Interviews with Goldman Prize Winners

Global Fund grantees and advisors have been consistently among Goldman Environmental Prize Winners over the past several years. We asked two activists in Central Asia to share their experiences as recipients of the prize.

Grantees: EcoCenter, Kazakhstan
Center Perzent, Uzbekistan

We asked Global Fund Advisor Oral Ataniyazova to interview Kaisha Atakhanova, Director of grantee EcoCenter on her work to advance women's rights through environmental activism, and the effect of winning the prestigious Goldman Prize on her work. Oral, who won the Goldman Prize in 2000, also shares her experience as an environmental and women's rights activist in an interview with the Global Fund. The Goldman Prize is an international prize awarded annually to six grassroots environmental heroes in every region of the world.

Kaisha Atakhanova won the 2005 Goldman Prize for her work in Kazakhstan. Kaisha is the director of EcoCenter, a Global Fund grantee operating an ecological awareness program to address high rates of nuclear contamination in Kazakhstan. Kaisha led a successful campaign against the government to prevent the commercial import of nuclear waste into the region.

Read the interview

Oral Ataniyazova of Uzbekistan is an advisor to the Global Fund and the director of Global Fund grantee, Center Perzent. Oral won the Goldman Prize in 2000 for her work addressing the Aral Sea crisis. The Aral Sea, once a large inland sea in Uzbekistan, is on the verge of disappearance. The entire region has been heavily polluted by pesticides used in cotton production, metals from mining operations, and chemicals from factories. Extreme levels of pollution are causing serious public health problems, such as increased rates of anemia, kidney and liver diseases and birth defects. Women and children represent the majority of those affected. Oral, a doctor and expert on reproductive health, established the Center Perzent to increase public awareness about environmental issues, and promote women's rights in order to improve the health and status of women and children in the region.

Read the interview

Interview with Kaisha Atakhanova

2005 Goldman Prize Winner,
Director of EcoCenter, Kazakhstan

Oral Ataniyazova: What environmental issue is the center of your work and why? How does it affect women's lives in Kazakhstan?

Kaisha Atakhanova: I have been working in the field of nuclear safety for over 10 years. My interest in this issue stems from Kazakhstan's significant nuclear legacy from the time of the Cold War. More than half a century has passed since the first nuclear explosion at the Semipalatinsk testing site [in Kazakhstan] on August 29, 1949. No less then 468 nuclear devices have been tested on this site, including the first thermonuclear device on August 12, 1953, and the world's first hydrogen bomb on November 22, 1955. Ground testing continued until 1962, during which period 88 explosions were produced in the air, 30 on the ground, and 6 at very high altitudes and in space. Ground testing was often accompanied by the release of radioactive isotopes (including Plutonium 239, 240) that are hazardous to life.

After 1962, the testing was done underground and totaled 340 explosions: 107 in crevices in the area called Balapan, and 206 in tunnels and shafts in the mountains of Delegen. In the west and north of Kazakhstan, "peaceful" explosions were produced; the military designated these explosions as economic development. It's also well known that the underground explosions were often accompanied by the release of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere.

The testing site was officially closed by presidential order on August 29, 1991. However, the problem remains very real to this day. Almost 304,000 sq. kilometers [117,375 sq. miles] have been contaminated with radiation, and 1.5 million people live in this territory. The total energy of the 489 attested explosions in the atmosphere equals more than 600 megatons. This means that over 35 years—until 1980—the total energy of the nuclear devices exploded was more than 40,000 times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb. According to A. D. Sakharov's [Russian Nobel Prize winning physicist and anti-nuclear activist] calculation, one megaton costs 10,000 human lives. In other words, about 6 million human lives have been sacrificed to the nuclear monster.

The population in the regions bordering the testing site has migrated very little; many people have lived for decades in this territory. Despite the fact that the current level of radioactive irradiation in urban and rural areas is only slightly higher than natural background levels, many residents living in the immediate area of the testing site have acquired a substantial cumulative dose (from 0.8 to 2 sieverts; Peterson and Weinberg, 1997). Plutonium and americium make up a significant part of the radioactive contamination in this territory; a factor that has not been thoroughly studied.

Despite the potential risk of radiation, and despite existing decrees and laws, a full-fledged rehabilitation program for the territories in Kazakhstan contaminated by radiation has not been carried out. Thus, the population living on these territories does not have reliable and clear information about the level of radioactive risk they face. The local inhabitants carry out various economic activities (grazing livestock, gathering hay, collecting scrap metal, disassembling destroyed military installations, etc.) on these contaminated territories.

The second problem affecting radioactive safety in Kazakhstan is the accumulation of radioactive wastes resulting from the extraction of uranium. Uranium production entails clear risks and threats arising from imperfect techniques of extraction, storage and transport as well as from accidents occurring during storage. The nuclear fuel cycle as a whole encompasses a series of problems, which have not been solved to this day. Every stage of the cycle engenders hazardous dumps, storage sites, and wastes; the transport of the nuclear materials is likewise not safe.

The problem is exacerbated because certain members of parliament, ministries, agencies, and foreign companies have a direct interest in increasing commercialization and weakening environmental legislation. Here, one can make a direct tie between the environment and the economy of our country, as it is a matter of the use and conservation of natural resources and the ecological safety of our citizens.

Rejecting any potential accusations of "radiation phobia," I stress that a natural, reasonable sense of caution based on real dangers should inform any approach towards radiation, and that virtually everything hinges on having access to information.

I consider that our country still lacks a basic, civilized system of access to, and dissemination of information, and it lacks a process for making decisions assuring the safety of its citizens from environmental and radiation hazards.

OA: How did women play a role in the campaign to stop the importation of nuclear waste?

KA: I shared responsibility for the coordination of the Anti-Nuclear Campaign of NGOs in Kazakhstan with Gulsum Kakimzhanova, the leader of the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Iris. It would be hard to overestimate the value of Gulsum's previous experience in the Nevada-Semipalatinsk anti-nuclear movement and her high reputation in the nongovernmental sector.

My colleagues—members of the women's leadership network in Kazakhstan—made a huge contribution to the fight against the proposed legislation. We created our informal network during a joint project of the EcoCenter and the Center for Safe Energy [based in San Francisco, CA] a few years ago. They were the ones who first took up my call, actively supporting our environmental campaign in all the cities and towns of Kazakhstan. They, along with the leaders of Kazakhstan's major environmental organizations, made up the working group coordinating the anti-nuclear campaign. In five regions of Kazakhstan, women took on the roles of regional coordinators and, for three years, led the public campaigns against legislation allowing the commercial importation of radioactive wastes in Kazakhstan.

OA: Why do you think the campaign was a success?

KA: KazAtomprom [the state-controlled nuclear-industrial complex], members of Parliament and of the government of Kazakhstan acknowledged our campaign as a force representing the interests of society. We succeeded in stopping the legislation, even though KazAtomprom put quite a lot of resources into its negative public relations campaign. It created a pro-KazAtomprom NGO and actively lobbied in favor of the bill at the highest levels of government.

The "spiral of silence" was broken despite the efforts of the government of Kazakhstan and KazAtomprom to block accurate information about the bill that would allow commercial importation and storage of radioactive waste. The anti-nuclear campaign succeeded in raising the issue in every region and on a national level. Citizen activists and NGOs had the chance to take part in our actions and discussions on the issue of radioactive wastes, and to voice their position at public hearings, which were held locally.

The consolidation of our efforts, our confidence, good strategy and tactics, the mobilization of resources and international support all paved the way for our success.

OA: How does politics in Kazakhstan affect your work?

KA: Currently, the official policies of the government of Kazakhstan have taken a turn towards harsh limitation and control of the activities of NGOs. For over three months, the more active and independent NGOs, including EcoCenter, have been subjected to a thorough investigation by the Office of the Procurator as well as the tax authorities. Our work has been essentially paralyzed; many NGOs have been punished with completely baseless fines.

On top of this, we are still fighting proposed legislation regarding the activities of NGOs and international organizations in Kazakhstan, legislation that violates our constitutional rights and freedoms. We have managed to have some of the limitations and restrictive amendments to these bills removed. At present, however, despite protests from the public, the legislation has been approved by Parliament and awaits the president's signature.

OA: Does winning the Goldman Environmental Prize affect your work and strategy? How?

KA: I can note a certain improvement in the attitude of the organs of power towards my organization and me. The publicizing of this significant event in my life in the mass media has made me better known; an enormous number of friends and colleagues from every corner of the country and the Commonwealth of Independent States continue to express their congratulations.

I got a feeling of protection and clear direction to achieve the unstoppable democratization process in Kazakhstan.

OA: What are the next steps? Are there other battles on the horizon?

KA: One of the most important challenges is our struggle against legislation that will limit the work of NGOs, and violate our rights and freedoms to continue our work. We are working with a coalition to have dialogues on the governmental level about this legislation.

Another struggle is the desire to establish a strong civil society on local levels. We continue our collaborative work with the Center for Safe Energy in creating women's initiative groups in rural areas. We have established six groups so far.

OA: What are the alternatives to nuclear energy in Kazakhstan? Who, if anybody is working on developing them?

KA: When Kazakhstan was preparing to sign the Kyoto treaty, the National Center for Climate Change opened. The Center leads research and provides technical support to projects for development of alternative energy. The project is pending approval to develop alternative energy sources from wind energy. In the last few years, there were a couple of pilot projects presented to the United Nations Development Program on the use of biogas and sun energy. Unfortunately, such projects are at the pilot stage and can be realized only with international support.

There is no effective politics and state program for development of alternative energy in Kazakhstan.

OA: As an environmentalist, do you think it is possible to balance environmental sustainability and conservation with economic development? Please explain.

KA: If we practice honorable values and strive for ideal human behavior, the principles of sustainable development will not be only a theory and declarations of intentions. They will become a new mindset and conscious human behavior.

OA: What should women's role be in continuing to build environmental sustainability?

KA: Earth, Mother, Motherland, Security, Ecology, Life, Harmony, Love. I don't think it's just a coincidence that all these words are in the feminine case in Russian. It means that to be born a woman is a special mission on this Earth for each one of us. We are the only human creatures on Earth that are gifted with the ability to create new life. This is our destiny to nurture and protect our children and future generations to come.

OA: Is there any other message you would like to share with Global Fund supporters and grantees around the world?

KA: I have a dream that I am sure will come true soon. Now, with the help of the Goldman Prize I will be able to establish the Socio-Ecological Investment Fund in Kazakhstan together with my anti-nuclear colleagues. The Fund will provide support to women's initiatives and activists from nongovernmental organizations.

Due to upcoming restrictions on international organizations' activities in Kazakhstan by the Kazakh government, we are expecting a dramatic decrease in donor support to Kazakh NGOs. Governmental support to our NGOs will not go into the projects aimed for advocacy and protection of human rights and development of civil society. That is why creation of our own Fund is becoming more essential.

We are hoping to receive assistance and support from our international partners and colleagues for development of our fund. We really need experience and knowledge about best practices and standards, which the Global Fund for Women is very well known for.

Interview with Oral Ataniyazova

2000 Goldman Prize Winner,
Director of the Center Perzent, Uzbekistan

GFW: Does winning the Goldman Environmental Prize affect your work and strategy? How?

OA: The Goldman Prize plays a very important role in the recognition of my actions on an international and local level. In 2003, I was elected as the president of the international organization Doctors for the Environment, and in 2004 I became the national coordinator for the UN program Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene. I think these positions were possible thanks to the Goldman Prize.

For the second time, I was elected as a parliamentary candidate in the state of Karakalpakstan [in Uzbekistan]. The voters display a high level of confidence in the prize. The Goldman Prize is the highest international award in the ecological world. This has not only reflected on me, but has also strengthened the status of our organization, the Center Perzent. We feel a great respect from partners, donors, and also from state officials. For me, the pride of my fellow citizens is most important. Thanks to the Goldman Prize, the Karalkapaks [an ethnic minority group living in the state of Karakalpakstan in Uzbekistan] became famous throughout the world. We are very proud of this.

In this difficult situation, when ecological and socioeconomic problems forced the question of survival upon the people of my country, the Goldman Prize presented a clear sign that the world knows us and we are not alone in dealing with our problems. This is vitally important.

GFW: As an environmentalist, do you think it is possible to balance environmental sustainability and conservation with economic development? Please explain.

OA: I don't think it's as possible (there are too few examples), as it is absolutely necessary. It seems to me that all the contemporary problems derive from the fact that there isn't this balance.

The majority of ecological problems are linked to the politics of states and the ecological illiteracy of politicians. Most of all, the disturbing tendency is the acknowledged strength of power and arms on a global level, which even more negatively affects the balance of ecology and economics.

Of course much depends on the level of public and governmental development. Many developing countries aren't protected from the importation of low-quality products and toxic waste. The ecologic illiteracy of political leaders and economic corruption worsens the difficult position of people in these developing countries.

I think it is very important that governments fulfill their obligations to their citizens—clean drinking water, ecological security, high-quality products, etc. It is not possible to achieve this without public activism, ecological literacy, access to information, the possibility to expose corruption, and the possibility to influence decisions.

I think that the role of women in this is very important because women carry a large responsibility for their children, and without solutions for ecological and economic problems, there won't be a future for our children.

The UN could play an important role, if they would support certain sustainable principles. At times, the unprincipled positions of the UN further complicate and worsen the situation.

Photos © Goldman Environmental Prize