Expert opinion: Ecology or politics?

Right after the Chernobyl Catastrophe the issue of environment and environmental problems became one of the most topical. However with the course of time it turned into a ‘business card’ of Belarus rather than a food for thought, hard work and society development. It is a well known fact, that tragedies and problems may become obstacles on the way of the development of a country or a society, or the reverse, they might become a challenge which would allow to enter a new level of thinking and acting. Thus Chernobyl once became both a tragedy and a challenge for Belarus. It had an opportunity to become the world leader in treating the environmental issues. However that did not happen. Belarus lived through the catastrophe, sustained all the troubles connected with it, discussed the issues of consequences and searched for the guilty ones and as a result, “prescribed” the environmental issue to a natural, habitual and unalienable feature of the modern Belarusian society, together with the clicheic views on Belarus as a tolerant, non-conflict and a ‘partisan’ country.

Now we are facing a situation when the urgent need to resolve the environmental issues in Belarus, which could have become a development factor, has gone. The only remaining thing is the high popularity of the subject itself, however more in a sense of a ‘horror picture’ rather than gained knowledge and experience, including a large number of professional and quasi-professional and amateurish environmentalists, using the issue to apply their power and to achieve their goals, etc. Once realizing the present situation, one should elaborate a new approach to address the issue and to find ways to resolve it.

What are the mechanisms and ways to address and to resolve environmental issues in a concrete country?

In order to get a clear picture, the nature of the environmental sphere should be taken into account. That is, the environmental sphere exists beyond political and economic boundaries. Developments and changes in this sphere are primarily identified by the international programmes and agreements, which in their turn guided by the all-peoples understanding and responsibility, and not by the level of understanding and responsibility in a concrete state. Probably this is the only sphere where isolation and ‘own way’ are the least possible. In the same time, it is a sphere, where solutions to problems within a country may be coming from other countries. It is up to the country to accept those solutions or not. However a country may accept those solutions not due to the fact that it realized the importance of the environmental issues in it, but due to the complexity of the international relations, where environmental issues are strongly linked with geopolitical and economic issues.

The Aarhus Convention and the Kyoto Protocol are examples of solving environmental issues and they require implementation. Environmental problems allow for certain dependence of a society and a state from others, meaning transferring the necessity to address these issues to other countries. When a country lacks certain intellectual, political, technical and human resources to treat the existing problems, it may and should rely on the international community.

However certain environmental issues may not be resolved from the outside and require hard work from inside the country. It mostly concerns socio-political, organisational and managerial aspects.

To clarify the issue, it is necessary to overview the principles of organization and activities of the world’s environmental community. Bearing in mind the global and transboundary nature of the environmental problems, people, uniting to find a solution, represent an exterritorial community. It is exterritorial due to the fact that people united to address the global issues or the issues not directly linked to the territory where they live. To become involved in a discussion and a process of finding a solution to overcome the consequences of the technogen pollution, it is a must to have a corresponding global way of thinking. There is no need to live in the polluted territory. Identifying the issue of a global nature, discussing it and trying to find a solution does not require an attachment to a specific territory, unlike the implementation of the solutions. Implementation is always local, it requires entering into concrete social and political relations with both state and non-state bodies, including legal and communication field, i.e. it requires political, legal, communicational, managerial competences rather than environmental. If Belarusian environmentalist are not competent in these areas, their number and qualification would not matter in their attempt to implement solutions for existing problems at the local level. It creates a paradox situation, when Belarusian environmentalists are more active and effective in trying to solve issues in another country, while in their own country they can not be useful with their high qualifications. Until the mechanisms of involving environmentalists in communication and decision making process at the local level work properly, the latter would be practically useless for their own country.

Both Belarusian ecologists and authorities realize that. However what do they realize? Do they realize what should be done or do they only complain on the ‘sad’ circumstances? The choice they make would characterize the present day situation as well as perspectives of solving the environmental issues of Belarus.

Let us stress it once again, in case there is an urgent topical environmental problem in a country which can not be ignored by the authorities, then ecologists and those who are concerned about environmental issues should be functionally incorporated in the process of finding a solution to the problem. However when the reality is so that the issues are solved via administrative tools and via international programmes and agreements, they themselves should create a room for their professional activity. However that is the point where they would have to enter alien areas: political, communicational and decision-making. This requires changing their habits of global thinking, modus operandi, etc.

It is easier together

In order to find real solutions to the problem of environmentally hazardous productions at the national and local levels, it is necessary to include environmental community into the state and national system of decision making system concerning the location of such productions. This means to enter an equal dialogue with other partners, who would be guided by various interests: economic and social needs of population, national, geopolitical, economic and commercial. However it would be possible to enter such dialogue when all the parties are prepared for it, meaning prepared to compromise and to find the optimal mutually accepted position and to be ready to take common responsibility for the decision. De facto it means they should be ready to reject part of their claims without rejecting their beliefs. Wishing for this is not enough, one should change the object of concern: from global environment to a nation and a state, as well as change the modus operandi: from environmental protection to political and social dialogue.  

Unfortunately in our environmental field there is no readiness to enter a political dialogue. The authorities are traditionally accused of rejecting a dialogue with environmental community. However the attitude and not readiness of environmentalists to enter such dialogue should be taken into account as well.

Public protests against environmentally hazardous productions and technologies may contradict the national interests and the needs of population, when economic and other needs are not taken into account. Therefore they may be regarded as protests ‘against progress’, provoking social tensions and conflicts and leaving solutions to environmental issues aside. A protest is only a form of initiating a dialogue, while coercing to it. However when the dialogue starts, the protest tactics should change to conventional. Until the moment the conventional dialogue becomes ‘normal’ for environmental community, issues will be resolved by the authorities without supervision from the side of ecologists and the latter will have a bad reputation of ‘destructive elements’ in the Belarusian society.

Another example, or rather, a change in the way of thinking is linked to a change of the attitude: from prohibiting and stopping to preventive. Attempts to solve environmental issues via prohibition, exclusion and return to pre-technogen production and lifestyle are viewed by the majority ineffective and not possible to implement. Obviously, the survival of the humanity is linked to its capability to surpass and to deal with hazardous impacts with assistance of the newest technologies. Therefore there is propaganda and distribution of information regarding the existing developments and technologies, etc. Unfortunately quite often the story ends there, due to the fact that the environmental community is limited by their own environmental field.

Belarus realized the necessity to develop and introduce energy-saving technologies. However to develop such technologies there should be scientific infrastructure and intellect-based productions. Therefore, the shift towards energy saving technologies demands the development of science and education all over the country, which would push the country’s economy and agriculture forward towards intellect-based and environmentally sound productions. In the mean time, issues related to economic, educational and scientific policy remain out of sight of people concerned with environmental issues. The reasons behind this are both due to the fact that the state authorities are not willing to allow the society to approach those issues and due to the fact that the civil society does not regard solutions to environmental issues in a proper scale, remaining within the frameworks of simple and object-oriented strategies. At the same time, the educational policy, restricting higher education, reflects our environmental perspectives for the future: we either remain with ‘unclean’ technologies or we improve education. Environmentalists should be concerned with this issue as well, as without being concerned about it, it would be impossible to enter into equal partners relations with the authorities.

Is Belarusian environmental community prepared to stop waiting and demanding for support and to become a real player in the country’s political sphere?