A remote conversation between two university graduates and the problems of the Gomolshansky Park
Recently, the priorities in the management of the National Nature Park “Homolshansky Forests” have become a source of emotional disputes. I will try to present my point of view on this matter—hoping that the majority of participants in the debate will consider it balanced. And to start the conversation, one can simply propose...
Recently, priorities in the management of the Homilshanski Lesy National Nature Park have become a cause for emotional disputes. I will try to present my point of view on this matter – I hope that reasonable participants in the discussion will consider it balanced. To start the conversation, I propose to try to better understand the positions of the participants in this dispute by providing excerpts from the speech of the head of the district state administration, Yevhen Volodymyrovych Murayev, and a member of the Scientific and Technical Council of the park, Oleksandr Yuriiovych Akulov. Both are graduates of our university.
The background is as follows. The Homilshchanskiy Park is renowned for its strong scientific department and has received prestigious international awards. One of the ongoing topics of dispute is the necessity or inadmissibility of sanitary logging. The foresters' practice is aimed at maintaining the forest in a state where the volume of marketable timber is maximized and its utilization is simplified as much as possible. The biologists' practice, aimed at maintaining natural biodiversity, focuses on ensuring the natural state of ecosystems (i.e., a state where there are sick and dead trees in the forest, providing ecological niches for specific biota).
This conflict, generally speaking, is institutional in nature and is observed, perhaps, in all forest conservation areas. In the Homilshanski Forests, this conflict has recently intensified. The head of the district administration, Ye.V. Murayev, criticized the park's work, emphasizing the need for logging. The contract with the previous director was not extended, and another person took over as director. The current director, a deputy of the Zadonyetska village council, Oleksandr Ivanovych Severin, initiated discussions about the park's problems at one time and allegedly proposed its liquidation (however, the internet quotes a statement not that the park should be liquidated, but that "we (local residents) do not need such a park"). Conservationists stated that they see in such a change an attempt to destroy or significantly damage the park ("The local authorities of Kharkiv region are striving to destroy the national park"). It should be said that such a reaction is based not on the statements of representatives of the authorities, but on an attempt to guess their hidden intentions.
The park's scientific and technical council sent an open letter to the President of Ukraine in this situation, criticizing Ye.V. Murayev's speech. During the introduction of the new park director, O.I. Severin, the head of the district administration spoke harshly about the activities of scientists in the park's Scientific and Technical Council, personally mentioning A.Yu. Akulov. Ye.V. Murayev's full speech is available here, and here I provide only a small excerpt consisting of two fragments.
If you want to understand the essence of the local authorities' claims to the park in more detail, this film will help you. It would probably be worth discussing the arguments presented in it in more detail; perhaps I will do so in time. For now, I will only provide the response of Oleksandr Yuriiovych Akulov, who was personally mentioned in the speech of the head of the administration. It seems to me that a simple comparison of the positions of these two people will help readers of this site better understand the conflict related to the park.
Dear Mr. Muraev.
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to be present in person at the appointment of the national park director and respond to your statements directed at me. During those days, I was in Germany and followed the situation online. Since you spoke about me publicly in the presence of cameras, and the video of the speech is available online, I think it is appropriate to respond similarly. I cannot do this on YouTube (the text is too long), so I am referring to all resources dedicated to the park. I hope someone will post it.
I will not comment on your words about forest diseases, the rampage of wild animals in the fields, and the need for development in the park. Apparently, this would be a "conversation between a blind man and a deaf man." I will only focus on the main point.
You advised me to 'start by studying the legislation.' This remark can be boldly redirected to you. For example, according to the Law on the Nature-Reserve Fund of Ukraine (Art. 20): 'National natural parks are conservation, recreational, cultural-educational, and scientific research institutions of national importance, created for the purpose of preserving, restoring, and effectively using natural complexes...'. Note that the preservation and restoration of natural complexes are prioritized, not their exploitation. The same law (Art. 21) states that: 'Zoning of the territory of a national natural park, recreational and other activities on its territory are carried out in accordance with the Regulation on the National Natural Park and the Project for the Organization of the Territory,' not the decisions of the head of civil defense headquarters...
I agree that in case of an emergency (e.g., a man-made disaster), as the head of the civil defense headquarters, you are granted special powers, but I have not heard of such a status being established for the national park territory. And, thank God, martial law has not yet been introduced in the national park. The position of head of the district does not give you the right to reign. If you, as a people-elected deputy, come to some entrepreneur and ask for money to be given "for the good of the community," it will be robbery, and if you inform the company director that you will now decide who, what, and at what price to sell – it will be raiding. Doesn't your activity regarding the national park resemble the examples given above?
I am upset by your position regarding the National Park's Scientific and Technical Council. Statements like 'I saw a video of your meeting in quotes' are unworthy of an official of your rank. And the statement 'as national park employees, you are obliged...' indicates your ignorance of the composition and role of the Scientific and Technical Council. The Scientific and Technical Council consists of independent experts who control the park's activities externally and on a voluntary basis. Out of the 20 council members, only a few (the director, deputy director, and chief forester) are also park employees and are part of the Scientific and Technical Council by virtue of their official duties. The other members of the Scientific and Technical Council are not park employees and do not receive salaries or any other material benefits for their work on the council. Your insinuations about 'personal enrichment' and the Scientific and Technical Council's patronage of poaching are unfounded and may be subject to legal action.
I am informing you that the decision to send an open letter to the President was unanimously supported by all members of the Scientific and Technical Council (STC) who participated in the meeting, and by an overwhelming majority of the total (listed) number of Council members. Therefore, you are commenting not just on the initiative of a 'group of botanists,' but on a collegial decision of the authorized governing body of the national park. The fact that my signature is the first on this document is solely due to my surname starting with 'A,' and the signatures are listed in alphabetical order. Therefore, I do not quite understand why your angry address was directed specifically at me, rather than at the entire Council.
Your desire to give the NTP decision a political coloring is also unfounded. You, and anyone else, can watch the video from the NTP meeting, where the position is clearly stated: we are concerned about the fate of the national park and we are against politicizing the issue. The text of the letter to the President was sent to a large number of state structures and information agencies, including UNIAN and INTERFAX (we can provide the mailing list if needed). The fact that among the respondents and concerned sources regarding the fate of the park, the opposition dominates, cannot indicate our political bias.
Your assertion that the National Academy of Sciences "takes on too much and tries to replace both the President and the Verkhovna Rada" is, again, unfounded. If you have carefully read the letter, it only expresses concern about the situation and provides recommendations for solving the problem. Moreover, the extent to which these recommendations will be taken into account depends entirely on the competence of the President, and it is solely up to him to decide how justified they are.
In closing my letter, I want to note that despite our differing positions on the organization of the national park, I treat you with respect and hope for the same from your side. We may disagree with each other, but that does not justify personal attacks. This is unworthy of an official of your level and, ultimately, simply unmanly. If both you and the park's NTR care about the same thing – the national park – I believe it is right to shift the dialogue into a constructive channel and start listening to each other.
Honored Educator of Ukraine, nominee for the honorary badge of the Kharkiv Regional Council "Slobozhanska Slava" Oleksandr Akulov
By providing a video quote from the speech of the head of the district administration, I want to explain what he likely means. As befits a representative of the authorities, he speaks about the problem of powers. Indeed, during the state of emergency, his powers are greatly expanded. In normal times, the principle of separation of powers operates in our state. The head of the administration criticizes Akulov (and with him - other "scientists") for their proposals concerning the powers of different branches of government.
How significant is this argument? Yes, the park boundaries are established by a Presidential Decree. But on what grounds does this Decree appear?
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Donetsk Hydrobiological Station appeared on the territory adjacent to the current park, which later transformed into the University's Biological Station. For decades, university scientists studied this territory, prepared the relevant justification, and this ultimately led to the creation of the park. The definition of the park's territory (which falls under the competence of one branch of government), its protection regimes (which fall under the jurisdiction of another branch), and its usage regimes are not independent issues. Their solutions must be closely linked, and the task of coordinating these aspects so that the park fulfills its functions is a task for science.
By the way, I was once a co‑author with Akulov and several other colleagues of an article dedicated precisely to the optimization of the park’s territory (Akulov O.Yu., Atemasova T.A., Barteniev O.F., Viter S.G., Vlashenko A.S., Zinenko O.I., Korshunov O.V., Saidakmedova N.B., Skorobogotov Ye.V., Shabanov D.A., Utyevskyi A.Yu. “Reorganization of zoning of the National Nature Park ‘Homolshansky Forests’” // Conservation Affairs in Ukraine. – 2006. – Vol. 12, No. 2. – pp. 73‑79). Performing such functions is a direct task of scientific workers. In solving it, they must discuss issues that belong to the competence of different branches of power. Different branches are not different heads, but different hands. Science must seek the optimal way to coordinate the actions of these hands.
I would like to emphasize that I want to supplement this post with an analysis of the arguments of both sides, but I believe that it can be of interest to readers in its current form as well.