement between Ukraine and the European Bank for shelter was built over the damaged reactor to prevent further Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). In late 2006, the Chernobyl contamination. The United States nuclear power plant director told GAO that the donors should not make any is a major donor to an international additional contributions to the project until contracting issues were project to build a new shelter to resolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Chernobyl: Chronology of a Disaster
    MARCH 11, 2011 | No. 724 CHERNOBYL: CHRONOLOGY OF A DISASTER CHERNOBYL; CHRONOLOGY OF A DISASTER 1 INHOUD: 1- An accident waiting to happen 2 2- The accident and immediate consequences ( 1986 – 1989) 4 3- Trying to minimize the consequences (1990 – 2000) 8 4- Aftermath: no lessons learned (2001 - 2011) 5- Postscript 18 Chernobyl - 200,000 sq km contaminated; 600,000 liquidators; $200 billion in damage; 350,000 people evacuated; 50 mln Ci of radiation. Are you ready to pay this price for the development of nuclear power? (Poster by Ecodefence, 2011) 1 At 1.23 hr on April 26, 1986, the fourth reactor of the Cherno- power plants are designed to withstand natural disasters (hur- byl nuclear power plant exploded. ricanes, fl oods, earthquakes, etc.) and to withstand aircraft The disaster was a unique industrial accident due to the crash and blasts from outside. The safety is increased by scale of its social, economic and environmental impacts and the possibility in Russia to select a site far away from bigger longevity. It is estimated that, in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia towns." (page 647: "Zur Betriebssicherheit sind die Kraftwerke alone, around 9 million people were directly affected resulting (VVER and RBMK) mit drei parallel arbeitenden Sicherheit- from the fact that the long lived radioactivity released was systeme ausgeruested. Die Kraftwerke sing gegen Naturka- more than 200 times that of the atomic bombs dropped on tastrophen (Orkane, Ueberschwemmungen, Erdbeben, etc) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. und gegen Flugzeugabsturz und Druckwellen von aussen ausgelegt. Die Sicherheit wird noch durch die in Russland Across the former Soviet Union the contamination resulted in moegliche Standortauswahl, KKW in gewisser Entfernung van evacuation of some 400,000 people.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction
    State Service of Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre State Scientific Production Enterprise “Kartographia” TOPONYMIC GUIDELINES For map and other editors For international use Ukraine Kyiv “Kartographia” 2011 TOPONYMIC GUIDELINES FOR MAP AND OTHER EDITORS, FOR INTERNATIONAL USE UKRAINE State Service of Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre State Scientific Production Enterprise “Kartographia” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared by Nina Syvak, Valerii Ponomarenko, Olha Khodzinska, Iryna Lakeichuk Scientific Consultant Iryna Rudenko Reviewed by Nataliia Kizilowa Translated by Olha Khodzinska Editor Lesia Veklych ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ © Kartographia, 2011 ISBN 978-966-475-839-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................ 5 2 The Ukrainian Language............................................ 5 2.1 General Remarks.............................................. 5 2.2 The Ukrainian Alphabet and Romanization of the Ukrainian Alphabet ............................... 6 2.3 Pronunciation of Ukrainian Geographical Names............................................................... 9 2.4 Stress .............................................................. 11 3 Spelling Rules for the Ukrainian Geographical Names....................................................................... 11 4 Spelling of Generic Terms ....................................... 13 5 Place Names in Minority Languages
    [Show full text]
  • Group Multi-Day Tour (*.Pdf)
    The explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is an example of human negligence that has made impact on the lives of millions of people. If you want to feel like a part of the modern life of the Exclusion Zone, and to listen to the stories of local residents, join our multi-day tour to Chernobyl. The tour program covers all the important places associated with the catastrophe and its consequences, and allots enough time to each location for feeling the atmosphere of the modern zone. Multi-day tours allow not only to study deliberately such key objects as Pripyat, Chernobyl 2, the Red forest, the buried village and the remains of the NPP infrastructure, but also to communicate with the employees who are now eliminating the consequences of the disaster, and local residents. After a walk around the ghost city, you can spend a night at a local hotel, have a dinner in the Chernobyl NNP refectory, and buy groceries at a local store. Our multi-day tour provides an opportunity to discover more secrets of the past of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, and study its current life. Languages: English, Ukrainian, Russian (Polish, French, Spanish on request) Inclusions: Transportation from our office in Kyiv, insurance policy, accommodation, complete package of documents allowing a visit to the Exclusion Zone, permission for photo / filming, and tour guide services. 1 Approximate Itinerary (may be changed up to the CEZ administration request) Day 1 07:30 am • Come to the meeting point at Shuliavska Street, 5 (Metro Station Polytechnic Institute), Kyiv for check-in 08:00 – 10:00 am • Road to the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone 10:05 – 10:40 am • "Dytyatky" checkpoint.
    [Show full text]
  • The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
    THE CONGRESS Appendix OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL T�e Sl�vut��� Appe�l AUTHORITIES l�un��ed �� t�e Inte�n�tion�l �onfe�en�e “��e�no��l 20 �e��s on lo��l �nd �egion�l �ut�o�ities de�ling wit� dis�ste�s” Resolution 215 (2006)1 Slavutych (Ukraine), 2-4 March 2006 on ��e�no��l 20 �e������s on lo��l We, �nd �egion�l �ut�o�ities de�ling wit� dis�ste�s The participants in the International Conference “Chernobyl, 20 years on: local and regional authorities dealing with disasters”, local and regional elected representatives, parliamentarians and representatives of . The date of 26 April 2006 marked the 20th anniversary governments, international and non-governmental of the unprecedented catastrophe in the history of mankind organisations and experts, which took place at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. Meeting in Slavutych on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, 2. The consequences of the Chernobyl disaster have long been a subject of speculation and the issue is a no less Resolve to adopt an appeal, which will be forwarded to the topical subject today, which is why the Congress decided to Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council hold a conference on “Chernobyl, 20 years on: local and of Europe and to other interested organisations. regional authorities dealing with disasters” in Slavutych in Ukraine, from 2 to 4 March 2006. Here in Slavutych, some 50 kilometres from Chernobyl and twenty years after the worst technological disaster in the history of humankind, we feel the need to solemnly 3.
    [Show full text]