VASYL DZHARTY: “BEFORE LAUNCHING A PROJECT I ALWAYS THINK HOW TO COMPLETE IT”

— You are. We have upgraded the press service to a communications department, as we believe the public should be aware of what the ministry does, what environmental challenges the nation faces and how the ministry is addressing them. The department will also help our regional divisions to improve contacts with local mass media, which is critical to our work. We should understand regional and local problems as well.

— I cannot agree more. Thus we should develop a strategy that would enable us to have a real impact on the situation. We are open to criticism, we are prepared to scrutinize and revise, if need be, all current practices and approaches. We understand that environmental philosophy should be mainstreamed into all spheres of our life. It should become a core at all levels — we mean sustainable development, which is an amalgamation of the economy, social sphere and environment.

— Perhaps, few people can appreciate its importance today. It takes time. Yet in the very near future environmental concerns will urge the world to develop in a sustainable manner. In European countries an environmentally friendly economy is the reality.

— It is true but only to some extent. Our country has already entered markets where environmental standards matter and compliance with them is a must. If we want to operate in those markets we have to take them on board. I can assure you that the ministry and the Cabinet have started to take practical steps towards this end. When foreign investors and Western partners do feasibility studies with a view to commencing business in Ukraine, they will analyze technologies, production capacities, condition of the premises and territory of an enterprise and, notably, environmental conditions in the neighbourhood. So, sustainable development is not just theory. To me, it is about practicing what you preach, about implementing the principles you believe in. And when the Ministry of Economy or Ministry of Finance concur with us that environmental objectives are crucial, that they should be integrated into social and economic development programmes prepared by those ministries, but provide for no specific environmental and conservational activities in such programmes, we will have a serious discussion with them, arguing and making out our case.

— I will insist on taking all environmental measures as planned. I realize it would divest substantial resources from the economy but the nation cannot afford under-funding this sector any longer, otherwise it is in for an environmental disaster. Why should we be fooling ourselves? We cannot postpone addressing environmental issues if we want to prevent irreversible processes.

— I think we still have time to undo the harm and remedy the environment. I will do my best to contribute to it. We should raise public awareness of environmental issues and change public attitudes. I do not see the point in teaching our schoolchildren geography of seas and rivers, biology of aquatic species and chemistry of water but never discussing water quality and contamination issues with them: what makes water “dead”, what human activities are hazardous to water bodies, what should be done to improve the situation. Not only environmental experts and activists but also the media, politicians, educators and parents should be making a clarion call for action while we still have time. The ministry cannot do all the work alone: one is as good as none, you know.

— I fully agree that local communities are the driving force of conservational effort. However, in this country funding of most needs and activities, including local environmental needs, is centralized. Therefore, central government should also play a pro-active, interested part in the process. The ministry is drafting a new national environmental strategy and a national action plan with clearly allocated responsibility, clear timeframes and targets. Our legal advisors and experts monitor all draft programmes, laws and other documents at the national level for environmental objectives and conservational activities. When we manage to achieve equilibrium between economy and environment, we will have an equation for Ukraine’s balanced development.

—You’d better seek comment from the authorities responsible for law enforcement in this area. I can only speak about the cases in my competence of an environmental minister, registered while I have been in charge of the sector.

— I usually abide by the following principle: before launching a project I always think how to complete it. If you cannot complete your task, why commit yourself? As for the development or lease of land plots that are in the limelight of the press and public, the ministry is toughening control. In the Crimea and Trans-Carpathians – the most popular development zones – we have re-manned environmental inspections and beefed them up with qualified personnel. We set them a task to prevent and eradicate abuse in recreational territories, reserve areas and national parks. All other inspecting authorities in the country have similar tasks. We seriously intend to set the matter right.

Yet one should also keep in mind that the responsibility for allocating land for private development lies with local councils. They consider all documents, expert opinions, certificates issued by various authorities, including ecological, fire-safety, urban development ones, and make relevant decisions. Of course, territories under conservation should never become subject to such allocations. They are untouchable!

I mean the territories either managed by other public agencies or bordering on recreational and preserve areas. Our territorial departments provide expert opinions on land allocation or development. There have been no irregularities on the part of environmental services, at least no reported cases thereof. Local governments sometimes find cracks in regulations and take advantage of them.

You are right; we have to sort out problems with the hundred-meter littoral zone. The public, unfortunately, sounded an alarm too late – after the disputed land plots had been developed. As matters stand, there are no laws and regulations instrumental to addressing the issue in a civilized way. Thus, it seems the hundred-meter zone along river banks and sea coasts are closed for the general public.

As for the allegations that the Ministry for Environmental Protection has failed to effectively safeguard territories entrusted to it, not all of the blame lies at the ministry’s door. There are 38 preserve sites in Ukraine, the Ministry being responsible for only 17 of them. Others are supervised by the National Academy of Sciences, State Administrative Department under the President if Ukraine, State Committee for Forestry, etc.

Furthermore, there are numerous territories in the most picturesque locations that used to belong to sanatoria administered by trade unions. The situation with them is strange. Those territories are beyond our control, so we cannot do anything about them. The schemes of land alienation are simple: for example, an interested party would claim that a deserted summer cinema hall or any other construction is useless, that it overburdens the sanatorium budget and should be disposed of. The construction would be alienated together with expansive park territories.

— It keeps its name and the main building, but loses dozens of hectares of beautiful park captured by a private owner and fenced in. This is going on in the Crimea, Odessa oblast – any place where ministries and public agencies used to have their social amenities. Nevertheless we are now designing effective countermeasures. We buttressed the ministry’s legal department that identifies conflicts and controversies at the legislative level and proposes solutions. We aim to have the legislation amended so as to stipulate that all recreational facilities administered by trade unions belong to the state and should be managed accordingly.

If trade unions are unwilling or unable to properly use such valuable assets, they should return them to state ownership. These sites will be turned into recreational zones. Frankly speaking, Ukraine has yet to address the issue of conserving natural sites and complexes of special significance. We lag far behind Europe in “preserve indicators”: whereas in most European countries 12-14% of total area is under conservation, in Ukraine it is only 4.7%. The ministry undertook to raise this indicator to 10% by 2020.

— Ecology experts from the National Academy of Sciences concur that there should be no obstacles to addressing the environmental component of this issue. The problems are, rather, of an economic nature.

To my mind, it is an issue of the national scale. The government should make an informed and sound policy decision affecting both the environmental and the economic components of the problem. I am visiting Romania in March. After that a special session of the ministry collegium will be held to discuss possible solutions.

— I am positive we will. According to the law, the ministry is in charge of the entire preservation business in Ukraine. And I believe that irrespective of departmental jurisdiction over a specific preserve area – that of the Ministry for Environmental Protection, State Committee for Forestry or National Academy of Sciences – all agencies will act strictly within the law. Ukrainian environmental standards will be harmonized with the international ones. We will never commit or tolerate any irregularities. We have set up a Ukrainian-Romanian Intergovernmental Commission and, within its framework, a committee for environment and sustainable development. The Danube monitoring unit is fully operational, the channel being within their purview as well.

— It is the ministry’s task to ensure protection of water, land, soil, atmosphere, forests, subsurface resources, fauna and flora. The ministry is responsible for control over the use of all natural resources. Until recently, supervisory functions were dispersed amongst different agencies, and none was held duly accountable.

It is but natural that we would strive to focus inspection powers within one public authority. It should have been done long ago. We made a difficult decision to reform the inspection process and enhance its independence. As a result, we have established an independent environmental inspection process that we hope will work effectively and efficiently.

— We do not deal in land distribution or allocation. We are in charge of protecting and conserving land and subsurface resources. Put differently, we see our function as carrying out and monitoring conservational activities. For the ministry to perform this function successfully, it should be duly empowered. Our main objective is to restore the country’s natural resources and environmental balance.

Last year, 59 deposits of oil, natural gas, and rock minerals were put on auction. The auction was slated for December 18, but was canceled because of some unsettled formalities. For example, one of the lots was a natural gas deposit. The geological service was ready to issue the license for extraction, and the company was ready to pay, but the local authorities had not prepared the land tenure documents. The same problem came up in practically all the lots. That’s why the auction was canceled.

This year, the first auction will be in early April. As to the deductions from the state budget, they increased due to the prolongation of licenses and the higher fees for extraction licenses. Besides, the licensing commissions include people’s representatives, security service officers, and other officials. We want the license issuance procedure to be maximally transparent and fair. We want to minimize possibilities for machinations.

We hear proposals to vest local self-governments with the right to use mineral resources at their discretion, but we are very cautious about this idea, because inconsiderate approaches and decisions are fraught with squandering. By vetting the documents and holding transparent auctions, we can make the process orderly and save resources. It is incorrect to accuse the Environment Ministry of meting out licenses.

Many experts believe that it is inexpedient for Ukraine to produce so much cheap low-quality metal. Ecologists maintain that having restored the fishery industry in the Sea of Azov alone, we could earn as much as we earn from selling metal, but would be living in a cleaner environment. Do we need such a metallurgical industry?

I think any categorical statements are incorrect. In my opinion, the metallurgical industry has a future. The growing prices for fuels compel industrial plants to save energy and upgrade their process equipment.

Take, for instance, two industrial giants on the Azov coast: Azovstal and Illyich steel works. They are undergoing comprehensive reconstruction. The new economic realities compel them to use new technologies – less energy-consuming and more environmentally friendly. They reduce emissions into the atmosphere and sea.

For years, the Illyich steel works had a bad reputation for polluting the Sea of Azov. Now its output indices are even higher than in the Soviet times, but emissions into the atmosphere have reduced from 360,000 tons a year to 260,000 tons. The enterprise spends colossal money on energy-saving and pollution reduction programs. Still, it’s not enough for cardinal changes in the environment.

Asovstal and Azovmash face the same problems, being located on the seashore. They invest heavily in environmental programs and technological innovations. As a result, we can expect rehabilitation of the Sea of Azov in the nearest years. We have to stimulate such processes both organizationally and legislatively.

You say the enterprises invest in technical modernization and thus improve the environmental situation. What is your role in this?

We have enough authority to make owners of industrial plants understand that if they don’t invest in ecology, they will have to pay more than they are worth. The puny fines imposed now don’t work. They should be scores of times higher, and the principle “the pollutant pays” should start working.

The Illyich steel works reduced emissions by 100,000 tons. It’s a significant achievement. By the way, did you sell this part of the emission quota?

The Kyoto protocol you refer to applies to greenhouse gases only. We haven’t sold anything yet, because we are only just formulating the regulatory mechanisms of selling emission quotas. We can only talk about investments in joint modernization or purification projects. As a result, emissions are lower and the national quota remains unchanged. The Ministry has issued support letters to 54 joint projects that are worth a total of ?2.8 billion. Five projects have received letters of approval.

This year we are expecting regulatory acts that will determine the procedures of selling quotas under the Kyoto protocol. The sale itself will begin in 2008 and will last until 2012. The President has authorized the Environment Ministry to coordinate the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. International organizations and the World Bank as well as Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, France, Austria, and especially Japan are interested in cooperating with Ukraine. Those countries have excessive emissions and want to buy emission quotas. Our ministry is the only government agency that deals with the Kyoto process, and now we need a legislative warrant for implementing the Kyoto protocol. The problem of pollution concerns all sectors of economy and each of them should be involved in the Kyoto process.

As it looks, the Environment Ministry is going to be a rich and independent player in the Ukrainian government. What will you do to rehabilitate nature in Ukraine?

My principle is “step by step”. When I was a city mayor, I came to understand that any budget would always be too small for all expenditures at once. To spend all money on everything means to achieve nothing. You have to choose the priority sector and follow through. Then you evaluate the results and make the next plans.

I expect criticism, but we will take it normally. We have determined the priority tasks and we know we can fulfill them in twelve to eighteen months. Then we’ll take up other tasks, and then further on, step by step.

So what are your priorities?

First of all, we need regulatory frameworks. Task number one is the adoption of the Environmental Code of Ukraine. It will untie our hands. Next in line are the problems of solid wastes and pesticides.

Ex-minister Kurykin, a member of the Green Party, promised to cope with these problems…

These problems are very serious for this country. As much as 21,000 tons of unused chemicals is stored in the open. Some of them get into the air and water, poisoning people. One of the most pressing problems is the quality of water. The purity of the Dnipro is a tremendous problem. We can’t solve it in a year, but we can’t put it off, because it will only aggravate year after ear. Scientists say that in three or four decades water will become the most precious of all natural resources. We have to tackle this problem today. Another pressing problem is the use of mineral resources. We behave as if this is someone else’s land – we dig here and there, and leave behind gullies and eroded soil. It’s time to use advanced technologies in geological prospecting. The USA, Canada, and the UK use satellites for remote probing. The maps show what is happening on and under the surface. Satellite probing helps detect fissures in the earth’s crust and prevent erosion and other dangerous geological processes. We need such programs and technologies, too, but they are very expensive.

You have such far-reaching plans, but none of the previous environment ministers has stayed in office longer than eighteen months. As soon as they began to see into things, they got the sack. You are going to stay in office long enough, aren’t you?

I’m not going to sit on my hands. I want to work, at least until the next parliamentary election. Will it be enough to see all the plans through? – Time will show.