The Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for Environmental Protection, Ecology and Transport Sergey Ivanov in an interview with Interfax spoke about the waste disposal program in the Arctic, ecotourism problems and the development of the Northern Sea Route.
- The topic of waste disposal and environmental pollution is always relevant, but for some regions, in particular, the Arctic, it is doubly relevant. The so-called "big cleaning" has been going on there for several years. What are its results, what is the percentage of cleared territories, how much more time will it take to complete the task?
- The Arctic and the Far East are special regions. During my twenty years in various positions, I managed to travel all over Russia along and across, but these two regions are the most memorable, first of all, by a terrible contrast: stunning natural beauty against the background of complete squalor from human activity.
As the head of the military department, I once flew around Novaya Zemlya by helicopter, and there mostly the objects of the Ministry of Defense. I hope, by the way, that it will remain so. So, at the bottom there were just mountains of scrap metal, iron barrels, metal structures, huge coils with cable and a bunch of other garbage. All this was the result of 50-60 years of activity of the Soviet Union. Twenty years have passed, and I remember it well. At that time, without any programs, I instructed the forces of the Ministry of Defense to start restoring order. The matter is far from simple: there are no roads, nothing. But you have to somehow collect everything, flatten it, if you want, then take it to a place on the shore where this scrap and garbage could be loaded onto a ship, delivered to the mainland, and then also sold - it's the same metal.
Then both the Russian Geographical Society and Sergei Shoigu began a serious program to clean up the Arctic, which, like the garbage reform, will take more than a decade. On Novaya Zemlya, they have been cleaning for five years, and it will take another five to ten years. And there is also Franz Josef Land. To make the extent of the trouble clear, I will give one example: only on three islands of Franz Josef Land - Bell, Hayes, Alexander - it was possible to remove 90% of garbage in only five years. At the same time, I should note that volunteers also began to help, I bow low to them, who go to these places for a month or two in the season, actively work, compress barrels, drag them to the shore, and then it's all taken out.
But it will take at least 10 more years of such cleaning. After all, the Russian sector of the Arctic is huge. Only next year, maybe, we will start cleaning up in the "maternity hospital" of polar bears - on Wrangel Island. Unfortunately, we also have a garbage dump there. And all this is adjacent to the red Book animals. Here are the contrasts for you!
- Do you think additional legislative measures are needed to protect the ecology of the Arctic?
- A particularly tough and principled approach is needed to the Arctic. Maybe in some aspects it is tougher than in non-Arctic regions. Because the slightest oil spill, especially in water, can lead to really terrible consequences. But, by the way, with the right approach, there should be no strong contradictions between the economy and the environment. The economy must comply with all environmental laws, norms and regulations, and ecology should not lead to banning and freezing everything.
- Speaking of the Arctic, it is impossible not to raise the topic of the Northern Sea Route. What, in your opinion, are the features of the development of this communication?
- The Northern Sea Route goes almost everywhere either in Russian territorial waters or in the economic zone of the country. I believe that Russia should insist on a special procedure for using this communication.
For example, if a foreign vessel requests passage by the Northern Sea Route, then it must be of the most modern ice class, if you want – with five sides! Then Russia introduces a rule: there are no five sides of the ship - there is no passage along the Northern Sea Route. That's all. Point. This is our right!
And we should not care what other opinions other States may have, with all due respect for freedoms and democracy. Because if an emergency happens to this vessel, for example, an oil spill, then this spill will be with us, and not on the territory of other states.
And there is also an insurance institute. If you have multibillion-dollar insurance, and in dollar terms, and not in rubles, then you're welcome. Take advantage of our icebreaker escort and hit the road. At the same time, the rates for escorting should also be approved by us, and not, for example, by the International Shipping Organization.
It is necessary to proceed from national interests in everything.
- Well, what if the damage to the environment is caused by domestic companies on our territory? Since the beginning of the year, for example, we have had a number of environmental emergencies, the list is long and without such resonant incidents as in Norilsk. Who should compensate for the damage?
- Any damage must be fully paid for and liquidated by the owner.
In general, there are two types of damage. The first is the huge environmental damage accumulated during the Soviet period. For example, as in Usolye-Sibirsky. It is clear that only the state can eliminate this damage here.
The second type of damage is damage caused by private companies. And this is not only the case with Norilsk Nickel. This is just a resonant incident, there are many similar cases. It is necessary, by the way, to pay tribute: Norilsk Nickel immediately admitted its guilt and immediately said that it would liquidate everything for its money. And a lot has already been done. And most importantly, there will definitely be no leakage of petroleum products into the Arctic Ocean, everything has been stopped there, almost everything has been cleaned up.
But, I repeat: the damage in the second case must be compensated by the owner. There should be strict regulations and huge fines.
There is another option, as in the whole civilized world: insurance. Representatives of big business in response say: in theory, theoretically, you are right, Sergey Borisovich. But in practice, to be honest, we will need tens of billions of dollars for an insurance throughout eastern and western Siberia, and throughout the Arctic. And this is really so.
Therefore, my position is as follows: if you, as a private trader, take on a large business that theoretically can cause huge environmental damage, and this is the whole mining, the whole "oil industry", all gas, chemicals, then before buying such a business, understand how much it will cost to eliminate possible damage. Or how much you will need to pay for the elimination of accumulated damage in the event of a sale.
- Then let's move from the topic of environmental industrial damage to the issue of damage caused by some citizens. In April of this year, you expressed concern about the growth of unorganized tourism to Lake Baikal from the point of view of threats to environmental security in the region. What is the environmental situation in the region according to the results of the past eight months, has it become better or worse there?
- Better. There were no foreign tourists, in particular, from Mongolia and China. Their tourist trips accounted for more than half of the total flow to this region. And our domestic tourism there is not really growing either, it has even fallen. Because after all, a trip to Lake Baikal requires funds.
When the "savages" came there, they came by car. Here, they will come, put up tents on the shore, live for a week, throw waste and garbage, leave. What, every hundred meters along the shore of Lake Baikal at a distance of 600 km to place police officers? From such tourism - only trouble and headache.
So, then it is already necessary to take legislative measures. For example, passage to a specific section of the coast, say, 20 km long, is prohibited. Otherwise, you will have to clean up dirt and debris.
And there is another problem related to the tourism business. You know, I'm not against small and medium-sized businesses, on the contrary, I support them, especially when they produce something.
But small and medium-sized businesses on Lake Baikal do not produce anything except the construction of small hotels with cubby-rooms. And right on the shore of the lake without any treatment facilities. They don't care about them, the main thing for such businessmen is to collect money from people. People don't even know where the products of their vital activity "flow". They do not know and do not think. But it would be worth it.
I think first we need to build a good, environmentally friendly infrastructure, debug the waste management scheme and only then encourage citizens to go to Lake Baikal. This is an unpopular opinion, but it is true. This is if, of course, we want to preserve Baikal.
Well, there is also the issue of ecological culture. Unfortunately, it is still poorly developed in our country. Although, for example, I noticed that if, say, in large cities an area is gentrified, everything is clean, culturally, then it's already indecent to throw an ice cream wrapper on the ground there, people are looking for an urn. It didn't happen before.
To finish the topic of ecology. The diverse nature of Russia is a huge element of the economy. Foreigners, for example, I know, pay tens of thousands of dollars to fly in the summer for a day or two to the South Kuril Lake in Kamchatka, where at this time from five to six million salmon come from the Pacific Ocean to spawn. At the same time, about 400 of the world's largest Kamchatka bears come out to "fish" on the shores. After such an excursion, guests from abroad fly away with great impressions. In addition, there are geysers, fishing, and surfing in Kamchatka – all conditions for recreation.
There are countries that generate 60 percent of their budget from international tourism. For example, Kenya. We do not use our natural potential by two percent in terms of tourism.
This is not to mention the aspect now called the fashionable phrase "soft power". When foreigners learn about these unique beautiful places, it makes a huge impression on them!
Alex Shishlo for Rough&Polished
