First results of the Fifth Pan-European Conference of Environment Ministers

The event had long been anticipated, for more than two years. When the V Pan-European Conference of Environment Ministers at last opened in Kyiv, the words of many of our compatriots (mostly members of non-governmental environmentalist organizations) were biting, “We wanted better, but it ended up like always.” Yet, Ministry of the Economy officials say Ukraine began preparing for this high-profile environmental function as soon as it learned that the UN European Economic Assembly had chosen this country as a venue. There were only three rivals: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Moldova. It was decided at the previous forum at Бrhus, Denmark, that the next host should be an Eastern European country. The common perception is that, although Ukraine has no fundamental national ecological documents, it won for two reasons: first, it immediately signed, together with 34 European countries, the Бrhus Convention on public involvement in nature conservation decision-making, and, secondly, out of all the former Soviet republics, only Moldova and we have committed ourselves to not add lead to gasoline.

Now that the conference is over, Vasyl Shevchuk, Ukraine’s Minister for Ecology and Natural Resources, exudes confidence when speaking to journalists. In his view, nobody was disappointed with the conference proceedings or Ukraine’s organizational efforts. On the contrary, the minister says, some delegations which have hitherto associated Ukraine with Chornobyl only saw that this country is an equal among equals, that it can be an excellent place for recreation and is determined to solve its environmental problems. Excursions to the garbage-burning plant and the just- opened Kyiv Museum of Water were useful as far as exchanges of experience is concerned. The minister also noted that his counterparts often said previous conferences were no match for this one.

The forum cost Ukraine Euro1,300,000. By organizing the conference, the ecology ministry hoped the West would consider these expenses as the payment of Ukraine’s debts under various conventions. As the conference was being held, Kyiv also saw presentations on Ukraine’s and other countries’ latest clean-up technologies, performances of an ecological theater, and, naturally, ecological fashion shows. There were funny moments as well. While the ministers debated at the Exhibition Center, hopeful inventors skulked next to it in search of sponsors for fifty of their better mousetraps, each of which allegedly being a breakthrough in “pure” technologies. In the same place (in front of the Exhibition Center), Green Party of Ukraine activists picketed on the first day of the conference. They demanded that the Danube Biosphere Preserve be left free of the shipping canal to be built starting this year. The Greens said that, although Kyiv’s Dnipro district court had banned the action, law enforcers showed understanding of the problem. Incidentally, the Danube Biosphere Preserve’s stand with the eloquent slogan, save us from the shipping canal, caught the eye of many foreign journalists. Some of them, speaking to the preserve people, promised to write major articles on the problems of Ukrainian preserves and sanctuaries.

But, naturally, the highlight of the conference was signing three protocols and the Carpathian Convention, as well as discussing the role of Ukraine in the European environmental process. World Conservation Union (ICUN) Director General Achim Steiner told The Day that holding the conference in Kyiv at a required level is a serious psychological stimulus for Ukraine and EU countries to come together. Moreover, everybody saw that the hosts showed interest and aptitude in tackling many of its ecological problems. Which means it can be viewed as an equal partner in many environmental projects.

Another vivid example of recognizing the seriousness of Ukraine’s intentions was presentation of a joint Ukrainian-British project to form a network of sustainable development cities in Ukraine. According to British Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett, the partnership began with a pilot scheme implemented by the British Council in Ukraine by September 2002. Now Great Britain is planning to offer its expertise, establish cooperation with both environmentalist and non-governmental agencies, and set up a resource center in Ukraine to further the Sustainable Cities initiative.

Incidentally, the conference more than once heard about readiness to financially support Ukraine. For example, World Bank Vice President Johannes Linn said that his organization would increase its investments in Ukraine to $200 million a year to decrease the number of people using substandard water. In his words, the World Bank and the World Bank Institute jointly managed to raise $1 million to boost the capacity of the environmental ministries of Russia, five countries of Central Asia, and Ukraine. World Bank estimates with respect to Kazakhstan, Moldova, and Ukraine, which show that the number of people deprived of permanent access to safe potable water in those countries will have been halved by 2015, forced the World Bank to raise its annual investments from $120 to 200 million.

As to the partnership strategy on the countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, non-governmental organizations did their best to cause tension at the conference. The point is that the conference was originally supposed to adopt the Strategy 12 document to be signed by former Soviet republics. This issue raised quite a few complaints about Ukraine’s failure to choose the dominant vector. On the one hand, Ukraine’s main goal is to squeeze into Europe’s conservation strategy. On the other hand, we distance ourselves from the latter by signing fundamental documents with the former communist states. Mr. Shevchuk managed to dispel this myth. In his words, Ukraine suggested expanding the strategy, so the document adopted will, on the contrary, provide as much legal equality as possible between the EU countries and their post-Soviet partners.

Another point that aroused a vague suspicion in the hearts of NGO activists was the Carpathian Convention. Uzhhorod University Biology Professor Andriy Kovalchuk told The Day that Ukraine signs too many documents and then has to blush before its partners for failure to fulfill the commitments.

Meanwhile, the parliamentary Committee on Environmental Protection and the Ministry of Ecology placed great hopes in Hungary, Rumania, Serbia and Montenegro, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Ukraine joining forces to address Carpathian problems. Ukraine directly participated in drawing up the convention, while the experience of Alpine countries proved that joint efforts were far more useful. Under the Convention, the Carpathian countries will make a joint effort in practically everything — from planning and managing land resources to protecting historical monuments and developing tourism. Poland is temporarily staying out: it could not sign the Carpathian Convention because of the resignation of its environment minister. Admitting that there might be disputes over the places and amounts of investment in the Carpathian region, Verkhovna Rada’s environment committee chairman Hennady Rudenko still hopes that Ukraine will get aid. In his opinion, this kind of joint document give us every chance to receive substantial grants. Commenting to journalists on signing the Carpathian Conference, Deputy Shevchuk in turn pointed out Ukraine would need major funds to fulfill its commitments. Yet, he explained, even now there are Western donors ready to help Ukraine restore the Carpathian ecosystem, build dikes, hotels, and roads. In addition, the Convention provides for establishing the International Carpathian Fund. All this makes Ukraine quite capable of doing what it has promised to.

Yet the truth is Ukraine has made similar statements after every document it signs. We are one of the 21 countries (out of 49) that dared to sign all the three protocols. Only 22 countries joined the protocol On Civil Responsibility for the Compensation of Damages Caused by the Cross-Border Impact of Industrial Accidents. In reality, this means that the enterprise at which an accident occurs must pay compensation to the aggrieved country. Experts say this requires the introduction of environmental insurance and audits. Ukraine is already preparing for this: the parliament has voted on a bill to this effect in the first reading, and the ecology ministry has set up a section that examines “for cleanliness” and only then certifies and insures enterprises. The enterprise allocates insurance fees and then, in case of an ecological accident or at the end of its life cycle, receives money for off-setting the accident’s consequences or decommissioning.

On the whole, experts have painted the Kyiv event in very optimistic colors. A great deal was said about Ukraine’s improved image and recent progress in adopting environmental laws. There was also some criticism. For instance, European Commission’s Environment Commissioner Margaret Wallstroem emphasized that Ukraine must more actively tackle the problems of water pollution as well as of waste accounting and recording. The main conclusion of the conference was no revelation: the ministers agreed that achieving common green rules is quite possible, and the principle that every polluter pays is unavoidable if Europe is to be cleaned up. Ukraine now hopes that its generous hospitality has helped it to become an equal among equals, but in all probability Western environmentalists will make the final conclusion three years later, when we will have to present an account of what we have done.