The Editors recently played host to Serhiy Kurykin, deputy head of the Green Party, newly appointed Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. Considering that the previous cabinet had no ecological ministerial posts for the Greens, one should expect the new appointment to have special ideological content. Simultaneously, the filling of the post with a member of a party, the official political hallmark of which is its being politically nonaffiliated appears rather paradoxical. What does Minister Kurykin think of his cabinet status and how does he intend to combine things that seem outwardly incompatible, given today’s lack of funds and the coming elections? These and other topics are covered in the following interview with the new minister of ecology and natural resources
The Day: Do you know of any political or economic lobbying, using Ukrainian ecological agencies, as is often the case in the West?
S. K.: I will be perfectly honest with you; I know of no such cases in Ukraine. As for my party, I can assure you that, even if the Greens staged protest actions, campaigning somewhere against something, they never acted in anyone’s private interest. It is something else that any activity or inactivity always serves someone’s interests and damages someone else. Any acts by any parties, the Greens or others, can be easily adapted to benefit certain political or business interests. And I wouldn’t be so categorical about the West, as I happen to be quite familiar with the Greens in Germany. They are quite influential; they have posts in the cabinet, but they don’t have to act in anyone’s interests. As deputy chairman of the Green Party, I can state that we have never acted on anyone’s order.
The Day: What does official Kyiv think about the US proposal concerning the Kyoto Protocol? To this end, it is worth remembering that at one time Ukraine considered the possibility of selling its pollution quota. How is the situation now?
S. K.: We officially declared that we did not approve of the US stand. As you know, the Kyoto Protocol will take effect only if ratified by 55 countries. Even so, the member countries will have to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases causing changes in the climate to 55% of their current level. Over thirty countries have ratified the protocol, mostly countries that are not listed as the principal polluters — among them insular states, some having no industry at all. Meanwhile, the United States is responsible for 22% of all harmful discharges and its withdrawal from the protocol could undermine the whole process. Even if the developed European countries and Ukraine, which together account for 6% of such pollutants, ratify, the sum total may not reach the required 55%, meaning the protocol will remain inactive. Yet the problem of climatic change does exist, and we declare our inability to accept the US position. As to the second part of the issue, I think that large revenues from selling [pollution] quotas are mythical. The point is that the Kyoto Protocol envisions quota transfers, but it does not have any clearly defined financing procedures, nor does it say when such quotas can be redistributed. Even if we agree to this, getting hard cash would be a problem. Likewise, it would be hard to put a price on such quotas. Naturally, we have a surplus quota, owing to our production decline. If we want to revive this country’s economy, we must envisage an increase in pollution. Accordingly, by selling part of the quota we would block production growth (besides, we could discuss selling part of the quota only after ratifying the protocol, and it hasn’t yet been ratified). I do have a proposal saying how we can achieve economic growth without emitting any greater amount of greenhouse gases. We must increase production and simultaneously modernize existing technologies. I believe that ecological conversion of the public debt would be a fine reserve.
The Day: Unfortunately, ecological problems are endemic in Ukraine. Don’t you think that ecological insurance should be introduced under the circumstances?
S. K.: There is an ecological insurance bill ready for consideration. It was prepared by the Ministry of Ecology even before my appointment. I think it’s very good and has a future. It is in the process of coordination, because the cabinet has to have it agreed to by various ministries and agencies before submitting it to parliament.
The Day: When do you expect it to be approved?
S. K.: If they don’t consider it now, the bill can be approved by the next parliament.
The Day: What finance sources are envisioned? Won’t it just add to the tax burden?
S. K.: Yes, it can be regarded as another lever of economic pressure on enterprises. But no insurance is possible without insurance payments. I think there will be problems with its deliberation and enactment, because it will touch some sore spots in enterprises involving ecological risks.
The Day: What has your ministry done on rescue and repair work in Zakarpattia?
S. K.: The cabinet issued a special decree making us responsible for the problem. We have paid UAH 4.5 million to finance various kinds of works and make up for the damage caused by water ecological systems.
The Day: Are any preventive projects planned?
S. K.: Of course. We have a project regulating drainage, and the only question is whether to build water reservoirs or water engineering facilities of midget power plants that could solve the problem in an ecologically balanced way. It is impossible to find a cure-all for every Transcarpathian ill, so we have to cope with a complex of problems: straightening out riverbeds and hydroengineering. The R escue and R epair S tate C ommittee (I’m also a member) is working to do more than rescue and repair; we must prevent such disasters. But there can be no 100% guarantee, because the precipitation rate in Zakarpattia is abnormal. I mean we can’t expect to invest so much money and than solve all the problems once and for all.
The Day: Your ministry is accused of issuing prospecting licenses to your own people, considering that it has a geology department, while being quite restrained in meeting the requirements of other structures.
S. K.: I regard this as a rather strange allegation, primarily because few prospecting enterprises are left under the ministry’s jurisdiction. Practically all license applications come from firms accountable to other entities. This is easy to prove: look at the minutes of the license committees. We issue licenses to geological enterprises that are not subordinated to us in any way. In fact, the license issue is most fraught with conflict, calling forth unhealthy interest in many. I hope that this interest in our ministry will abate somewhat, for we have a new law on oil and gas. Article 15 reads that the licenses will not be issued by the ministry-affiliated bid evaluation committee, but by a special interministerial commission. The minister will merely prepare the appropriate protocols and all decisions will be made by that commission. That way, I think, all the speculation will stop.
The Day: How much do you think the ecological projects should receive from the state budget?
S. K.: That is a question with no answer.
The Day: All right, but there is the experience of other countries.
S. K.: At present, the ministry is subsidized at UAH 400 million, and part of this money is spent as the central office payroll and on research programs. It is impossible to determine the cost of ecological projects, because this cost varies from one case to the next. I am a realist, and I understand that I can’t expect to receive as much as is actually required, because the country can’t afford it.
The Day: Perhaps your ministry should raise the matter of state support for ecological loans?
S. K.: You see, this also takes money. There is another way which I believe would be more effective: higher costs for using natural resources like water and land.
The Day: But this would again add to the tax burden of enterprises?
S. K.: Yes, but it’s necessary, for we must take into account the real prime cost of such resources. In paying for water today, we cover far from what it actually costs. Economic mechanisms remain the only effective way to solve ecological problems. In the West, with their system of timely response to the economic conditions, they confronted the problem of organic fuel, primarily oil, becoming more expensive in the early 1970s. They could lower the energy consumption rate of production only because the relevant enterprises faced economic necessity. I don’t think we can expect to solve any ecological problems without making the producer economically responsible. One should pay the real cost of resources and every businessman think of how to improve his technology, so it can become less expensive, less energy and resource intensive. It’s a search for a balance between ecological and economic interests. Without this, development is simply impossible.
