The plan to construct a section of the new Moscow-St.Petersburg
motorway through the legally-protected Khimki Forest Park
will destroy a rare eco-system. Dogged local resistance has
turned this into a national, even international issue. But
it has not derailed the plan.
Passions have been running high in recent years among residents
of Moscow and the Moscow Oblast over the issue of the new
Moscow-St. Petersburg motorway. This is scheduled to divide
the Khimki Forest Park in half in the section from the Moscow
ring road to Sheremetevo airport. People have linked this
issue with the attempt on the life of the journalist Mikhail
Beketov in 2008, as well as the scandalous election campaign
in Khimki in 2009 and the numerous clashes between residents
and the authorities. New groups are constantly joining the
conflict on both sides. Initially, it was a conflict between
the Moscow Oblast authorities and the Transport Ministry on
the one side, and the residents of the Khimki city district
and the north of Moscow on the other. Now the conflict has
drawn in such forces as Prime Minister Putin, the European
Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the Moscow city government,
Greenpeace, the European Parliament, the European Green Party
and dozens of ecological organizations both inside Russia
and beyond.
How is it that a seemingly local conflict has not only remained
unsolved after all these years but has, on the contrary, become
a federal problem and is now a subject for international discussion?
Decisions behind closed doors
The idea of building a new motorway connecting the two Russian
capitals was first discussed at the Transport Ministry in
2004. A document was published which outlined the route, but
also contained all the "mines" which subsequently
began "exploding". Within Moscow the route follows
the October railway line. But after it crosses the Ring Road
it suddenly takes a sharp turn to the northeast, passing through
the middle of Khimki Forest Park. Deviating to such an extent
that it goes close by Sheremetevo international airport, the
road then returns to a direct route and back to the October
railway. The resulting "loop" has a much greater
radius than would be required simply to bypass the town of
Khimki. This decision means that the territory of the Khimki
Forest Park (which already stretches towards Sheremetevo),
is cut in half. Ecologists believe this will lead to the destruction
of an eco-system that is unique for the area near Moscow (centuries-old
oak forests, elks, boars and many species of birds). Furthermore,
the decision will destroy a site of special scientific interest,
the mesotrophic cranberry swamp in the Khimki forest and the
floodplain of the Klyazma River, which is in its original
state only in this area.
There are possible alternatives to this route, but it is
unlikely that they were seriously considered. Secrecy is the
most characteristic feature of this project. The route was
officially selected by Khimki mayor Victor Strelchenko in
2006 from the three which to some extent or another affect
the Forest Park. This one was the worst of the three for its
influence on the eco-system. The route was selected before
the "public hearings", which were therefore no more
than an empty formality. Other alternatives are also mentioned
in subsequent replies from the Transport Ministry to inquiries
from local residents, including a flyover over the existing
Leningrad Highway, a tunnel under the forest etc. There were,
however, no representations for or against any of the schemes.
The most obvious option that the road should follow the
October railway line, as planned in Moscow is not even mentioned.
It is, therefore, probably correct to say that having the
motorway cut through the middle of the forest was planned
from the beginning, at the level of undocumented decisions
that were made "behind the scenes".
At this stage, there was no reaction from residents of Moscow
and the Oblast, simply because the information was only available
to a select few. Most of us are not very likely to start the
day by looking the Transport Ministry website. As for the
"public hearings", at local authority level every
possible effort was made to conceal the information: the announcement
was printed in small print in a local newspaper next to the
advertisements for fortune-telling; there was no mention of
the Khimki Forest Park or the Moscow-Petersburg motorway!
Nevertheless, the State Forestry Service, although severely
shaken up in the 1990s, was still functioning. Its reaction
to the project was swift and negative. Gadzhi Alimusaev, head
of Krasnogorsk Specialised Forestry Management (which at the
time included the Khimki Forest park), even refused to sign
the document confirming the pre-selection of the area for
construction. The head of Moscow Directorate of Forest Management,
Mrs. Kuznetsova, also refused to agree to the project. She
gave her reasons as follows: "The planned route of the
motorway will maximally encroach on forest lands. /.../ Extensive
deforestation and division of the forest into separate parts
will disturb the trees and plants on both sides of the motorway
and lead to their degradation, so project construction will
be very damaging to the forest /.../. An examination of the
motorway route through the forest shows that the authors of
the planning decision made no attempt to reduce possible damage
to the Forest Park. For these reasons the Directorate categorically
refuses its consent for this scheme".
But it was already 2006. The State Forestry Service was effectively
destroyed (a suspicious coincidence?), when the new Forestry
Code was adopted and forest conservation was transferred to
the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Ministry. Forestry workers
suddenly became much more amenable.
The fact that, despite such serious objections, the decision
was taken to build the motorway through the middle of the
Forest Park, is evidence that there must be serious financial
interests behind this option. What are these interests?
Firstly, there are the interests of the Transport Ministry
and the "non-commercial organisation", which it
has spawned. The company is called Avtodor and it combines
the functions of a government agency and a business. The project
is planned as the first large-scale public-private partnership
with the involvement of western investors the EBRD and European
Investment Bank. The intermediary link will be the North-West
Investment Company, backed by the French firms Vinci and Eurovia,
who have extensive experience of attracting European investments.
The plan is that in the future the road will come under the
control of Avtodor although the Russian financial contribution
is quite modest (no more than a third of the costs, with Vneshtorgbank
as the probable Russian investor).
The use of forestry lands (which is against the law, but
made possible by the way things are done in Russia) is de
facto a concealed investment in the project by Avtodor. Indeed,
the use of these lands will obviate the need for complex technical
solutions (tunnels, flyovers) and ensure that the project
is maximally simple and low-cost. Furthermore, taking the
road through the forest avoids numerous property disputes
with landowners on the route of the motorway. The project
is federal, and so is the forest so one "agreement"
at the very top should be sufficient, doubtless a factor in
the considerations of the people taking the decision. In documents
published before the fracas began, transport engineers were
gloating over how neatly the highway avoids any buildings
and facilities. We should note that these facilities include,
for example, the Khimki municipal solid waste landfill site
a mountain of rubbish the size of a 7-storey building on
the left bank of the Moscow Canal. Reclamation of the landfill
site would have meant a significant increase in project costs.
The public was for some time unaware that, by neatly bypassing
the landfill site, the motorway will destroy a green zone
several hundreds of metres wide, which at present is the only
protection for residents of nearby apartment buildings from
this horrible rubbish dump.
Secondly, the selected motorway route will provide maximum
opportunities for the commercial "development" of
forestry lands on both sides of the highway by organisations
that are close to the Moscow Oblast authorities. This is probably
the main reason for the touching unanimity of transport engineers
and authorities on all issues connected with the motorway.
It is clear that the potential revenue from the operation
of the plots of land adjacent to the motorway that links the
two capitals, and also the international airport, could exceed
the revenues from the operation of the motorway itself. This
would, of course, be illegal, but in the Moscow Oblast illegal
seizure of land is perhaps the most common crime in this area
of the law. Initially this was discussed almost openly - possible
revenues from the road infrastructure were cited by transport
engineers as one of the ways to increase the investment attractiveness
of the project. The governor of the Moscow Oblast, Boris Gromov,
in his decree 358/16 reserved practically the entire territory
of the Forest Park for "major construction projects and
transport infrastructure". It's true that under pressure
from society, this decree was subsequently annulled, but the
local authorities have not abandoned their plans. This can
be seen from the Area Planning Scheme of the Moscow Regional
Directorate for Architecture and Urban Development, where
the Khimki forest is still shown as a "zone of concentrated
urban development activity".
Thirdly, there are the interests of a group that controls
Sheremetevo airport. For them the closer the motorway comes
to the airport, the better, as it means they don't have to
build an additional access road. But this solution is of dubious
value, as it lengthens the route for the main transport flow.
The present transport minister Igor Levitin holds key positions
in the management of both Sheremetevo airport and Aeroflot,
which is based there, so there is little chance that transport
engineers will be able to give the matter their objective
consideration.
The battle for Khimki forest first phase.
So the project lobbyists are motivated by very serious commercial
interests. Who opposes them, and why? First of all, the local
residents, whose anger is easy to understand. Khimki is a
polluted industrial district, with such giants of the defence
industry on its territory as Energomash and Fakel. We have
already discussed the landfill site. Additionally, there is
the existing Leningrad Highway and the Moscow ring road. "Infill
construction" is depriving residents of most of the city's
green zones so the Khimki Forest Park is effectively becoming
the only place where the natural environment is preserved.
For pensioners and families with children it represents the
only chance to enjoy nature every day. It's hardly surprising
that the motorway project, which will destroy the only forestry
park and which will also pass by houses in the most polluted
city area (next to the landfill site), has not met with approval.
Residents were informed out of the blue they only found
about the project when the main decisions had been taken,
and surveying work had begun in the Forest Park. The first
reaction to the shock was clashes between surveyors and residents
there were even reports of people setting their dogs on
the surveyors. But despite individual incidents, the residents
generally behaved in a civilized manner. The informal movement
"Eco-defence" was created and signatures were collected
for an appeal calling on then-president Putin to protect the
forest. There were officially-approved meetings calling for
the protection of the Khimki forest and the site www.ecmo.ru
was created, which provides up-to-date information on the
conflict. The local opposition newspaper, Khimki Pravda, published
by journalist Mikhail Beketov, ran articles revealing the
project as an excuse for the illegal seizure of forestry lands.
Initially it was a local conflict the battle was waged
between local residents and the authorities of the urban district
of Khimki and the Moscow Oblast. At the beginning the federal
authorities (including the Transport Ministry) distanced themselves
from the problem. Indeed, all the documents (order 367-R by
Strelchenko and Decree 358/16 by Gromov) relating to the route
through the territory of the Forest Park were signed at local
level. As happened in Soviet times, all the residents' appeals,
including appeals to the Russian President, were sent to the
local authorities. A little later, residents received support
from the Moscow City Duma, the Moscow City Natural Resources
department, the Communist party and Yabloko which is quite
natural in a situation involving the planned destruction of
the "green lungs" in the north of Moscow.
The actions of the "Gromov team" were hardly appropriate
to the situation there were attempts to ban meetings and
harassing activists. In one instance the Khimki police fined
a young man who was handing out invitations to the OFFICIAL
public hearing about the widening of the Businovskaya junction
the starting point of the motorway construction. The hearings
themselves (attended by about 500 locals) were turned into
a sham by the authorities, who closed them as soon as the
discussion began and didn't even try to organize anything
resembling a dialogue. This only made the protesters angrier.
The situation became much more serious after the attempted
murder of Mikhail Beketov in November 2008. Although there
are so far no official results of the investigation, many
Khimki residents have no doubt that the local authorities
were involved in the attack.
The battle reached its apotheosis with the campaign for the
Khimki mayoral elections in 2009: despite the fact that mayor
Strelchenko managed to stay in power, ecologists believe that
they did achieve their main goal. During the election campaign
Strelchenko had to cancel order 357-R approving the scheme
for the route through the middle of the forest. And Gromov's
decree 358/16 soon faced a similar fate it was cancelled
several weeks after the ecologists went to court.
The battle escalates
The victory of the Khimki ecologists in early 2009 put project
supporters in an awkward position. On the one hand, the project
was practically ready and talks with European investors had
entered their final phase. On the other hand, the project
still had no documents legalizing the land acquisition, which
is in direct contravention of existing legislation. Public
opinion increasingly tended to side with the ecologists, who
had the support of many ecological and human rights organizations.
Additionally, the Khimki ecologists managed to get the ear
of the European investors. At a meeting between the "Greens"
and representatives of the EBRD board, the directors showed
serious interest in the problem, and even promised to initiate
their own, independent assessment process of alternative schemes
for the motorway route, with independent expert examinations
and public hearings.
Two options were available for the lobbyists. The first was
to comply with the ecologists' legitimate demands and seek
a compromise. This would have entailed a review of the project
and reduced the profits. The second was the use of "heavy
artillery" to crush the opposition and take the heat
off the European investors. They are actually the weakest
link in the whole project: the European Union traditionally
pays particular attention to environmental issues, and the
work of such organizations is monitored much more closely
than it is in Russia. But if the investors withdraw, at least
two thirds of the project finance goes with them and in the
current economic climate this will make the project unviable.
Be that as it may, the second option was chosen and in the
first half of 2009 the first legislative steps were taken.
Article 86 of the Forestry Code categorically forbids any
change of use for forestry parkland, but without it the construction
is illegal. This means that the planners have spent several
years working on a project that a priori did not comply with
legal requirements. Of course, the project documentation (and
the environmental impact assessment) sidesteps in every possible
way the issue of the status of the Khimki Forest Park land:
it is described as "protective forest" or "water
conservation zone". But you can't hide the obvious and
the status of the land was ultimately established. When it
was clear that the defenders of the forest were legally unassailable,
governor Gromov was forced to cancel his decree.
There are precedents for violations of Article 86. President
Putin's instruction of 12 June 2008 N 850-r resulted in part
of the Sheremetevo Forest Park being converted to transport
land for the construction of the railway line to Sheremetevo.
In the case of the Khimki forest, however, public reaction
would have been so strong that the Prime Minister would have
come under fire. Therefore, under the guise of insignificant
changes connected with "timber procurement", the
Forestry Code was "amended" in 2009 and Article
86 simply disappeared. But there were other restrictions:
Article 11 of the Federal Law 172-FZ forbids change of use
for forest land if alternative sites can be found for capital
construction projects. The Transport Ministry would naturally
have sworn that there were no alternatives, but there had
been a mix-up: deputy minister of transport Oleg Belozerov
had himself admitted in an official letter the year before
that other options existed. This lack of coordination shows
that the masterminds behind the project probably had to do
things in a hurry. The developing situation meant that they
were under pressure and unable to work to their carefully
prepared plan.
In spite of continuing legal discrepancies, the next step
was taken in November 2009: Putin signed Instruction 1642,
according to which parcels of land in the centre of Khimki
Forest Park will in fact be converted to land for transport.
It is hard to say what arguments forced him to take such a
questionable decision. It should be noted in passing that
this is not the only case of the Prime Minister hiding behind
his high approval rating to promote projects that are harmful
for the environment and based on a concept of economic development
relying on raw materials. The Baikal Paper Mill scandal was
the most recent example.
Physics teaches us the principle of action and reaction,
which is applicable to this case too. Such an obvious and
major attack on environmental legislation and the "green"
movement could not help but draw a reaction from civil society,
both in Russia and outside it. It's clear that the problem
is not restricted to the Khimki forest alone. It is only a
testing ground for the fine-tuning of methods for the commercial
development of conservation areas. It was at this time, for
instance, that the outline plans of the Central Ring Road
were being developed: the plans are to use a similar technique
to "develop" over 100,000 hectares of forests near
Moscow.
This resulted in a direct approach from Greenpeace and the
Russian WWF to potential investors in the project. They also
appealed to the European Green Party to drop its participation
in the project, if the scheme for the motorway to go round
Khimki Forest Park is not selected. The appeal did not go
unanswered at the instigation of the European Green Party,
the European Parliament passed a resolution warning European
investors that participation in the project would be unacceptable.
The international organization Bankwatch, which monitors observance
of the law in the investment activities of EU banks, began
to keep close track of developments. Even the French Senate
became involved Senator and former French ecology minister
Dominique Voynet personally warned the Vinci company that
it was unacceptable to take part in a project that destroyed
the environment. It is worth noting that the Russian Duma
is evidently less concerned about the problem than the French
Senate. But this year more than 40 ecological organizations
from Russia and the CIS have already made the same request
to potential investors to abandon participation in the project
until the Khimki forest is safe.
The Khimki defenders of the forest also have no intention
of giving up. They have already filed a case to the Supreme
Court demanding that Putin's decree 1642 be declared illegal.
The first court hearing will be held in March. They plan to
send an appeal to foreign ecological organizations, requesting
them to join the campaign to put pressure on the European
investors.
Hopes for European intervention
We have unfortunately to admit that we have so far not managed
constructive resolutions of environmental conflicts between
the authorities and the oligarchs on the one hand and civil
society on the other. It is quite obvious what lobbyists for
the project are counting on: general passivity towards issues
not directly affecting either people's housing or their income.
In other words, relatively "light" measures e.g.
buying off, intimidating and perhaps arresting quite a small
number of activists could be used to force the project through
without causing a large public outcry. They have evidently
also calculated that the attractiveness of investing in the
project (achieved, as we recall, by using forest territories
that "belong to no one") might outweigh the possible
image risks for European bankers. It cannot be ruled out that
supporters of the project might try to complete the stage
of the project requiring the use of force felling trees
and overcoming the resistance of local residents before
the European banks are finally brought into the project, thus
taking the heat off them.
The Greens rely primarily on their European colleagues, Russian
civil society and on the active support they get from residents
of Moscow and the Oblast. If the residents behave as anticipated,
going ahead with the Khimki project could provoke an extremely
serious situation. It would be not unlike events at "Rechnik",
only in this case the flags of the defenders of nature and
the law will flutter above the heads of local residents. Then
project lobbyists really will be in an awkward situation:
Western investors will almost certainly withdraw from such
a ontroversial project and this would lead to its collapse
in whatever form.
In the light of these alternatives, the most sensible thing
would be to compromise and come up with another scheme for
building the road, even if this leads to a delay of several
years. Time will show to what extent the opposing sides are
ready to compromise. It has to be said that there are not
currently many grounds for optimism. Only one thing is clear:
whatever the result of the conflict, the whole affair has
grown to such an extent that its consequences will extend
far beyond Khimki.
Yevgeniya Chirikova is leader of the movement for the
protection of Khimki forest
See also:
The
original
Human
Rights
YABLOKO
for Ecology
|
