Environmental protection vs. development

The 21st century has sent a new challenge to humankind: protection of the environment or its destruction for the sake of economic growth. The planet’s “green face” has changed beyond recognition in the past 50 years. Forests are being mercilessly cut down and water reservoirs contaminated, and carbon dioxide emissions are polluting the atmosphere. But, on the other hand, we must not forget that the population of Earth grows every day, so people need a place to work at and earn a living. The conflict between development and conservation of the environment (we often sacrifice the latter) made people understand that, unless special legal instruments of environmental protection are adopted, we will soon find ourselves in situations depicted in post-apocalyptic Hollywood films. The conflict between economic development and nature conservation prompted the EU to establish the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) in 1990. They are supposed to provide EU states with proper information on effective environmental protection, promote its monitoring, and offer advice to certain states on their request. They also record, compare, and assess the condition of the environment in the member states. But the conflict was not resolved because the need to develop the regional infrastructure and create new jobs is increasingly pressing on the EU. There have been enough precedents since the commission was set up. For example, Finland faced the problem of wolf population – a ban was imposed on shooting the animals. A similar very acute conflict emerged in our neighbor, Poland, which joined the EU in 2004.

The authorities of Elblag, a small town in north-eastern Poland, hit upon an idea to build a big seaport. This project was supposed to speed up economic development of this unemployment-stricken region. Besides, plans have been discussed for 10 years to build an airport near Elblag, on the border of Warmian-Masurian and Podlaskie voivodeships. However, all these concepts bumped into one BUT: these territories are part of a special ecological zone outlined by an EU commission. The Natura 2000 project is central in the EU environment protection program. Launched in 1992, it is aimed at ensuring a long-term survival of the most valuable European nature spots.

“Entering the EU, Poland undertook to establish special ecological zones and allow the EU to control them,” Polish public activist Blazej Zajac told The Day. “A special biotope zone, Ostoja Magurska, with 10 nature parks has now been established in Poland as part of the Natura 2000 project. This initiative embraces all kinds of nature preserves in all European Union countries. Natura 2000 is supposed to maintain a reasonable balance between economic development and environment conservation, preventing resource abuse and encouraging search for compromises, particularly, in the Polish situation.”

In Mr. Zajac’s view, the Polish authorities behave somewhat irrationally in this situation. “They want to economically develop what may be called passive territories, but, at the same time, special ecological zones are being set up on these territories. Incidentally, the question of building industrial facilities in or on the border of special ecological zones in Poland begins to be actively debated during election campaigns, when both the pro-governmental and the oppositional sides try to use al the available resources for victory,” he noted.

This raises the question: how can the environment-development conflict be resolved if the EU law favors environmental protection and is in fact the antagonist of economic development?

Andrzej SZEPTYCKI, Institute of International Relations analyst, sees the following way of resolving this dilemma. “If there are some binding EU legal standards, they must be complied with. It is possible, albeit very difficult, to try to change this law on the European Union level. So if any super-important problems emerge for a certain EU state, the latter can try to get these legal standards changed. But it is better to take part in the making of these laws and to be present during this creative process. For it is easier to alter a draft than an officially passed law,” he told The Day.

Meanwhile, Ihor SIRENKO, nature conservationist and ecologist at the National Ecological Center of Ukraine, emphasized in a comment for The Day: “There are no alternatives in this situation. There is a business ultimatum. There could be, for example, the following alternative: to build a port or an airport in that place and, accordingly, kill the environment, or to find some other place and build a facility with the same number of jobs and preserve the environment. It is the first point. The second point is: this shows again that the people who draw up economic development plans not always think about the environment. Old Europe has got so many hard knocks on these matters that, whenever they come to Ukraine, their eyes pop out at what is going on here. There is an organization, Global Footprint Network, which assesses the biospheric output, that is, what Earth produces in a year and how much humankind consumes in the same period. Humankind already has a negative balance – we consume much more, also at the expense of fossil fuels. The latest data I looked through were those of 2010. They show that we consumed in eight months what Earth produced in a year. We must know that we should not consume more than the planet produces. By consuming more, we are heading for a catastrophe.”

But Andrii ISAIEV, senior analyst at the Center of Transport Research, does not share this point of view. “Firstly, building the port and the port itself do not pollute too much the environment because Europe has long had very high standards of environmental protection. If one wants to build something, he or     she can only do so in line with European standards. As for the airport, everything depends on the authorities of that region, on their understanding of what is more beneficial for them. As a matter of fact, it is a more political than economic issue,” he told The Day.

In the 21st century, humankind has begun to take more than the “blue sphere” can offer, while perpetual development is impossible. Which of the two is of greater value for a human: to be in harmony with nature or to work for development? Everybody must ask himself this question. The Ukrainian law does not, unfortunately, set out a clearly outlined pattern of protection against technological onslaught. The Law of Ukraine “On City Construction Regulations” was passed a few years ago in spite of public protests. This law allows building most of the industrial facilities without an ecological expert examination. And, due to lack of funds, most of the nature preserves have not yet been put on the Land Cadastre. Earlier this year, the online Public Cadastre Map of Ukraine openly disclosed that many nature preserves had already been denationalized and privatized. As we can see, Ukraine is still very far from resolving the conflict between development and environmental protection. Therefore, it is necessary to use foreign experience.