Clewell and Gearhart's Response

Justice in Central and Eastern Europe The conclusion of the recent EHP monograph on environmental justice (Shepard et al. 2002) is that environmental exposures and environmental health issues impact disproportionately on vulnerable populations. In Central and Eastern Europe, we enviously read about the studies (primarily American) carried out in this field. As a consequence of the lack of moral, political and financial support, this type of research is currently not possible in this area of Europe. In fact, Central and Eastern Europe would be an excellent model area for this type of study. The total area of six to eight countries in Central and Eastern Europe is equivalent to that of one of the smaller states in the United States. Because the countries are small, environmental pollution easily crosses the borders, which are most frequently political and are rarely geographical or hydrological (i.e., natural). The pollution often affects the health of populations of adjacent countries. Sometimes environmentally irresponsible behavior is a consequence of the past. Unfortunately, articles that focus on the historical and political background of current environmental situations in Central and Eastern Europe are not frequently found in the literature. [At this point the reader may ask why we do not write one. We did write an article about the Carpathian Basin (Varga et al. Unpublished data), but EHP would not publish it because of the political nature of the manuscript.] However, an article that does not investigate the true causes of the problems is meaningless. In other words, it is not the articles, but the problems themselves, that are saturated with politics. In order to solve the problems, it is necessary to face them head on. Faber and Krieg (2002) suggested that, in Massachusetts, the “ecologically hazardous sites and facilities are disproportionately located and concentrated in communities of color and working-class communities.” This is also true for other locations in the United States. There are many similar examples in Central and Eastern Europe, such as a recent scandal in Hungary: After the country’s largest sports hall was destroyed by fire, the debris containing crocidolite asbestos was dumped illegally in an empty site close to a working-class housing district in Budapest. In some countries in Central and Eastern Europe, environmentally hazardous sites and activities are also disproportionally located, with high concentrations in the areas and communities of ethnic or national minorities. In the majority of countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the classical term of ethnic minority predominantly means the Romany (gypsy) population. For example, in the case of a Hungarian Romany community in Heves, where 1,500 persons were exposed to high doses of lead as a consequence of the illegal disassembly of car batteries collected from nearby dumps and gas stations, one 15month-old girl died and 65 children and 14 adults were hospitalized (Varró et al. 2001). National minorities are often subjects of environmental injustice. These minorities are primarily products of political and governmental changes in the twentieth century, when millions of people suddenly found themselves living in a different country while still in their own homes, depending on the interests of great powers. That is, because the region where they lived was absorbed by another country, the residents frequently became second class citizens of their new state. This has been a common occurrence (both as enclaves and as compact zones along the borders) from the Baltic Sea to the Balkans (Brown 1999, Varga and Ember 2000). Manipulated industrialization was a characteristic feature of the fallen national communist regimes. These environmental “hot spots” exist today, exposing residents of several countries to long-term or permanent hazards. Neighboring countries can be exposed to potential environmental risks; for example, there are international debates on nuclear power plants (e.g., Czech Republic vs. Austria, Slovakia vs. Austria and Hungary); atmospheric pollution (e.g., Poland vs. Germany), and river pollution (upstream vs. downstream countries). Research in environmental justice is urgently needed to aid in the resolution of environmental issues. Both scientifically and politically unique issues have also arisen in Cental and Eastern Europe. The recent environmental catastrophe in the Carpathian Basin was caused by an Australian–Romanian joint venture in Baia Mare/Nagybánya, Romania, inhabited primarily by ethnic Hungarians. The company used (and currently uses) hazardous technology for gold production, which is not allowed in many other countries (e.g., Australia). In January 2000, the mine discharged almost 100,000 m3 of concentrated cyanide solution and polluted the Hungarian section of the Tisza River through the Szamos catchment area. The total quantity of cyanide (in the pollution wave) was approximately 105–110 tons; 70–100 tons of copper was also detected. This pollution almost completely killed the plankton in the Tisza and Szamos Rivers. The most spectacular consequence of this cyanide pollution, however, was an enormous fish kill, estimated at 1,241 tons. Fortunately, drinkingwater production for the involved cities was stopped in time to prevent massive human exposure (Standovár and Primack 2001). In this case, Romanian producers with Australian capital caused both ecologic and economic damage as well as a health hazard for the Hungarian population. [Indeed, new mines with the same technology are planned (e.g., Verespatak project with Canadian capital). It is a new type of ecocolonialism.] To date, both Hungary and the company are still debating on which country’s laws should be used in the compensation trial. Meanwhile, the joint venture was cleared in a criminal suit in the Romanian court, but the European Union Inspection Committee declared that the company is responsible for the ecologic catastrophe (European Commission 2001). Another example is the Danube Dam Project. The goal of the Danube Dam Project, began in the communist era, was to effectively use the Danube River, which in this area forms the border between Slovakia and Hungary. Hungary withdrew from the project following the change of the government to a democracy. The Slovak Academy of Sciences called attention to fact that the project could cause contamination of drinking water in Csallóköz (Slovakian territory north of the Danube with a Hungarian population). The Danube was redirected into an artificial canal in Slovakia to a new hydroelectric power plant, bypassing the Old Danube (the frontier river). This operation caused an extraordinary decrease in surface water, leading to a decrease in the water table in the Hungarian Szigetköz and thus causing branches, channels, and backwaters of the river to dry up, threatening the unique biotopes. Transportation on the river was also redirected to Slovak territory, leading to even more legal disputes. Although the International Court (1997) decided that water distribution should be the subject of bilateral negotiations, to date, the problems still have not been resolved. This situation with the Danube Dam Project is also special in that ethnic Hungarians live on both the Slovakian and Hungarian sides of the river. This population bears the environmental risks and disadvantages, while others receive the benefits. Severe ecologic issues have already arisen in the Hungarian Szigetköz with drying up of river tributaries, but most of the problems in Hungarian communities in the Slovakian territory (e.g., isolation by the artificial canal) are sociologic in nature. Similar situations may have also occurred in other countries. Who benefits, and who bears the costs? In Central and Eastern Europe, international dimensions are especially complicated by the political history of the region. Scientific research is needed to address the environmental injustice of international