Irina Sukhiy: «Our future in our country depends on us»

What are the aspirations of the activists of the third sector in the filed of economy today? What is changing for the worse and what for the better? An interview of eurobelarus.info with Irina Sukhiy, Chairwoman of the Council of an NGO «Ecodom», an expert on the Aarhus Convention, an activist of the Belarusian environmental movement about the situation in the environmental sector of the civil society in Belarus after the Environmental Forum held from 10 to 12 July in the Berezinsky Reserve.

 Environmental movement as a part of the third sector in Belarus

”In my opinion, in terms of interaction with public authorities environmentalists have more opportunities. Firstly, environmental organizations are regarded as less politicized (compared, for example, with human rights organizations). Secondly, there is the Aarhus Convention, ratified by the Republic of Belarus. With reference to it we can demand participation in the process of making important decisions in the field of ecology. However there are few precedents, when people appealed to court, demanding the implementation of their right to participate in the decision making process, in this regard, a case of Sevastopolsky Park could be considered as a positive example.

In any case, the Aarhus Convention is an opportunity to develop democracy in our country within the framework of the existing legislation. It is important to strive to realize this opportunity of the involvement, referring to the document and to other laws. Indeed, the Aarhus Convention is only a framework, therefore there is a need to make efforts to develop relevant legislation – given that any official, if not specifically prescribed what to do would not do anything. The same is true with the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD-2020). Based on it, the five-year, ten-year development plans are elaborated. The NSSD-2020 was developed with a very active involvement of the civil society through their work in advisory bodies. However this active participation has been achieved uniquely within a UNDP project "Assistance in formulating and implementing national strategies for sustainable development». The project had public participation incorporated as a requirement therefore it was involved in the process in 2002-2004. The project was successful. On the one hand, we discussed the strategic issues of environmental policy communicating with government experts. It was interesting, sometimes there were conflicts, however in the end the officials acknowledged that public participation helped to improve the document. … Nevertheless… 

 The National Strategy is updated every five years, this year a new one was drafted and there was no public participation involved. And we, the environmental movement are to think and understand where we have committed a mistake. Why the situation is unfolding without our participation? The UNDP has established a platform for discussion and we had to take action ourselves to continue communication and track the process of implementation of the National Strategy. This example shows that often we are not sufficiently analyzing the results of our work and do not form a coherent plan for further joint action.

 A joint activity would obviously allow for greater efficiency. Today the scope of expertise concerning sustainable development in the public sector is much stronger than in the governmental sector. This is facilitated by participation in numerous training courses, international conferences and so on. We are interested in it and actively trained.

 What about activities of the Scientific Institute of Ministry of Economy? Sustainable development is not exactly their major field of expertise. It is staffed with adults, older people, who clearly have not studied this concept at their time at an institute they are simply far from understanding of the importance and essence of the concept. Where does that lead?

 For example, I shall recall how the first NSSD was drafted. It should be noted that the Strategy of sustainable development implies a reduction in the use of any resources. This strategy was written at a time when the population of Belarus declined. The Strategy was written as a five-year plan. According to it the water consumption by the population has been increased by a number of percent. That is, the population decreases while the consumption is growing. We could not understand from where? Why? Government officials explained their logic: if there was economic development, it meant an increase in the total consumption”.

 On Forum

 “There was a need for a meeting of ecologists of the country for a long time. So many of us gathered together in 2002 in the past, it was a national meeting of environmental organizations.

The main purpose of the Forum was the consolidation of the environmental movement in order to increase the impact on decision-making in the environmental policy. We are pleased with the results. It became obvious that we are aware of the need for a joint action to address problems that go beyond the immediate scope of our competencies. Perhaps, since 2002 we have become somewhat wiser, better professionals...

Back then there was a very different tonality of our discussions. Apparently, during this meeting the problem has so obviously shifted from being emerging into becoming real, that affected the seriousness of the discussion and its greater coherence and the thrive for finding compromise and understanding.

Therefore three days, proved to be not enough. The meeting was very important and useful as it was possible to share with one another our achievements during this period. Green portal united several organizations and individuals in Environmental Association «Green Network». Due to the presence of a small representation of the activities of environmental organizations in the media, we are not aware about the activities of other organizations. There was a very interesting moment, when the participants presented their work talked about their activities. For example, organization «Children of Chernobyl», I knew about their existence. However the presentation of their work surpassed all expectations. What they are doing in schools is extremely interesting. «Eco Parliament», for example ... Improving environmental awareness among school children is a work for our future.
«Akhova ptushak Batkaushchiny» is also a well-known organization they ensured that their activities are covered by the media however their presentation also revealed many new activities. In particular, there was a very interesting report on the restoration of the marshes as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Bogs are a huge storage of the CO2, when they are drained the CO2 is being emitted into the atmosphere. However this process is reversible with the help of peat swamps.

Initially, waterlogging projects were conceived and implemented in order to preserve bird populations in small areas. Now there is already a big project, covering a vast area. It is implemented on a scientific platform and numbers are reflecting their contribution to the reduction of the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere”.

Sense of «common touch»

Very often people are struggling with their problems alone and it is very difficult. When they realize that someone has similar problems they share and exchange their experiences, observations, in order to work more easily. This brings optimism and efficiency in solutions to their problems. And it is very important that there was this feeling of “common touch” at the Forum; a sense of a shoulder of an ecologist nearby, a sense of solidarity in actions.

For instance, there is an example of the courageous position of the Director of Civil Reserve Sarochanskie Lakes, Igor Pastukhov. There was a plan to build a nuclear power plant next to the protected area of the reserve. The population of the surrounding areas was against, however feared to say so, as we often are. In fact their opinion was never asked.

Igor quite openly, on a blank with the coat of arms on behalf of its protected area wrote a letter to the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Energy and the Presidential Administration about the fact that he regarded it absolutely inadmissible to have such an attitude with regard to the selection of sites for the construction of a nuclear power plant near the protected areas. Moreover it is not only about the reserve he is the Director of. Nearby there is the National Park «Narochansky».

Igor Pastukhov understands that he may be dismissed. However that did not stop him”.

Work with children as work with the future “The Forum was also attended by representatives of the sphere of education: centres of extracurricular activities, teachers who are engaged in extracurricular environmental activities. These were experts, who exercise tremendous work in our country. There were some very interesting stories about how the method of education for sustainable development was introduced into the curriculum. I think that the experts from environmental organizations involved in the development of teaching methods, have great potential for cooperation with educational institutions, with teachers in particular. However for the advancement and inclusion of this paradigm in our educational system we have to work a lot at the level of interaction with the Ministry of Education. Otherwise, all of our successful practices in this area will drown, as a drop in the ocean.

Indeed, the Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Belarus has been invited to participate in our Forum. In the end, the Ministry was represented by the Head of Information Department. We think that the new Minister has only just came into office and, hopefully, there will be understanding of the importance of the third sector, and cooperation would be more constructive than with his predecessors. We hope that his attitude with regard to the natural resources will be careful, bearing in mind that there will be people living after us, that resources are might exhaust with careless attitude towards them. Indeed, there was fishing industry - fish was caught in the Lake Naroch... What do we have today?

Positive thinking

“We had a round table discussion on cross-sector collaboration. The condition was not a matter of how and why we have not worked with the state bodies, but to talk about positive experiences. It was very, very difficult to break through this in ourselves. Each one of us collected a lot of negative resentment. For instance, a terrible story was recalled. A local Chairman of the Executive was to hold a wedding. In preparation for this event trees were cut down with rook nests and baby-rooks. This was a flagrant violation of the law. It is not allowed to cut trees with bird nests in the period from April to October. This was done in May and these chicks simply were laying around. People were stamping on them, cats ate them, while kids watched all that – there was a kindergarten nearby. People wrote letters, complaints and thanks to this in the end someone was punished, however the case did not receive special publicity. 

There is a Public Coordinating Council under the auspices of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Belarus, which is supposed to be a ground where we could discuss with the Ministry all the important and problematic issues.

Now there are 16 organizations in the Council. When the Council started its work its meetings were attended by the Minister. Accordingly, there was an opportunity to address the Minister with proposals and to ask any questions. However over time the level of representation has dropped. During meetings the Ministry of Environment is represented by the Head of the Information Department. This is not the kind of person who makes decisions. Representatives of environmental organizations simply stopped going there, there was no sense.

Now, with the appointment of a new Minister, we would like to analyze the work of the Council and to make suggestions for improvement of its activities. In particular, to keep meeting notes: that was discussed, what proposals were made, what decisions were taken. These are our plans for the future”.

Relations with the EU

“The issue of miscommunication with our European counterparts and the European Commission in particular is that they perceive us as partners for implementation of their projects, rather than as equal partners in the policy-making. In addition, the European Commission implements a lot of its major projects through cooperation with the public authorities. That is the priority sector of intervention for them.

Here is an obvious example from my experience. European experts arrived, who were involved in the drafting of the National Plan of the development of alternative energy sources by 2012. Changing policy was one of the items in the Plan.

Representatives of the European Commission told us, representatives of NGOs, “we regard your, community organizations, role as implementing pilot projects on dissemination of information on renewable energy, etc” ... I asked, «And what about the first component of the project, i.e. policy review» ?” 

“What?” asked me European colleagues.

“Well, Belarus has ratified the Aarhus Convention, in accordance with it the public must be involved in the developing of programmes and policies. We would very much like to participate in this, however our country is still in the habit of excluding us. Because of that it would be great, if it was once prescribed as a requirement”.

Their reply was as follows, “Well ... We do not know, but the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources is against the public participation”.

Therefore let me ask, who, if not the EU would remind the State of the importance of the compliance with the Aarhus Convention, ratified by Belarus? After all, we need to follow the pattern where our governmental institutions are required to cooperate with the environmental organizations within the projects. This is the only way, by requiring each project to build a common space of interaction, that would make it possible to achieve this practice.

 In the meantime, environmental organizations of Belarus perceived by the European Commission, as assistants to distributing information, building a house of straw, removing debris from a park ..

To change the existing state of affairs, individual efforts are not enough. We, representatives of environmental organizations, need to jointly formulate a strategy for collaboration with the European Commission. Also to become actively involved in communicating with other civil society organizations in Belarus and in the neighboring countries, on the modalities of participation in the Civil Society Forum within the framework of the «Eastern Partnership».

As a conclusion, I would like to say that everything is in our hands. Our future in this country depends on our deliberate and concerted actions and, in particular, the success of our actions in the area of influence on environmental decision-making.

Interviewed by Ludmila Korsak

[email protected]

Photo by Dmitry Rudenko / Forum of environmental NGOs of Belarus 2009