Only in Belarus!
Belarusian part of Belovezhskaya Pushcha turns from the National Park to a criminal zone!?
The article by Kirill VASILKOV,
Independent Ecological Expertise Group, City of Grodno
Specially for the «Belovezhskaya Pushcha — XXI century» website,
August 20, 2003
After the event in which a correspondent of «Komsomolskaya Pravda» (The Komsomol Truth Newspaper) stood in front of submachine-guns of frontier guards, which have no relation to the protection service of the Pushcha, and the event of hired temporary workers who initiated a knifing fight, which caused knife wounds to three local boys, the director of the National Park has personally started fists… It is a shame to write about it, but there is no other way: let us learn the public who is the present head of the only relic forest in Europe, Belovezhskaya Pushcha, that pride of the Belarusian nation, that site which is inscribed on the List of World Heritage of Humankind. People should know what is going on in the most known National Park right now.
CRIME #1:
Photographing the forest and monitoring butterflies
At the 11th May of this year Mr. Heorhi Kazulka, a local environmental activist who defends the preservation of Belovezhskaya Pushcha, was detained on the territory of the National Park. This day Heorhi planned to cycle along the central tourist route to watch the interesting riot of spring forest and to estimate numbers of several species of butterflies. It is clear that this scientist remains to be a scientist, even while he has been dismissed. He took an entomological net and a bag with a field-glass and a camera. On a place where a hurricane had passed and had destroyed the forest two years ago Heorhi met the director of the park, Nickolai Bambiza, who drove in a car together with his assistant Ivan Batan, the director of the trade-tourist complex. Further events developed like a gangster film. The director got out of the car and asked Heorhi what he was doing here. Then, suddenly, he punched his fist to Heorhi's face, not even listening to his explanations to the end. He repeated his stroke, but the scientist managed to evade. To avoid subsequent clash with the raged manager of the park Heorhi had to obey his demand to get out of forest and get home, so he cycled back along the same tourist trail. However, the director did not calm down. He called Vladimir Dackevich, the chief of the park guards with his portable radio, he turned around and followed Heorhi. When the guards« car appeared at the horizon Mr. Bambiza approached the scientist and he ordered him to stop. Heorhi refused to stop because he was afraid of personal corporal punishment and he told them he would stop at the entrance of the National Park, a public site. So, he continued cycling. Then his persecutors started to demand him to stop with force. It resulted in damage made to his bicycle after car ramming.
Heorhi knew he did not break any law but the reason why the director showed worry was interesting. Everything was clear to Heorhi when he just these words: «Where is his camera?!». The men snatched the bag from Heorhi's hands, they checked the bag and they opened the camera. But, there was no film inside! The actions made to the researcher resembled of this what one can think of what is done to an «intruder» on a secret nuclear range and should not be a normal way to treat visitors of a National Park. Heorhi explained why he refused to follow the order and to hand over his camera. After that his persecutors started to draw up a report, slurring him with 'infringement of the national park's regime, photographing of bark beetle centers (which simply means photographing the forest, which, as you see, is a great secret!) and gathering information« (?) Of course Heorhi did not accept these accusations; he explained that he is a local resident and therefore he had the right to visit this (non strict reserved) zone. He carried his passport along, but he did not have forbidden tools, like fishing cordages, traps or weapons. He did not collect plants or animals either. He did not break any rules of the National Park. He specified all these facts in the report of detention, which was made up against him.
After that the director instructed the parks« guard head to take a fishing net from the car, to put it on Heorhi's bicycle and to set up a report of the withdrawal of this fishing cordage. But the parks» guard head did not agree to do so. Then the director unequivocally alluded Heorhi that he could expect to seriously suffer on other occasions.
So, while the scientist did not break any laws on nature protection or administrative rules the administration threatened him with corporal punishment. As Heorhi knew the director's disposition, this case did not create illusions to him. Before the director came to the Belovezhskaya Pushcha, inhabitants of the village of Turnov warned about the stern temper and arbitrariness of Nickolai Bambiza. He directed the Pripyatski National Park, where Turnov is situated, about 10 years.
The persecutors hid the report and once again they demanded Heorhi to hand over his film, while referring to a rule which states it is forbidden to photograph on the territory of National Park, a rule which states that photographing is sanctioned by the administration.
It was an absurd argument, yes, even a double absurd reason, since the scientist had been employed in the Pushcha for a period of 15 years and so he knew which rules applied. There are no clauses in the legislation which forbids photographing in the National Park. And from the other perspective, what kind of National Park do we talk about if tourists are not allowed to make photographs of trees within its territory!?
«We will not release you before you give us the film, we can even strip you to the skin» the guard stated. Seeing the hardness and steadfastness of the intentions of the guard, Heorhi felt himself forced to spoil the film and to hand it over. Heorhi was released immediately and the confiscated camera was given back to him. But the guard head did not hand over the report about the infringement and he did not address it later in despite of numerous requests Heorhi made.
Based on the fact of this detention, a session of the administrative commission was held at the Kamenetz District Executive Committee at the 30th of May. Heorhi Kazulka did not participate in the session of the commission, but he requested in writing to do the session on a later term, since it was impossible to take part in the session on the nominated day. The commission decided to fine the scientist on one founded bases for 7 Dollars (or 14 thousand Belarusian rubles) for an «infringement of legislation on nature protection». Heorhi did not accept this decision, so he lodged a complaint to Kamenetz District Court. How could he agree with this decision? What does «infringements of legislation on nature protection» mean? What kind of legislation? There are many different, independent laws on nature protection. These are, to name some, the laws 'About lands«, »About bowels of earth« and »About protection of the atmospheric air«. Over twenty separate names could be listed here. Which action leads to this infringement? What is the ground of his guilt? No single word was given about this in the decision of administrative commission. You see, the »crimes' registered by the administration of the National Park, mentioned in the report of detention, photographing and gathering data for science, are absent in the legislation of nature protection, in particular in the Law of the Republic of Belarus 'About specially protected natural territories«. Besides this no park guard did actually see Heorhi at the moment he made photos. At the detention his camera was in his bag. It remains unclear how the guard was able to reveal »gathering the material for press«. Maybe a method with psychical sensors was applied? And finally why would he gather data for press? What kind of press? It was to publish a scientific article, isn't it? And that's actually a crime!?!
Heorhi compelled documents from the commission and he found interesting facts in the report about his detention. In the column «Place, time and matter of infringement» elucidations were written, which Vladimir Dackevich, the head of the park guard service added later, while Heorhi had not signed them in the forest. Although the director of the National Park took part personally in the action of detention his name was absent in the report. The place of detention had been made to a muddle in the report. The court, held on June 25 under chairmanship of Galina Prihozhko, accepted convincing facts which Heorhi Kazulka put up. The secretary of the administrative commission and the head of the park guard could not present proof which convinced the claimed fact that Heorhi Kazulka broke the legislation on the National Park. Therefore the court cancelled the earlier decision to fine him.
It could seem that everything was corrected. But not everything is so simple. The lack of culture, illiteracy and the boorishness of the present administration of the National Park are amazing. The head of the park guard service, Vladimir Dackevich, did not know the facts about the legislation on nature protection nor of statutory documents of the National Park and the regime of protection of the separate zones. In stating the quarter where the detention of the «infringer» took place he confused himself. He did not know in which zone this quarter was located. Moreover, at the end of the judicial session Vladimir Dackevich allowed himself literally to openly say the following: «Mr Kazulka knows very well that it he is forbidden to be on the territory of the National Park by order of the director. If he will appear once again there, his camera will be broken into smithereens». The judge asked: 'Is it true that the law contains a clause which forbids Mr Kazulka to visit the National Park?«. Vladimir Dackevich: »It has been forbidden for Mr Kazulka to be there yesterday, it is today and it will be tomorrow. I will personally get him out if he just will cross a barrier«. Heorhi Kazulka: »Will you even get me out if I visit the nature museum?«. Vladimir Dackevich: »Yes! I will do!'. The judge: 'But then he will lodge a complaint«. Vladimir Dackevich: »Well, that is his business«. Moreover he spoke with an aggressive, even threatening tone. It is a typical example of his unbridling, irresponsible, permissiveness, lawless and inhumane approach. It seems that aggression, arbitrariness and imaginations rule over sincere jurisprudence.
CRIME #2:
Excursion of boys attending the secondary ecological school
Which citizen of Belovezhskaya Pushcha could think ever before that an excursion of boys of the local ecological school on the territory of Belovezhskaya Pushcha would have to be classified as a «crime». It is a merely inconceivable situation. That was how it was, but it has come true now!
An incident was the one described here. On the 31st of May, literally two weeks after the first incident described above took place, schoolboys from the 7th form of the local school were guided by Alla Radyvanyuk, the form monitor, and Heorhi Kazulka, the teacher of biology and ecology. On order of the director of the school they were cycling along a tourist route in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. They looked a forest, they visited the
Literally one day later the head of the park guard service, Vladimir Dackevich, mentioned above, visited the school with full excitement. He required the teachers who guided the children to sign reports which had been written in the meantime about an infringement made to the legislation of nature protection. «Realization of an excursion to the National Park without prior sanction of the administration and without prior coordination of the route» were things that the teachers were brought to blame. The natural reaction of the teachers was like they would to a comedy farce. They even refused to discuss these reports. The school had never encountered similar incidents. What could be the reasons for this sudden panic? And why have these reports not been drawn up at the moment the guard saw the children in the Pushcha? And the director had personally seen the children once in the Park, at the lake, while they were guided by teachers, but at that time he did not make any reproofs.
The answers to these questions proved to be simple. All this «bustle» started after Nickolai Bambiza, director of the National Park saw Heorhi Kazulka in company of schoolboys, when they were leaving Belovezhskaya Pushcha together.
While the poor experience of previous proceeding was taken into account, the next session of the administrative commission followed all rules. Both parties were invited to the session: on the one side the accused teachers Alla Radyvanyuk and Heorhi Kazulka and on the other side the representative of the accusatory Vladimir Dackevich, head of the park guard. The commission considered all materials carefully and it drew its conclusions about infringements made with the arrangement of the report by the administration of the National Park. The commission could not agree with the statement that according to the representative of the park visiting the territory of the National Park is forbidden without prior sanction of the administration. This is easily comprehended, since this statement mean that it would be necessary to fine nearly the entire population of neighboring villages. It would also be necessary to fine tourists in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, if they would stop going, leave a road for a few meters for some private purposes. Nonetheless, the commission concluded that the teachers had made an infringement too. It concerned the arrangement of documents for the excursion: a plan-schedule of the excursion route had not been drawn up, which is an infringement on the instructive measures «About organization and realization of tourist excursions for pupils», which was authorized by decision of the district executive committee in accordance with the directive of the Ministry of National Education. Since the children did not put any damage to the park, which was confirmed by Mr. Dackevich, the commission pronounced an oral warning notice. The commission had spoken, all was over.
The administration of the National Park is not appeased
Naturally the administration of the National Park did not expect this «failure», moreover failure in two cases, simply because the administration lost its feeling for legislative truth a long time ago. The administration couldn't even understand or admit the idea that another party treats a law in a way different of the wish or expectation of the administration, although this different way is in line with the requirements of the appropriate legislation. Therefore, at once a complaint against the decision about cancellation of the financial sanctions regarding the accused Heorhi Kazulka, made by the court of Kamenetz, was immediately written. However this type of complaint proved to be incompetent since Heorhi Kazulka was at law with the administrative commission of the district executive committee. While the National Park was no defendant. The commission was not going to challenge the decision of the court. Thereupon the administration submitted their complaint to the regional court of Brest. The basis for the complaint was disagreement of the administration of Belovezhskaya Pushcha with the fact that the district court had not payed attention to a clause of the statutory document «About the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park», which dated from 1992. A record in this document states that 'presence of extraneous persons on the territory of the National Park is forbidden without prior sanction of the administration«. The regional court considered proceeding the submitted materials, but it did not find bases to cancel the decision which the district court of Kamenetz had made. One reason for doing so was, on one hand, that both the administrative commission and the administration of the National Park had made infringements in the registration of documents and, on the other hand, that they did not gave proof of the faults they accused Heorhi Kazulka of. Moreover, the statutory document about the National Park, which the administration of Belovezhskaya Pushcha refered to, has still not passed the procedures of registration, a requirement of the national legislation. The document »About the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park« had not yet been inscribed into the state register. Therefore it is no valid, legal document.
As a result, equity celebrated a victory so far, while has to be taken into account that the administration of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha will lodge a complaint to the Supreme court in their hope their administrative power proves to be right. At least, the administration has done so in a previous case.
EPILOGUE
Concluding, trees and butterflies in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha are secret objects nowadays, whereas schoolboys and teachers who looked at these objects are considered to be criminals. Apropos of this questions have appeared and quite unequivocal conclusions have arisen.
First question: Since which moment have the inhabitants of Belovezhskaya Pushcha become subjects for detention while moving along tourist routes? Many local inhabitants confirm that in earlier time nobody of the local people was detained in the forest, neither by bicycle nor on foot. This was even more true as long as they stayed at tourist paths. They were not allowed to poach, to fish autocratically or to break the rules of protection of the reserved nature. There has been no single case in which a local was detained in the strict reserved zone. And if such cases have actually taken place nobody remembers them, since at worst verbal remarks were made. There is a broad network of good roads in the Pushcha. Moreover, many of these roads have hard cover. The local population is allowed to gather mushrooms and berries on the territory of the National Park, apart from the strict reserve that is, and to walk and to ride on bicycles along the tourist routes. The only requirement is that rules of nature protection are followed. Permission to enter the territory of the park is needed only for motorized visitors. The Belovezhskaya Pushcha is a densely populated region; there are many villages in the centre of forest, which has several consequences. People make hay and use pastures inside the Pushcha.
Second question: Since which moment is it forbidden that locals make photos of the trees and the forest in the park, which is their motherland? Local inhabitants cannot remember historic cases.
Third question, with many variations: Why did the guard demand to give out the photo camera but not, for example, poaching of cordage? Why did those «nature conservator» so strongly attempt to undress the man, why did they demand him to give them his film? What secrets can be photographed in the park? Why is the administration of the National Park driven so much by fear? Why did a bicycle trip of children on the Pushcha's territory lead to so much fuss? A fact to which our attention should be paid is that all of these measures where initiated by Nickolai Bambiza, the director of the National Park, although the administration of the park declared in numerous interviews that everything is done in consensus with the law and that no infringements in legislation are being made. Heorhi Kazulka, who was detained at the first described case, cycled along the freely accessible main tourist route which is used by thousands of tourists. At this route journalists are shown the forests and TV reporters make their films exactly there. The schoolboys did not visit the restricted areas.
With logical reasoning an obvious conclusion can be drawn: violations on the law on nature protection, hidden for the world, or a number of abuses take place in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. The most surprising fact is that nobody else than the director of the National Park himself reveals the objectionable attitude of his behavior. Heorhi Kazulka is worried about the future of Belovezhskaya Pushcha, in contradiction to most of his former colleagues of the National Park. He turns his worries into actions and not just words. This is ultimately the reason why managers of the park have arranged the «hunt» at a man who does not fear the continuing infringements and abuses of the management of the National Park.
What should be done? Only an independent environmental examination of the activities of the present administration of Belovezhskaya Pushcha can reveal what kind of abuses occur in the forest. And otherwise…? Otherwise we will miss the very moment of a destructive truth for Belovezhskaya Pushcha.
Reference:
Heorhi KAZULKA is Philosophy Doctor of Biology. He is the author of over one hundred scientific and popular publications about Belovezhskaya Pushcha and the author, reviewer and editor of several books. He is known as an expert on the protection of wild nature in Belarus and abroad. He repeatedly presented reports at international conferences, including those of UNESCO. He masters three European languages. He has an experience of 16 years as an employee of the «Belovezhskaya Pushcha» National Park. He was fired from his post as deputy director on science of the National park «Belovezhskaya Pushcha» in 2001 since he did not support the newly adopted policy of large-scale fellings of the forest, conducted by new managers of the National Park, and a policy which allowed the management to breach the legislation on nature protection legislation. At present he works in the secondary ecological school of Kamenyuki as a teacher of biology and ecology.