Home > Chernobyl Centers

Chernobyl Centers

History and Current Developments of the Chernobyl Community Centers

[From a speech by Norma Berkowitz, FOCCUS President, at the MedAct 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl Conference - London, England - April 22, 2006]

    During my brief time with you this morning I would like to introduce you to a group of young pioneers --- pioneers in the sense that they were charged with a mission that, in my view, no other group in the world has had to face.

    That mission was to (1) provide comfort, support, education and psychosocial rehabilitation to individuals and communities severely affected by the Chernobyl disaster; (2) to do so in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, when all social and economic institutions that had ruled their lives for over 75 years virtually fell apart or disappeared.

    I first met this group of pioneers during a conference in Russia in 1995. The group consisted of about 15 young, university-educated professionals who had just be hired by UNESCO to staff a network of Community Centers - 3 centers in each of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine. There Centers were to operate according to a new, non-Soviet view of society and to help people build a new relationship between themselves and the communities they lived in. UNESCO was one of the first international agencies permitted to enter the Chernobyl affected areas but two years had passed before such permission was granted by the Soviets.

    UNESCO bought buildings and converted them to appropriate space, recruited and trained staff over the course of the next two years, much of it at Utrecht University. UNESCO purchased start-up equipment and supplies and provided professional staff consultation and guildance for two years.

    When UNESCO support terminated, as planned, the Centers became responsibility of their national governments. Currently the governments of Ukraine and Russia provide central government funds to cover heat, light, staff salaries and mandatory bookkeeping services. In Belarus none of the Centers originally established are currently functioning as originally intended: one is closed, two function in other capacities.

    This is a reflection that the three countries mainly affected by Chernobyl have their own priorities and policies. These vary somewhat given differing economic and political situations. In this presentation, I will focus on the situation in Ukraine. However, all three affected countries initially viewed these Community Centers as the key to two things: (1) helping individuals and groups overcome the sense of helplessness and victimization that is the primary consequence of the Chernobyl disaster and how it was managed; (2) providing avenues to community groups to recover, rebuild and/oir re-make their communities into sustainable entities.

    The evolution of these Centers has been phenomenal from crisis intervention and counseling centers, public information and advocacy centers, programs for youth and the elderly; ecology and "healthy living" education programs (especially for youth), and developing volunteer participation programs based on civic society democratic principles.

    The philosophy guilding development of the Centers never existed in the Soviety Union. Implementing this philosophy in a quickly changing environment required staff to develop and to foster a new world view, new ways of thinking about and operating in the world.

    There are five Community Centers in Ukraine. There were 99,000 visits by people of all ages to these Centers in 2005. The United Nations Chernobyl report of 2002 and the Chernobyl Forum report released in September 2006 clearly stated that the majornegative consequence of the Chernobyl disaster is psychosocial stress. The overarching UN strategy to deal with this stress is to launch a program of community development that makes it possible for people to have an active role in making life in their communities more meaningful and rewarding.

Each Center has to adapt to the varying types of communities they serve:

"mixed" communities; communities that were stable before the disaster, but which are now "integrated" with people who have been "resettled" from destroyed villages;
newly built "resettlement" communities consisting only of "liquidators" and those who were forcefully evacuated;
communities with large numbers of liquidators and Chernobyl related invalids;
communities like Slavutich whose life is directly related to Chernobyl nuclear power plant operations;
communities located in contaminated areas

    Regardless of the type of community served, Community Center staff work hard to facilitate capacity building with local systems (schools, orphanages, local government, medical facilities, local non-governmental organizations, etc.) The Centers are now integrated into local government planning, often doing the needs assessment surveys on which influence local spending.

    A sense of civic society has mushroomed most former Soviet states and hundreds of non-government organizations have been founded. Each Communtiy Center has their own "ngo". However their effectiveness is hampered by two factors: (1) the tax and monitoring system and (2) the population's lack of experience and knowledge about how to administer and operate an ngo within the country's existing administrative framework.

    In Ukraine, the Centers' emphasis is on:

capacity building and public awareness; information needs assessments;
reframing legislation on rezoning around the Chernobyl reactor and contaminated lands;
expanding activity of local and regional government for more active community development planning;
recognition of the fact that concepts of civic association, open democratic and development planning - in light of poor, socially disadvantaged people who have lived life un Soviet control --- is a difficult and lengthy process since many people have little faith that their involvement will have a positive effect on their lives;
developing a sense of "awareness" and education about life and radiation is a major issue; the UN Facts for Life publication for healthy and safe living is an example. However, the UN has found it very difficult to get people to use and act on this information. Part of this is ascribed to the fatalistic nature of the culture, compounded by early lies by the government regarding the catastrophe, that fostered a sense of "victimization";
there must be a major emphasis on youth; on developing healthy life styles that minimize the risk of alcoholism and HIV and promote responsibly parenting.

Currently the revised edition of the Chernobyl Forum Report identified four things that must be done to improve the lives of those severely affected by the disaster:

there must be new, more effective ways developed to inform the public; there needs to be a comprehensive approach to promoting health life styles that are not geared only to radiation hazards; however, education about reducing internatal and external radiation should be part of health promotion policies and interventions aimed at reducing the main cuases of disease and rising mortality affected Ukraine, Belarus and Russia;
activities should be focues on the highly affected zones as natural recovery processes and protective measures have had positive results in some zones;
government programs must be streamlined and refocused to realize cost effectiveness and assistance directed to those who need it most;
economic development measures in affected area must be explored and new interventions must be considered; such measures might include small scale ventures and entrepreneur development, credit unions, etc.

    It is clear that the Community Centers' role in facilitating all four of these intervention strategies is crucial. While there are many community organizations and non-governmental organizations in Ukraine, few have the training and the long term experience and the trust of their community residents that is necessary to bring successful results in these endeavors.

    In conclusion, I wish to make a couple of points. From the beginning of efforts to mitigate consequences of Chernobyl, it has been the UN that has spearheaded and coordinated recovery efforts. Different branches on the UN assumed leadership at different times. Currently it is the UN Development Program (UNDP) who spearheads all UN Chernobyl recovery and development efforts.

    The UN reports on Chernobyl have consistently stated that psychosocial stress is the main negative health impact flowing from the Chernobyl disaster. While it is perfectly understandable why stress results from the way lives have been affected, I would like to say that in my experience, I have seen strength, resilience, resolve and compassion for others as I travel to the Centers and the communities they serve and I wish this would also receive attention and validation.

    The current intense debate about negative health effects of radiation exposure due to the Chernobyl accident is valid and important. But agreement on these issues may be years and generations away. In the meantime there is the need to help over 6 million people affected by the disaster to live their lives and to rebuild community life within a new framework of civic life, active involvement and hope for the future.

Norma Berkowitz, President
Friends of Chernobyl Centers U.S. Inc. (FOCCUS)
April 2006

Submenu

Ukraine