Moscow. November 29. INTERFAX-the "Big clean-up" of the Russian Arctic sector will require at least another decade, said Sergey Ivanov, special representative of the Russian President for environmental protection, ecology and transport. In an interview with Interfax, he also spoke about the impact of the coronavirus situation on the environment, the solution of the "garbage problem" and ecotourism problems, the development of the Northern sea route, and gave his assessments of the situation in the field of international security.
- Sergey Borisovich, I would like to start our conversation with a topic that has affected literally everyone not only in Russia, but also around the world and now – at the peak of relevance: with the coronavirus. Tell us, how did this problem affect the solution of tasks within your area of competence?
- When it was still just beginning, in the so-called first wave of coronavirus, a lot was reported about the benefits of the situation with this disease for the environment. And you know, it really is. As they say, there would be no happiness, but misfortune helped. For example, if we talk about Moscow-Yes, the cleanliness of the air in the spring and summer in the capital has increased many times! The reasons for this are clear: cars have disappeared from the roads. However, this applies not only to Russian cities, but also to cities around the world. So in this case, the benefits for the environment are obvious.
If we narrow down the environmental issues somewhat and focus on the so-called garbage problem, then we should certainly note negative trends. What is the problem? All of us are forced to wear personal protective equipment, masks and gloves during this period. Both while at work and on the way to it. What happens in practice: after leaving the metro, a person removes the mask – after all, you can walk down the street without it. Where does he throw it: as a rule, in the trash, and sometimes past it. Then, during the cleaning process, all this garbage, along with other waste, is eventually sent to the landfill. Of course, this increases the likelihood of infection spreading. And not only coronavirus: masks and gloves can contain any other microbes.
Although, in fairness, it should be noted that, if we take the total volume of municipal solid waste, the proportion of masks and gloves in it is barely one hundredth of one percent. Yes, the personal protective equipment used is a problem, but if we evaluate it objectively, we should say that, firstly, it is temporary, and secondly, it is local and does not have a big impact on the overall problem with garbage.
And that's what the fashion industry really seriously affected, so it's on the logistics of garbage collection. After all, what happened? In the spring and summer, many Muscovites, for example, left to" serve " a remote vacation to their dachas outside the city. This is completely natural and understandable. But this also affected the amount of garbage produced in the city. For example, it used to be known exactly when and how much waste should be removed from a particular Metropolitan yard. And suddenly there was twice as much garbage in it, and in suburban settlements in the Moscow region, on the contrary, its volume increased many times. And this led to very serious problems.
You see, it is not profitable for the operator to take out half-empty tanks in residential urban areas. But in rural areas, on the contrary, there was a need to make not one trip of a garbage truck to a specific point per week, but several. Such changes also require other agreements: it is necessary to negotiate new terms with the old operator or find another contractor.
In General, this is a serious problem, it has reached the level of the Federal government, and it has been closely addressed. Of course, regional leaders were also involved: for example, the head of the Moscow region literally "manually" provided garbage collection.
But there is another aspect of the problem, which is purely economic. Incomes of the population fell, there was an increase in cases of non-payment for garbage collection: often citizens did not receive a penny. And in this situation, many serious operators, in particular, in the same Moscow region, were paid grants and subsidies so that they would not go bankrupt. You understand that no one can take anything out for free.
- Yes, the set of problems encountered is quite clear. But let me now turn away from the operational component and go up to the strategic level, so to speak. It is known that the government has approved a plan to introduce separate collection of municipal solid waste. What are the prospects for real implementation of this system in Russia, given, for example, the number of garbage chutes in homes in the country? It is enough to look at the" trash " near any house to understand that the idea of separate collection has not yet taken root in the General population. What measures do you consider necessary and effective to make this idea really work?
- In my opinion, there are still changes...But, well: then I'll start a little bit from afar. You know that because of my main specialty, I have lived and worked abroad for many years. In countries where the separate garbage collection system now works perfectly, it took 30 years to implement it. I generally believe that people who demand the implementation of our garbage reform overnight or within two or three years are just populists and demagogues. Well, there can't be such deadlines! And not everything depends on the authorities, much depends on the people themselves. What you don't do, you can't change the situation as long as someone else is throwing garbage everywhere.
But in General, we still expect that we will go this way faster. Because, for example, there is a great world experience, which, I am sure, you just need to adopt and not engage in "inventing the Bicycle".
If you go deeper into the problem, it should be noted that separate garbage collection is a very complex chain, and if you remove at least one link from it, it simply will not work: the entire system will instantly collapse like a house of cards.
With the most serious approach to the issue, first you need to brew all the garbage chutes in all the houses of Russia. And to do this, of course, you need the consent of the residents, and one hundred percent. Here, for example, at least one resident of a high-rise building for 1000 apartments will speak out against it, and that's it: the garbage chute will remain.
Being a realist, I still insist on gradually implementing this idea. And it has already passed through the Ministry of construction: all new apartment buildings will be built without garbage chutes.
After all, all garbage chutes are also a breeding ground for rats and cockroaches. And when a Russian citizen throws borscht along with cardboard into the garbage chute – what should we talk about next? And this is only the first link in the chain.
The second link depends on the government, and first of all, the regional one. Where I go, and this is not only Moscow and the Moscow region, I already see many places in the courtyards of cultural sites for garbage collection. This is not the old dirty tanks with rats running around.
At these sites – two or four tanks for different waste. Thank God, there are more and more people who are not too lazy to leave the entrance with two bags in their hands: in one organic, food waste, in the other – plastic, for example.
Now we come to the next link in the chain. Obviously, each of the tanks must have its own garbage truck on time. It is clear that if, God forbid, one garbage truck arrives and all the garbage from four tanks is dumped in one pile, this will instantly kill the very essence of separate garbage collection.
Go on. Let's say that large operators are ready for separate garbage collection. But they need to know exactly when to send a garbage truck to a specific tank, for example, with plastic. Maybe the tank is still half empty. But then it is not profitable, because the economy does not work. And this problem is being solved. Now, for example, two companies have joined the process: Rostelecom, where I am Chairman of the Board of Directors, and rostec. In practice, the so-called "smart tank" has already been created: there is a sensor inside that signals the filling of the tank. The sensor worked – everything, so you can send a garbage truck.
Following aspect. We have created a system for territorial waste disposal. Not everywhere yet, but in 79 regions of the country. The territorial plan takes into account the volume of waste in the region, the storage and placement of landfills, and the possibility of recycling. By the way, I would like to note that a law is already being issued that separates the concepts of "garbage" and "secondary raw materials"for the first time in Russian history. Because, for example, plastic, fabrics or aluminum cans are ready-made secondary raw materials.
It should be noted that this is not only a legal concept: the division is applied in practice. For example, at all VTB or KHL League basketball games, a huge number of plastic beverage bottles after matches held across the country are exported by tons by SIBUR for recycling. Now the RFU has already thought about the idea of adopting this experience.
Another important component of the system is waste disposal routes. There is a huge problem in Russia: we are terribly short of sorting and waste processing enterprises. And, you know, there is a program for their construction. But what resistance it meets in some places! There are a lot of so-called ecoativists who categorically object to the construction of incineration plants in General, believing that they will just be pipes that smoke into the sky. But, listen, this is just demagogy and populism again!
When developing the program, we took the best experience of Swiss and Japanese companies of this kind as a model. In these countries, incineration plants are located in the very centers of cities and it has long been proven that they do not cause any damage. Their operation brings only benefits, the process itself entails the production of additional amounts of electricity. This reduces the need for previous production volumes, such as coal, which is traditionally used as fuel for electricity generation.
The advantages are everywhere, and they are obvious! Yes, the electricity generated by waste processing is somewhat more expensive than when operating a conventional thermal power plant. But this is normal: all advanced States partially subsidize the cost of electricity or heat generated by the incinerator so that the population does not feel the difference. And we do exactly the same. The population will not even know that it receives electricity generated not by a coal-fired thermal power plant, but by an incinerator. Nothing will change for people.
Here we come to another important component of the problem: tariffs for garbage collection. They are defined by regional operators. By the way, we have the previous approach, which is that tariffs should be the same throughout the country. You know, I'm going to Express an unpopular opinion, but I think it's complete nonsense!
Let's look at the situation on a concrete example. Take the classic landfill. After all, it's one thing for a garbage truck to go to it from the yard 20 km, and another thing-150 km.
At the same time, it should be taken into account that transport accounts for 70% of the price of the entire chain of solid municipal waste removal.
For example, Moscow produces 1/5 of all municipal solid waste produced in the country. Like it or not, some of the solid household waste from the capital and the Moscow region still needs to be exported outside the Moscow region. And this is even if there are incineration plants – their capacity to process the entire volume of garbage is simply not enough.
Even if you take this garbage to the border of the Moscow region with the neighboring region – it will be a big transport shoulder. What does this mean? This means that for you and me, residents of Moscow, the rates should be two or three times higher than for residents of a small Siberian town, where the landfill or recycling facilities are 20 km away.
It should be noted that the state still subsidizes tariffs for garbage collection, since the existing ones are economically unjustified. Therefore, by the way, the "garbage" business is still very reluctant to go into a legal scheme. Merchants understand that you can't earn much here. And you're also dependent on subsidies. If they give a subsidy, the profit will be in the region of zero. And if you do not give-immediately abruptly leave "in the negative"!
So there are a lot of links in this chain. And as you can see, all of them should work in a single bundle. Otherwise, the idea of separate garbage collection will fail.
The problems of solid municipal waste management in our country – in the Soviet Union, then in Russia-no one has ever been even close to dealing with! Here, the vast expanses of our state played a negative role in terms of waste disposal: just go to the ground as much as you want and wherever you want! Finally, we understood, thank God: that's it, we can't go any further. Yes, if we were as small as Luxembourg, we would have thought about the topic of recycling a hundred years ago!
And now we also have a public request to solve this problem: thank God, there are many public figures, normal people who are not indifferent, who are concerned about this topic. And I'm very supportive of that. The popular front has also launched its own initiative: using an electronic resource, people report illegal dumps. And then the Governor gets this information on the table. As a result, in two or three years there were much fewer illegal dumps. And this is a huge progress.
- The topic of waste disposal and environmental pollution is always relevant, but for some regions, in particular, the Arctic, it is doubly relevant. For several years there is a so-called "big cleaning". What are the results, what is the percentage of cleared territories, and how much longer 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, but these two regions are the most memorable, first of all, because of their terrible contrast: stunning natural beauty against the background of complete squalor from human activities. As the head of the military Department, I once flew around Novaya Zemlya by helicopter, and there, mainly, objects of the Ministry of defense. I hope, by the way, that it will remain so. So: below were just mountains of scrap metal, iron barrels, metal structures, huge coils of cable and a lot 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 defense Ministry to start restoring order. It's far from simple: there are no roads, nothing. But you need to somehow collect everything, flatten it, if you want, then take it to a place on the shore where this scrap and garbage can be loaded on a ship, delivered to the mainland, and then sell it — it's metal. Then 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. They've been cleaning up on Novaya Zemlya for five years, and it will take another five or ten years. And then there's Franz Josef Land. To understand the extent of the disaster, I will give one example: only on three Islands of Franz Josef Land — bell, Hayes, Alexander-90% of garbage was removed in just five years. At the same time, I should note that volunteers have also begun to help, I bow low to them, who go to these places for a month or two in the season, work actively, press barrels, drag them to the shore, and then all this is 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 the" maternity home " 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!
- Do you think that additional legislative measures are needed to protect the Arctic environment?
- We need a particularly tough and principled approach to the Arctic. It may be tougher in some aspects 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, regulations, and regulations, and the environment must 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 runs almost everywhere, either in Russian territorial waters or in the country's economic zone. I believe that Russia should insist on a special procedure for using this communication.
For example, if a foreign ship requests passage by the Northern sea Route, it must be of the most modern ice class, if you want-with five sides! Then Russia introduces a rule: no five sides of the ship - no passage along the Northern sea route. And all. Point. This is our right!
And we should not care what other opinions other States may have, with all respect for freedoms and democracy. Because if an emergency occurs with this ship, for example, an oil spill, then this spill will be in our country, and not on the territory of other States.
And there is an insurance Institute. If you have multibillion-dollar insurance, and in dollar terms, not in rubles, then you are 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.
Everything must be based on national interests.
- Well, what should we do if the environmental damage 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 high-profile incidents as in Norilsk. Who should pay damages?
- 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 just the case with Norilsk Nickel. This is just a high-profile incident, there are many similar cases. We must, by the way, pay tribute: Norilsk Nickel immediately admitted its guilt and immediately said that it would liquidate everything for its own money. And much has already been done. And most importantly, there will definitely be no leakage of oil 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 rules and huge fines.
There is another option, as in the entire civilized world: insurance. Representatives of big business in response say: the idea is that theoretically, you are right, Sergey. But in practice, to be honest, we will need tens of billions of dollars for an insurance company to insure, for example, all oil barrels or oil pipelines in all of Eastern and Western Siberia, and in the entire Arctic. And this is true.
Therefore, my position is this: if you, as a private entrepreneur, take on a large business that can theoretically cause huge environmental damage, and this is the entire mining, the entire "oil industry", all gas, and chemicals, then before you buy 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.
- 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 in terms of threats to environmental security in the region. What is the situation with the environment in the region over the past eight months, has it become better or worse?
- 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 the region. And our domestic tourism there is still not growing very much, it has even fallen. Because after all, a trip to lake Baikal requires money.
When the "savages" came there, they came in cars. 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 we need to take legislative measures. For example: a specific section of the coast, for example, 20 km long, is forbidden to pass. Otherwise, you will have to clean up dirt and debris.
And there is another problem related to the tourism business. You know, I am 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 other than 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, such businessmen just need to collect money from people. People do not know where the products of their life "flow". They don't know and don't think about it. You should have.
I believe that first we need to build a good, environmentally friendly infrastructure, fine-tune 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 lake Baikal.
And then there is the issue of environmental culture. Unfortunately, it is still poorly developed. Although, for example, I noticed that if, say, in large cities, the area is ennobled, everything is clean and cultural, then it is already indecent to throw an ice cream wrapper on the ground, people are looking for an urn. This was not the case 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 on the South Kuril lake in Kamchatka, where at this time from five to six million salmon come to spawn from the Pacific ocean. At the same time, about 400 of the world's largest Kamchatka bears come to the shores to "fish". After such an excursion, guests from abroad leave with great impressions. In addition, Kamchatka has geysers, fishing, and surfing – 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 that is now called the fashionable phrase "soft power". When foreigners learn about these unique beautiful places, it makes a huge impression on them!
- Well, then we will move on from ecology to transport issues. This is also one of Your areas of activity. Sergey Borisovich, what is your attitude to the project of building a transport crossing from Sakhalin to the mainland? What could it be-a bridge, a tunnel? What is the cost of creating an underwater road infrastructure for the crossing in comparison with the financial costs of building the crossing itself? Are there any alternatives to this project?
- From the point of view of psychology, the bridge is necessary. Here, they say, the Crimea was connected, now it would not hurt and Sakhalin. But from the economic point of view, no. There is no cargo for this bridge. And then: in order to build it, theoretically, it is necessary to walk from Komsomolsk-on-Amur 536 km along the deserted taiga to the point on the continent where the narrowest Strait is: its width, in my opinion, is 7 km. Because if you build a bridge, it's only in this place. So: 536 km - along the Khabarovsk territory - it will cost much more than the bridge itself. The end of story.
"Then that's a different question. It is known that you have dealt with the issue of Russia's ownership of the Arctic ocean shelf. What are your assessments of the prospects for recognition of this affiliation by the UN special Commission? Political realities may prevent an objective review of the geological and geophysical evidence provided by Russia?
- Yes, there is a political aspect to this problem, of course. There are few people in the world who want to recognize most of the Arctic shelf as Russian in accordance with the UN Convention on the law of the Sea of 1983. But we must be persistent and consistent. Three years ago, we already presented the iron scientific evidence obtained with the help of the latest equipment on the Lomonosov ridge and the Mendeleev rise. Research has shown that they are natural extensions of our shelf: the geological rocks on the ground and under water are the same. We must consistently defend our position based on the norms of the international Convention and the obtained scientific data. For the sake of posterity, it's worth fighting for!
- Sergey Borisovich, given your experience in various positions, allow me to continue the conversation about international issues. What is Your assessment of the prospects for strategic stability in connection with the us withdrawal from all the fundamental treaties: ABM, INF, DON, and now start is under threat? Now, what keeps us from falling into an uncontrolled arms race is only ultra-modern Russian weapons?
"Well, I can give you an approximate answer to that question.
After all, it was when I was defense Minister that I was at the origin of the creation of the modern weapons that the President spoke about in his 2018 Address. You can count – it took us 15 years to create such weapons. But we have achieved results. If you ask what's next, I'll tell you: we're working. And we will always work on this, because Alexander III was right: Russia really has only two allies-the army and the Navy.
And the story of the agreements you mentioned also began with me. The post of head of the us Department of defense was then held by Donald Rumsfeld. It began, as you know, with the us withdrawal from the missile defense SYSTEM. And missile DEFENSE was really a cornerstone in the international security system. But we were then assured that Russia and the United States are not adversaries. In fairness it should be noted that we have then the relations we had better, both political and military. Even to the point that we conducted joint Russian-American exercises, if you remember. Now it seems wild, but it was.
Then we were told: what are you afraid of, we are not doing anything against you, there is Iran and North Korea. We understood the value of these arguments. But – and we said this to the Americans – it was impossible to prohibit the us withdrawal from missile DEFENSE. And then it went-went. The situation with the open skies Treaty (DON) has already arisen...
My personal opinion: I do not believe that the Europeans, if they remain in the agreement with us, will not share information about flights over Russia. After all, it turns out a completely ridiculous situation! We can't fly over them, but the Europeans will continue to fly over us, over all of Russia, up to the Kuril Islands, and everything will be transferred to the Americans. This is up to the political leadership of the country to decide, but I personally do not see much point in us staying in the DON after the Americans leave. Unless, of course, they urgently return to it under Biden.
- How viable do you see the formula for including third countries that are nuclear powers in the start Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States? Do you see similar prospects?
"No, I don't see it. This is an excuse made up by the Americans to get out on their own.
- It seems that only we are fighting for peace. Why do Western countries not have such a reverent attitude to the international security system? Both Western European countries and the United States....
"There's a big difference here. Western European countries are satellites in the political sense, in terms of armaments and arms control. I remember that in Soviet times, like many citizens, I listened to "Western voices"on the radio. And it kept saying: the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites. Now this well-established phrase can be applied with an accuracy of one hundred percent, only the opposite: the United States and its European, especially Eastern European satellites. They are satellites in a pure form. And Ukraine is a satellite. America itself is a completely different matter. By the way, I partly understood trump: well, how much can the American taxpayer pay for rich NATO member States that do not want to increase their spending on weapons?
- What's next, what are the prospects, what will happen if start-3 breaks?
- From an international contractual point of view, there will be nothing. No prospect. In General, the prospect is to continue working on creating new modern weapons.
- Can we ever interact with the United States on equal terms? Or are we doomed to compete for geopolitical reasons as long as we are strong militarily?
"Interact with what?" They don't want to interact with us in any way. And if we weren't strong, nothing good would happen either. If this is the way to put the question-Yes, then we are doomed. The US will act, of course, not by military methods: there are no madmen there. They will put us under economic pressure. Under the Democrats, of course, the rhetoric about human rights will increase. This I foresee. This is always the case: under the Republicans, they pay less attention to this, and now there will be an emphasis on this topic.
- Speaking of Democrats. Under Biden, who is known for his "warm" attitude to Ukraine, how do you see the settlement in the Donbas?
- The settlement can only be political. And what kind of political settlement can there be with the position taken by the leadership of Ukraine? While formally recognizing the text of the Minsk agreements, Kiev is already openly saying that these agreements do not suit it and it will never fulfill them. So this is a dead end.
- Then the question is about another of our neighbors with an unresolved conflict. What can happen to Transnistria in connection with Sandu's victory in the elections in Moldova?
- I do not believe that the new leadership of Moldova will go to a military solution to the problem. Moreover, I know the real state of the Moldovan army. As for statements about peacekeepers and the completion of their mission, of course, we can call for this. But we need to ask the other side. Any agreement is the product of a consensus between two parties.
- You also know the real state of Affairs, for example, with weapons depots on the territory of Transnistria. We can't even get him out of there...
-There are such ammunition that cannot be exported, even if Ukraine allows it, and it does not allow it. They must be disposed of on site. And we don't have the resources to do that.
- Returning to the previously mentioned topic of true "allies" of Russia. Question on the subject of the fleet. Do you think we need aircraft carriers? And if we need them, can we build them?
- I think it's like a bridge to Sakhalin. Same. Theoretically – it would be nice. But it's wildly expensive. Despite the tense international situation, first of all, no one will repeat the experience of the Soviet Union and ruin the country and the budget with exorbitant military expenditures. Second, we do not have the goal of projecting military power to the entire world, as the United States does. And it is impossible to do this without aircraft carriers. But we do not set such a goal.
We should better develop small missile boats with the "Zircon" (the latest Russian hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile-if)as well as high-precision weapons, which, as already proven, do not require huge expenses. Well, among other things, today we do not have a single dock in the country capable of starting the construction of an aircraft carrier.