Roman Guziak:
By : Juliet D. Golden
Roman Guziak.
If the white stork is any measure of the state of Poland's environment, then despite pressure for changes coming from the European Union (EU), the situation can't be all that bad. Not only do more storks spend their summers in Poland than in the rest of the EU, the population here looks to be on the rise.
Despite what appears to be an environmental success story in the making, for Wroclaw-based environmental organization pro Natura, rapid economic transformations, pressures to intensify agriculture production and transform river basins into water transportation networks all threaten the well-being of Poland's stork population. In 1994, pro Natura launched a conservation program to protect the white stork and its habitats, involving some 21,000 volunteers around the country. Financed in part by environmental funds like EkoFundusz and the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (NFOSGiW), the program not only succeeded in monitoring or rebuilding almost 10% of Poland's stork nests, it has also launched an educational program about the bird that has encompassed 1,000 schools across the country. For its efforts on behalf of Poland's stork population, last January pro Natura won the grand prize for Ford Motor Co.'s Conservation and Environmental Grants program for Central and Eastern Europe.
Last week pro Natura's vice president, Roman Guziak, 44, spoke to the WBJ's Juliet D. Golden about Poland's stork population and what he perceives as increasing threats to their habitats posed not only by a decade of economic changes, but Poland's impending EU membership. The following is a translated and edited version of their conversations.
Q: How many storks flew to Poland this spring?
A: We don't know yet. There are so many storks that finding out exactly how many there are in a given moment is practically impossible. However, every fourath stork in the world is Polish. About 41,000 pairs have flown to Poland every year between 1995 and 2000. We monitor about 4,000-5,000 nests every year. On the basis of our research we conclude that the population is probably on the rise.
Q: Has the economic transformation of the last decade improved conditions for storks?
A: The reasons are probably different. In the 1970s in Europe, and here a little later, a ban was introduced on the use of DDT. That's probably the main reason why storks and other birds have been able to rebuild their populations and regain their strength. The political changes in Poland have also influenced the stork situation; sometimes they are beneficial, other times not.
Q: So what at present are the major threats facing storks here?
A: In the first place, I would put the disappearance of wetlands, the main feeding areas for storks, which in a large part comes from changes in agriculture. On one hand, large farms, geared toward intensive large-scale production of crops such as corn or rapeseed on the whole are not environmentally friendly. But another problem is presented by the increased abandonment and underuse of pastures. The second threat storks brought on themselves by building nests on electricity poles. This is sort of a trap. A pole is a very comfortable place, but also a very dangerous one. Young birds, when they are first leaving the nest, often meet their deaths on power lines. Also, nests can catch fire due to short-circuiting on the lines. Also, in the past these nests were often torn down, but this is happening less frequently. In part, thanks to our program a compromise was reached with electric companies. Platforms are now being erected on poles so that nests are not directly supported by the power lines.When storks leave for the winter, the power company comes, builds a platform and sets the nest back on the platform.
Q: How much does this cost per nest?
A: Between zl. 600 and zl. 1,000. If a new pole is erected then costs can reach zl. 2,000-zl. 3,000.
Q: If every fourth stork in the world is Polish, there must be the right conditions here for them to thrive.
A: It didn't used to be that way. For example, the situation in Western Europe used to be very good. In Denmark in the mid-1800s it's estimated that there were 10,000 pairs; at the turn of the century that declined to 4,000. Now there are six pairs in Denmark. So Danes don't have any problem answering questions about how many storks they have. The nests are carefully controlled and checked several times a year.
Q: Why did the situation in Europe grow worse?
A: Changes in agriculture, but not only this. In general, transformation of river basins and the removal of floodplains, which are the basic feeding areas for storks. Storks feed on insects and rodents and they need a lot of space.
Q: Because storks seem to thrive here, that must mean that it's not really a myth that Poland's environment is in pretty good shape.
A: The environmental situation in Poland is not ideal and there are areas for improvement. The condition of the environment is usually associated with chemical poisoning. Storks need the right balance of pastures, ponds, streams and rivers for their food supply to be maintained. It's not just a question of clean water. The cleanest water is distilled water, but nothing lives in that. Of course, you can't justify water pollution, but it turns out that even in Upper Silesia, one of the most polluted areas in Poland, there are several animal and plant species that have disappeared in Western Europe. So you can't be one-sided in looking at Poland's environmental situation. You can't say that the situation is good, that there is no work to do, because there is a lot left to be done. On the other hand the situation is better than is often believed.
Q: Are you optimistic that EU membership will lead to an improved environment?
A: We're very afraid that EU expansion will lead to an overall decline in the environment.
Q: Why? In order to join the EU, Poland will have to spend tens of millions of zlotys to improve the environment and adapt its agriculture sector to EU norms.
A: There are several reasons. On the one hand the EU puts a lot of money into the environment and passes laws that lead to improvements as a whole. On the other hand, the EU supports a number of activities that lead directly to the destruction of the environment. The main one is the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Attempts to reform CAP are being made only on a small scale and they are met with opposition from farmers. So despite spending a lot of money on the environment, agriculture continues to lead to the environment's destruction. The second reason is the EU's transportation policy, which demands the building of highways and transforming waterways into transportation networks. In general, in the EU, roads consume a lot of land. In the Netherlands roads take up 11% of the country.
Q: What's the situation in Poland?
A: I would estimate about 3%. I don't think that we will ever reach the level of the Netherlands or even Germany because there just isn't the same level of population density. But there is still one more problem, very often these roads pass through very valuable regions. Recently, there has been a lot of talk about the Transportation Ministry's plan to build a highway through the Biebrzanski National Park. The ministry is demanding that the park be reduced in size. The ministry sent a letter to the park director requiring him to establish a belt of land, along which the road will pass through the park. We sent a protest letter to the prime minister (Jerzy Buzek) and the (Transportation) Ministry.
Q: Is there a chance that the plans will be blocked?
A: I hope so. Otherwise it could be very dangerous for two reasons. First of all, part of a national park will be destroyed. It could also set a precedent. It's a strange situation if a highway is suddenly permitted to pass through an area deemed valuable and worthy of protection. If the law defines an area as a national park then you can't run a highway through the middle of it by using legal tricks in which a strip of the land is suddenly removed from the park. That's crooked.
Q: This spring the Sejm is also due to pass a law that will lead to the implementation of the so-called Odra 2006 program, which aims to transform the river into a water transport network. In your view does this present a danger to the environment?
A: This poses an enormous threat. First of all, the program's priorities are transport and energy, which are ways of using the river that are not beneficial for the environment. Also, while they say that another priority is flood prevention, it's not clear how that priority will be met. In our opinion the water management priorities for the Odra and other rivers should be different. They should emphasize access to a clean water supply, flood prevention and environmental protection. River basins are particularly valuable ecosystems and for that reason they should be under special protection.
Q: If your arguments are correct, why are they falling on deaf ears?
A: Unfortunately MPs are not aware of the impact of their actions. The politics involved in passing laws lead to a situation where the merits of an issue do not play a significant role in the final outcome.
Q: That suggests that environmental organizations don't have a really strong voice in the government.
A: It's difficult to get our arguments across. We are invited to the Sejm and to government committees. We tried, for example, to influence the shape of the Odra 2006 project, but people didn't listen. Conversations happen, but decisions are often made without taking the environment into consideration. Nature is treated lightly. Nature really isn't heard until it rears its head like what happened during the floods (in 1997). But usually when there is a conflict of interests, short-term interests tend to win out over the environment. And environmental interests are pushed off to a future date.
Q: Is it difficult for environmental organizations in Poland to get financial backing?
A: As far as business is concerned, sponsorship is still limited in Poland. For business, it's much easier, more comfortable and more beneficial to sponsor sports. Environmental projects are treated as being of little significance. Especially in comparison to Germany or England, where you have organizations that have millions of voting members. Here it's different. Here the numbers are very low.
Q: What are those numbers?
A: The Environmental League has about 500,000 members. Very often these members are schoolchildren who are under voting age. That's why they aren't treated seriously. Politicians of course aren't going to come out and say they are against environmental protection. On the other hand, perhaps we still haven't been able to create public discussions like in the United States. Public hearings where different interests are taken into consideration still haven't made their way to Poland.
