We are unable to implement international environmental standards not because we are poor but because we are not used to it
Who has not heard the common opinion that we are too poor to introduce world standards of environmental purity and protection? Suppose the Sevastopol public sewer has burst again? Nothing can be done: no money to replace it. The outskirts of all this country’s cities have been snowed under with so- called solid household wastes, thus becoming a very dangerous source of ecological menace: but what can be done if there is no money to build up-to-date garbage treatment plants? The recycling of outdated pesticides, fertilizers, and chemicals, the protection of water resources, the establishment of nature preserves, naturally, requires money, which we do not have. But is environmental protection a purely economic problem? Leonid KOZAK, chairman of the Crimean Republic Committee for Ecology and Natural Resources, disagrees. He gives his own unusual but convincing version of our ecological troubles. We offer his interview with The Day.
“Mr. Kozak, is it true that the environment is beginning to pose a threat to human existence?”
“It is not, in general. But it is true that the overall mass of ecological hazards in the environment of this country is increasing, not diminishing. It has not yet reached the point of no return; nature still has a wide margin of safety, but it is no secret that it is also on the wane. Makeshift dumps are advancing toward cities, water sources are being polluted, the number of pollution-free foodstuffs is not rising, the protection of plants and wildlife is not improving — all true.”
“It is evident from what you said that these are problems of a tremendous scale. Are they? And are we really too cash-strapped to solve them, i.e., to organize proper garbage disposal and waste reclamation?”
“In the first glance, we are. But the problem is far more complex. We should analyze it. Naturally, about 80% of the ecological problems of the Crimea in particular and Ukraine in general cannot be solved at a single stroke. This requires a certain time, ten years to be on the safe side. To implement nature conservation and solid waste recycling reorganization programs in this period, the Crimea needs an annual 17-18 million hryvnias. I think this would be enough to gradually bring the Crimea into an excellent ecological condition within a decade. The question is where to get the money. The answer is ready: levy charges for the use of natural resources and invest this money in conservation. Is this logical? Certainly. But what is happening in fact? In reality, the state levies charges for using such natural resources as land, water, etc. As you know, this is almost a tax and not a small one. In the Crimea, this accounts for about an annual 45-50 million hryvnias of budget revenue, and this figure is rising. This means we have several times as much money as is needed for nature conservation programs. But the catch is that this money is being fully utilized for purposes other than nature protection, while environmental programs are being financed in this country at the expense of the special Nature Conservation Fund which has been set up at the expense of — believe it or not — fines awarded by courts for ecological damage. So the Crimea collects a mere 1.3-1.5 million hryvnias, less than 10% of what we need. A paradox, isn’t it?
“The situation is that for the Nature Conservation Fund to obtain money, somebody must first inflict considerable damage on the environment, be caught red-handed and fined on the spot or taken to court, and winning a lawsuit is not always a foregone conclusion. All this occurs against the background of an increasingly unsatisfactory state of the environment. Moreover, this condition worsens with every passing year precisely because of this ill-conceived system of conservation.”
“What are the most acute ecological problems accumulating in this country?”
“Beyond any doubt, it is the organized and makeshift solid household waste dumps. As you know, in civilized countries all wastes are sorted at the initial stage of collection by those who discharge them: glass, metals, plastics, paper, animal wastes and so on are gathered in separate containers. Then each of them is processed at a proper industrial facility. But we don’t have this. Instead, we have built some garbage-incineration plants like in Sevastopol, which is the worst possible way to dispose of solid wastes because this in turn creates new ecological problems. Thank God, most of these plants either don’t work or have remained unfinished.
“Our trouble is that, for example, we have missed again an important chance recently, which is now bringing us incalculable losses. When plastics were increasingly being used, especially in the past 5-8 years, when throwaway plastic containers virtually burst into our everyday life and began to form formidable piles of wastes, we should have concurrently introduced a plastics collection and disposal system, as well as worked out a technique to separate all other solid wastes. You see, this did not require big expenses at that time nor does it today: it would be enough to introduce just a 1% deduction from the plastic container price at the initial stage, because, as the experience of similar foreign systems shows, the system will yield profits itself when put into operation. All that was needed was not money but somebody wise enough to initiate the creation of such a system. The latter can be set up within the limits of even one city, not necessarily all over the country. For instance, the Yalta-based Altfatter Joint Venture has done a showpiece cleanup in the city, but even they have only been storing the garbage on a proving- ground which then also turned into a dumpsite, perhaps neater than others, but still a dumpsite. They ought to have taken the next step and introduce separate collection and separate procession.”
“The same story with other varieties of solid household wastes?”
“Beyond doubt. For the situation abroad has not always been the way it is now: once they also had to start with individual regions, cities, and enterprises; they did not get used to it at once, either, because everything takes time. They also have never had money to burn, their people also count their money, even more than we are, every penny. But, apparently, they understood faster than we did that waste disposal is a profitable business which also involves substantial social gains. I am sure we would have also succeeded over the past ten years if we had persistently implemented and improved things. We are no worse than foreigners but perhaps not so methodical.”
“So what do we lack?”
“First a government policy aimed at changing the attitude toward wastes and ecology as a whole, creating a new mentality and understanding that garbage means profit, not just a waste of money. Secondly, adoption of the relevant laws and norms that would provide incentives for exemplary cleanliness and mete out punishment for environmental pollution. Thirdly, a series of educational and cultural measures. Fourthly, introduction of new solid waste disposal technologies (new for us, because they have long been proved effective abroad). In simple words, you can either complain for a year that ‘I’m so poor, so poor that I can’t afford to buy a broom,’ or you can just take a broom and sweep the floor. This is the way to solve problems.”
Mr. Kozak, the situation with wastes is clear, but what about other problems of environmental protection, such as clean water, air, food, and pollution-free industrial processes?”
“I think in this case, too, we must change approach and mentality. You see, nature always gives us a clean product: a cow, spring, and atmosphere give clean milk, clean water, and clean air, respectively. But we pollute all this at the very early stages and then claim we need huge funds to purify it. It is far cheaper to be cleaner and not pollute. For example, we have recently taken to drinking pure bottled water. This is the most successful ecological measure taken of late in this country (and throughout the post- Soviet theater, if one disregards, of course, the millions of plastic bottles in dumps, which I discussed earlier). Any decent grocery store or restaurant will offer you today as many as a dozen brands of mineral water from Obolon to Myrhorodska and Krymska. There must be even hundreds of names: Dobra voda, Bonaqua, and so on. Even if this had required some expense, they have long paid off, so the mineral water business is only bringing society profit, both in the literal and figurative sense. And what did we use to do formerly? We would take purest water from, say, a deep well, pump it in dirty pipes, then chlorinate or try to purify it by some other means; we would produce expensive filters, and this is where big expenses were needed. One must be a really rich person (or country) to first pollute water, as we did in our rivers and lakes, and then try to purify it. Now we have seen, from the example of potable water, that there is a different, cheaper, and even profitable, way. I am sure we can do the same with all other foodstuffs. And any of them will pay off the expenses made at the initial stages of implementation and will make profits.”
“Mr. Kozak, are you an optimist, do you believe that such ecological systems will be put into practice in this country? How long and how much do you think it will take?”
“I am an optimist. As to how much, I’ve already said, expenses will be needed only at the first stage if at all. Of course, I understand that, since we have only been polluting the environment for eighty years, to introduce new standards will mean to form a new mentality, new social systems, even new industries. This is not so simple. But I am convinced we will achieve world standards after some time. I won’t tell the dates because forecasting is an ungrateful job, as you will agree. I have already talked about some approximate time spans. I think life itself will force us to do so and very soon.”
