Experts opinion on an aluminum production factory

Tajik aluminum smelter was commissioned in year 1975. At that point of time, aluminium production technology at this smelter was considered one of the most progressive and environmentally clean, naturally with a condition of adhering to all norms of technological cycle. Of course time is passing and technologies are advancing to the direction of minimization of influence on the environment. It is necessary to admit that people working at the smelter always understood this and applied efforts to modernize production and brought in usage of special equipment, which lets collect hazardous emissions. Today Tajik Aluminium smelter is one of the few enterprises in the country which is investing its own funds in solution of ecological problems.

For regulation of issues related to environmental protection in the area under influence of aluminium smelter an “Agreement of cooperation in improvement of ecological situation in the areas under negative influence of Tajik aluminium smelter dated November 17, 1994, valid for 3 years” was signed between Republic of Tajikistan and Republic of Uzbekistan, which was eventually extended till year 2002.  Based this Agreement a joint “Program of research engineering on improvement of ecological conditions of aluminium smelter for the period of years 1996 to 2000” was developed, and Tajik side rigorously followed all terms of this Agreement and Program.

The conducted analyses and examinations showed that fluoride’s content in the soil and waters of bare sources in the Uzbekistan areas bordering Tursunzade district of Tajikistan by 2-3 times lower than maximum permissible concentration, and Uzbek side recognized these results.

To ensure daily information exchange and timely control of atmospheric air conditions, Tajik aluminium smelter using its own funds equipped three twenty-four-hour controlling stations in the Sariasia and Dashnabad districts of Republic of Uzbekistan with a direct connection with the smelter. However, as the inspections executed by the Ministry of nature protection of Republic of Tajikistan discovered, all these stations were completely withdrawn and did not operate.  As Nadezhda Docenko who worked as the head of department at State committee of nature protection of Republic of Uzbekistan said in due time – “Ecological problems do not tolerate populism, superficial approach, and misinterpretation of facts. It is especially disturbing when such things are dealt by people whose mission is to care for environment and people’s health” – and here we are totally supportive of our Uzbek colleague’s view.

This is why it is strange for us to see how our Uzbek colleagues started violently working off places allocated for them in the parliament and to execute the “attack” command in relation to Tajikistan. We understand that people in Uzbekistan want to have clean water and in big quantities, clean air, and clean soil. But we do not understand why for accomplishment of this, Tajikistan has to become an ecological reserve for Republic of Uzbekistan and population of Tajikistan – an unfortunate hindrance in the way of existence of such reserve. And it is doubtful whether roots of all ecological troubles of Uzbekistan spring up in Tajikistan. Probably, there are enough issues of ecological disturbance inside of Uzbekistan.  And most importantly, there is eventually international law and international law institutions. Therefore, we propose our Uzbek colleagues to collect real instrumental information, and if there is a necessity, solve all the problems in legal background, in international court, by not complicating the transportation communication between our countries and by not distracting students from their educational process, and professors with politicians from serious thoughts.