The latest environmental reports say that the situation in the Black Sea, where a large quantity of oil and lubricants spilled from tankers and barges during a violent storm on Nov. 11-12, 2007, is worsening. Although there are practically no oil slicks left in the Strait of Kerch, the oil is spreading along the Crimea’s southern coast, Natalia Koval, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Green Party, told a press conference in Symferopil. Environmentalists are observing the daily movement of the oil slicks from a satellite. A slick is approaching the shore and may follow the curve of the entire Crimean coast. Prof. Volodymyr Zakhmatov, an expert from National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, said, “We saw a terrible picture: a layer of sand and conglomerates of oil underneath. As the sun shines, this will melt, flow down and then up, and then there’s no beach.” Koval says the situation is endangering the status of the Crimea as an international holiday region. “There is a danger that there will be no holiday seasons in the peninsula for the next five years.” Oil slicks have been spotted even on the Azov Sea coast in Kherson oblast.
At the same time, ecologists from the Green Party of Ukraine are recommending a way to quickly remove the oil slicks in the Black Sea. According to Oleksii Roshchyn, a research associate at the Institute for Sustainable Development of Ukraine, the bio-absorbent Ekolan, the latest invention of Ukrainian scientists, is the most effective and economically viable material for Ukraine. He claims that 1 kg of this substance collects up to 10 kg of oil. This preparation is absolutely safe and eight times as economical as its foreign analogues. “The bio-absorbent remove oil slicks on the water. The absorbent consists of strains of bacteria that feed off oil products. When combined with oil, it disintegrates into carbonic acid gas and water, leaving only ashes that will drift down to the seabed and serve as a kind of fertilizer,” the scientist said.
The Green Party of Ukraine has suggested that the Cabinet of Ministers draw up a program to establish a permanent supply of this absorbent to clean up oil-polluted areas. In the party’s view, this will allow Ukraine to be prepared for emergencies, such as the one that occurred in the Strait of Kerch on Nov. 11. “Practice has shown that our country is not prepared for this kind of problem. Every time, with every emergency, we begin to seek a new solution to a problem, which is absolutely wrong,” the Greens note.
As time goes by, officials, scientists, and environmentalists will sum up the disaster that occurred on Nov. 11-12, 2007, in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Strait of Kerch. They will also name the causes of the tragedy, but hardly all of them and hardly in a systematic way. Like the Crimean earthquake of 1927 and the Black Sea disaster of Nov. 2 (14), 1854, a similar seven-point storm in the Azov-Black-Sea region on Nov. 11-12, 2007, will be the long-time object of analysis for experts and eyewitnesses.
The Day is certain that those events are the result of economic, legal, social, and moral factors. In any case, we must now begin to analyze this disaster, which has left a much deeper imprint on our country’s history than it seems and will have much more serious consequences than expected. This should be done according to moral criteria and with due account of Ukraine’s interests. We are convinced that any analysis will be incomplete without the public’s involvement.
Our paper invited some experts from Kyiv and the Crimea to take part in a roundtable and launch analytical work with the Ukrainian public. We do not say that our conclusions are final and all-encompassing, but we hope they will be fair as far as public administration, the law, technology, and morality in Ukraine are concerned. So we hope that our experts’ conclusions will help our highest government bodies to learn the whole truth, make adequate conclusions, and adopt effective measures to correct the situation.
The Day’s roundtable debate, entitled “The State-Man-Ecology: the Role of the Public, the State, and International Organizations in Maintaining Ecological Balance, Averting Disasters, and Creating Conditions for a Steady Harmony of Society and Nature,” was attended by Larysa Ivshyna, editor in chief of The Day; Yurii Shcherbak, president of the Institute for Sustainable Development of Ukraine, Minister of Ukraine for the Environment in 1991-92, Ambassador of Ukraine, writer; Vasyl Shevchuk, Minister of the Environment in 1998-2000, 2002-03), and head of the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Society; Viktor Musiianenko, deputy head of the Crimean branch of the Green Party of Ukraine; Leonid Yaremenko, public relations director at the Ministry of the Environment; and journalists from The Day. Slava Dolynsky, former chief of the State Black Sea Inspection at the Ministry of the Environment of Ukraine, could not take part in the debate but offered his viewpoints and proposals in writing, which were included in this report.
A COMPONENT OF THE SYSTEMIC INFRASTRUCTURAL CRISIS
Scientists confirm that a general infrastructural crisis is brewing Ukraine. Veronika Movchan, research director at the Institute of Economic Research and Political Consultations, said that worn-out communications in our country are the cause of not only an increasing number of disasters but also of the loss of about 2 percent of the GDP. According to the institute, Ukraine’s railway transport, heating, and water supply systems are worn out by 80, 50, and 60 percent, respectively. “This level of wear-and-tear of the infrastructure leads to accidents, power and gas cuts, and transport disasters,” this expert added. An illustrative example of this is the gridlocks in Kyiv: infrastructure development is lagging behind economic growth. “Every additional product exerts additional pressure on the whole infrastructure.”
The government must revise its budgetary policy. In Movchan’s view, Ukraine is making insufficient investments in the development of transport, heating, and water and power supply lines. According to The Day’s experts who took part in the roundtable, the marine catastrophe in the Strait of Kerch, where there were more than 160 vessels at the time, many of them carrying dangerous cargo, also showed that the sea transport infrastructure is unable to cope with the flow of transport and cargo, especially in extreme stormy conditions, and that sea transport technologies do not meet 21st-century requirements. All the debaters pointed this out.
Larysa IVSHYNA: “The situation is that the world is becoming increasingly difficult and dangerous, and we should not hope that someone else will solve our problems. So our goal is to help the state find the right way in this complex labyrinth of difficulties that surround us. On the other hand, we have no reliable information on the environment. I think it is also important to assess the role the public can play to improve the ecological and sociopolitical situation.”
Yurii SHCHERBAK: “The ecological disaster in the Strait of Kerch is as significant for us as Katrina was for the US — thank God there was a smaller death toll. But we should admit that after the events in Ozhydiv and the Black Sea, the disasters in Dnipropetrovsk and the Donbas, we are entering a period of natural as well as manmade calamities, and we must be prepared for and learn to counter them. The Kerch disaster should be the beginning of new thinking in society, which will prompt the central and local government to revise their ways of working. We should all learn to act in a crisis situation. The disaster spotlighted a large number of organizational, technological, international, geopolitical, environmental, and legal problems. It showed that we should have a more effective system to overcome manmade cataclysms.
“I see four groups of factors that caused the Kerch disaster. The first is extreme nature factors. The second group is the overall crisis of our infrastructure, including our inability to prevent and counter such catastrophes. A major role here is played here not so much by the critical wear-and-tear of the infrastructure systems as technological backwardness and failure to meet 21st-century criteria. The third group is a crisis of the human factor, which is manifested in the growth of non-professionalism and incompetence, and the inability of the public administration system to work effectively in a crisis. The fourth group is unsatisfactory juridical regulation of international relations in the Kerch sea region, which played a major role because people were guided by entirely different legal categories of Russia and Ukraine, rather than by clear-cut international rules. This factor is closely linked with such things as corruption and smuggling, which not only became possible but also systematic in this legal vacuum. I think that these factors are critically important today, and they pose a threat to Ukraine’s national security. Hence, strenuous efforts must be made to tackle and eliminate them.
“We recently established the Institute for Sustainable Development of Ukraine, a civic organization that has begun to tackle some aspects of national security, including infrastructure development problems, in order to counter ecological and other crises. This is an example of the growing role of the public and its impact on public administration decision-making.”
IS NOOSPHERIC THINKING A THING OF THE PAST?
Larysa IVSHYNA: “It is sad that the Crimea disaster should make us admit the fact that such catastrophes result from the lack of scientifically-proven methods of public administration and prevention of such disasters in government spheres. It is sad because it was in the Crimea that Volodymyr Vernadsky, one of the first Ukrainian academicians, established the doctrine of noosphere, a teaching on the unification of the biological and intellectual levels of existence, which offers entirely new methods to address problems of society. We must state, to our regret, that the practice of our state is totally devoid of noosphere thinking and highly-intellectual noospheric methods of administration. Unfortunately, the noosphere doctrine has remained just one of Vernadsky’s archival works since the early 20th century: it was never developed further by our science or implemented in the specialist training system, although many aspects of this sphere of though could be put into practice, which would be a breakthrough towards 21st-century technologies.
“I would call this ‘rejection of reason.’ We are the heirs of this teaching, but as the world becomes more complex and its technologies do not improve, it is not used as a method, as an approach. In addition to environmental disasters, we have domestic disorganization and devaluation. This is human devaluation because when unprofessional people assume office, they form a surrounding atmosphere of unprofessional actions. The very structure of government is a factor of disaster because party appointees are often catastrophically unprofessional. So we should start by establishing a system of noospheric ecological education even in kindergartens because when our children grow up, they will be living in an entirely different world and will have to apply other methods and technologies. This will not form by itself — we need a system of ecological education at all stages.”
Yurii SHCHERBAK: “The simplest requirement of 21st-century technologies is that all the bodies involved in the prevention of disasters and offsetting their consequences should coordinate their actions. Of paramount importance here is coordination of the actions of government bodies. I remember that when I was the environment minister, Yevhen Marchuk was the deputy minister in charge of this sector. We tried to foresee all possible crises, and whenever one occurred, he would first summon the ministers and organize the cooperation of all bodies, and any lack of coordination among the ministers was out of the question. It was just unthinkable that combating a disaster was slowed down because one minister failed to ask another for something, as happened recently. Even then we worked at an entirely different methodological and organizational level which, unfortunately, has now been lost.”
Vasyl SHEVCHUK: “There is no permanent forum or continuous debate, on these matters in our country. But they affect every individual. We would have enough urgent problems for many roundtables. As Prof. Preobrazhensky (the hero of Heart of a Dog by Mikhail Bulgakov — Ed.) used to say, ‘devastation is in heads.’ Everybody says that we have entered a period of accidents caused by human error, which confirmed by Lviv oblast, the forests of Kherson oblast, and the Strait of Kerch. But from my viewpoint, nature is not the decisive factor. The decis ive factor is the devastation in our heads, i.e., the imperfect structure and work style of our leaders. Why is the world’s best country — and I have visited many countries and am convinced that Ukraine is really the best! — suffering increasingly often from never-ending disasters? In my view, this is because the public administration pattern does not meet the requirements of time. I would like to recall that Article 7 of the Ukrainian Law ‘On Environmental Protection’ calls for mandatory ecological knowledge on the part of all employees and managers who have something to do with natural resources and the environment. Ecology has been withdrawn from school curricula, and it is now an optional subject.
“It is absolutely correct that we are emphasizing the role of the public because these accidents and disasters should rouse our society. And what do we see? Society is getting used to them; nobody is protesting or seeking root causes. The roots of ill-fated events often remain unseen. We should form a civil society that will hire the authorities. But the current situation is, unfortunately, as follows: under the existing parliamentary-presidential pattern of public administration, with our mentality, low political culture, and technological immaturity, there are financial-political holding companies in ministries. The party that delegates a minister demands that he first give money and, secondly, make changes in staff placement.”
Larysa IVSHYNA: “... for new money.”
Vasyl SHEVCHUK: “Yes! So we will do nothing unless society matures and a civil society prevails. There is another important aspect. I would like to defuse tension in Russian-Ukrainian relations over the Strait of Kerch. This has absolutely nothing to do with Russian-Ukrainian bilateral relations. Why? The weather office made a timely and correct forecast. I’d like to say they are lucky that big money is not involved there, so they have not yet fired the professionals and they keep on making correct forecasts. They warned all the ship captains, advised them what to do, and where to hide from the storm. But the captains of the affected vessels ignored these recommendations. They are primarily to blame for this disaster. What should our authorities, especially the Ministry of the Environment, do? Under the law, they should coordinate, guide, and control their operations. It was the ministry, not Nestor Shufrych, which should have done the rescuing, although there was nothing to rescue there. They should have approved a monitoring and surveillance pattern and carried out aerial photography — that was very easy to do. But no pattern was approved, samples were only taken several days later from the shore, but no laboratory tests were taken in the disaster area. The ministry should have collected in the ports of Kerch all information on the owners of the vessels that broke the rules and immediately made financial claims on them. I want to announce today, for the first time, that the disaster inflicted losses worth one billion dollars. This is why I stress that the blame should be put on ship owners, not on Russia as a state.”
Larysa IVSHYNA: “Yet Russia might have shown a more favorable response, because the problem is not only that ‘it is our sea.’ In reality, this sea is a resource of the whole world. The water and air basins are globally interconnected and belong to the world. I can’t understand why the governments of the Black Sea countries are keeping silent.”
Vasyl SHEVCHUK: “I think this is a thing of the future. The cause is also the fact that our officials failed to document the scale of the disaster on the same day, and the international public and governments do not have correct and official information. It is difficult now to backdate all this; for example, it is very hard to determine the content of sulfur in the water.”
A SUPERPOWER AND SMUGGLING
Larysa IVSHYNA: “Did you notice that none of the officials denied the information; I mean the announcement by David Zhvania about the long-time trafficking in contraband in the Strait of Kerch? So it is possible that this question remains unclear for this very reason. On the other hand, the captains failed to follow the port advice because they were carrying contraband cargo that they did not want to register. And if the relations between our two countries are marred by a factor that neither of them wants to admit, this will threaten our lives. What should be worrying us is not a concrete ship owner but whether the public will find out the absolute truth. If not, both the Ukrainian and the Russian authorities are to blame, because a superpower should not let in or out anybody carrying God knows what and then say that this is of no interest. It is obvious now that there is not enough openness in Russia. For example, I visited Russian television only once. While we invite Russian officials to our silver screens, I can’t recall our specialists or experts being invited to Moscow to speak there on some serious matters. These are important bilateral issues. When I was on the air, I said that while the citizens of Russia and Ukraine are bickering with each other, there are vested interests both in Russia and Ukraine, which have cashed in on this. Why should we, two nations, accuse each other of this? We should set the record straight and understand who should ask questions, and what kind of questions, in Russia and Ukraine. And the public should know this. This is the way to raise the question for everybody.”
Vasyl SHEVCHUK: “This is absolutely correct. But I would like to note that it made no difference whether it was contraband oil or not to nature, to those birds and fish that have already died. We should have officially documented at the very beginning how much fuel oil was spilled, obtained information about the ship owners, and sued them for one billion dollars. Now it is hardly possible. As for the international reaction, there is the Convention on Protecting the Black and Azov Seas. It has existed for many years and our governmental officials should be guided by it, but it seems to have been forgotten here. Unfortunately, Ukraine no longer has vessels to pick up the spilled oil. The civilian cargo fleet is in fact on the verge of extinction. The Ukrainian Marine Research Center, which could carry out all these surveys, is underfunded. Those who obtain employment at the Black and Azov Sea inspection are not professionals, to put it mildly — they are landlubbers who do not like or know the sea.”
Larysa IVSHYNA: “Our public has no full information precisely because ministry officials do not know what to do in crisis situations; they are afraid of the public’s evaluation of their work.”
Vasyl SHEVCHUK: “I must say that in 1995 Ukraine and Russia signed a bilateral agreement on cooperation in environmental protection. They formed a bilateral commission that is supposed to pinpoint, discuss, and find ways of solving all these critical points. But people have forgotten about it. Second, in 2004 the Verkhovna Rada adopted the State Program of Protecting and Restoring the Environment of the Azov and Black Seas. This provides for the formation of an emergency response system — also forgotten. When we fail to fund our own programs, international organizations begin to take a dim view of us.
“I think we should create a council of ministers, an informal organization that would advise its successors on how to do things better, what to finance, and how to take over. The point is that when a minister or a governor is relieved of his duties, he never transfers his expertise to his successor. It is a great luxury and extravagance for the state not to use the previous experience.”
Larysa IVSHYNA: “Being civilized means being able to remember things, accumulate information, and teach oneself on the basis of practice. And the fact that more and more accidents and disasters caused by human error are occurring here just shows that we have an entirely different, more primitive, organization of public life. A sizable amount of expertise was accumulated in Soviet times. The Greens were the first to assail the Soviet system. The Chornobyl explosion wave swept way the previous political system. But what we have now is a threat to the existence of Ukrainians as a species. This can be a slow degradation or a series of disasters that will make it impossible to exist. Who will be basking on Black Sea beaches after this pollution? What will fishermen do? Who and in what conditions will be living there? What will happen to the state if compensation for such catastrophes is paid by the taxpayer who dies in these catastrophes, not by the guilty ones? I’ve never heard that the culprits will pay compensation, so the victims of the Dnipropetrovsk and Zasiadko mine tragedies will have to be compensated out of the taxpayer’s pocket. We are getting back to a global contradiction: life is becoming more complex, technological loads are on the rise, and people are becoming more primitive, especially those who, for some reason, do not always suit the positions that they hold. The only way out for society is to break its silence. Scientists, experts, and journalists should disseminate information, convene intellectual gatherings, and attack public opinion. The few remaining intellectuals and professionals should join their efforts.”
To be continued in upcoming issues
