"They are trying to demonize us"

On September 23, the Russian branch of the environmental organization Greenpeace celebrates its 25th anniversary. One of the oldest employees of the Greenpeace of Russia is Mikhail Krenillene, the head of the program for specially protected natural territories, who worked in the organization for 15 years and with his own eyes observed how the attitude of the Russian society towards the organization is changing: from mass support to indifference and even almost irrational hatred. A year ago, in September 2016, armed people attacked the local employees of the Ministry of Emergencies to cope with numerous natural fires at the Grinis Volunteers camp, who helped local employees of the Ministry of Emergencies. They shouted that volunteers should get out "to their America, to their Pindos." The inscription appeared on the gate of the base: "There are pindos." Several volunteers were injured, in particular, Mikhail Crandlin had a broken nose, doctors diagnosed him with a concussion. In May 2017, law enforcement agencies suspended the investigation of the incident. Who and why attacked the camp, still do not know in Greenpis.

The Radio Liberty correspondent met with Craindlen on the eve of the anniversary of the Greenpeace of Russia and asked him whether Russian society became less worried about the ecology, whether it was possible to win in the modern Russian court, whether there is meaning in electronic petitions, whether Putin’s love for animals helps and why plant landing on the island of Wrangel.

- You have worked in the Russian Greenpeix for 15 years, notice how the attitude to the organization changes?

There is such a point of view that I share that to a large extent the Soviet Union fell apart thanks to the environmental movement

- Everything is very dependent on the general attitude to nature, to environmental protection issues in society. In the late 80s-early 90s, when the Greenpeace of Russia appeared, there was a powerful public environmental movement, and environmental people in the country as a whole were very bothered. Naturally, those organizations that tried to solve them were also quite popular. What is commonly called perestroika has to largely began precisely with the rise of the environmental movement and increased attention of people to various murderous projects, such as the transfer of northern rivers. There is such a point of view that I share that to a large extent the Soviet Union fell apart thanks to the environmental movement, in any case it played a role. And if before that it was still, one might say, local, somewhat for the elect, for scientists, then from the late 80s, in the 90s it has already become a mass movement.

- And it was a peak?

This decree, as far as we know, was one of the conditions that Putin had to fulfill when he came to power

- I can’t name specific figures, how many supporters, volunteers we had then, but I am sure more than now. Then there was a very strong decline. Here is also an indicator - in 2000, when Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin came to power, the first thing he did was his first decree - a decree on the structure of executive bodies of May 17, 2000. According to this decree, in Russia, in particular, an independent environmental service, the State Environmental Protection Committee, was liquidated. I worked there before Vladimir Putin came to power, and it really was a strong enough service, despite the devastation, which was in the 90s, from the point of view of environmental protection, this was the best time. And from the point of view of legislation, and from the point of view of the relationship of people. The committee was an independent structure, which really prevented many from living, including those who were behind the advent of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin to power, all kinds of oil industrialists, in particular. And his first decree, as far as we know, was one of the conditions that he had to fulfill when he came to power. Although the committee was a state structure, it relied on quite powerful public support, on the one hand, and on the other, she did a lot of things. I personally covered oil towers in specially protected areas. It was in the order of things. Now there is not even institutionally such an opportunity.

- Did the Environmental Protection Committee not have the heirs?

-The functions of the service were transferred to the Ministry of Natural Resources, which is generally engaged in the use of natural resources, that is, rather anti-ecological activity, anti-preservation. We - former employees of the Committee, and Greenpeace, and other environmental organizations - decided to hold the All -Russian referendum, where three issues were made: recreation of an independent environmental service; The reconstruction of the independent forest service also destroyed with it; And about the planned, even adopted permission to import radioactive waste into the country. This was prohibited, but then they were allowed.

To organize a referendum, it was necessary to collect two million signatures, we took up this and collected two and a half. Naturally, the central election commission, as much as necessary, cut off, so the referendum was not held. 600 thousand, in my opinion, she cut off . We counted a million 900 thousand. But in 2000, it was also an incredible thing to collect so much - this was the first and only case when the All -Russian referendum initiated from below was almost held.

- Now it’s hard to imagine that such a number of people was interested in the fate of the environmental service. However, the radioactive waste item was apparently the main one?

- Yes, of course, he was such a steam locomotive, but nevertheless we managed to collect two and a half million signatures in the two months that were allotted for this. Now, of course, we are not even trying. Firstly, this is almost impossible with us, and secondly, now there are much fewer people who can be treated with this. Because in the 2000s, the interest of people in environmental issues has significantly decreased. Apparently, other interests began to appear. The standard of living together with oil prices began to grow, the environmental movement in the country as a whole weakened, respectively, the number of our supporters and volunteers decreased. Nevertheless, they are still at some level.

-In recent years, something has changed in the wake of increasing political protests?

- Yes, perhaps the rise of the environmental movement began again. Firstly, because people still begin to lose patience, the youth sees what happens when something bad happens right next to them. For example, I am engaged in reserves, reserves-this is usually somewhere far away, but the situation with the Khimki forest arose, when people begin to cut down the forest under an obviously no one right under the windows, and everyone understands that this is done only to enrich some oligarchs, people feel it very clearly. And this, of course, causes a rather powerful protest. And there are quite a lot of such groups, especially in Moscow, because what the Moscow government with construction, with a cut of green spaces, with waste, is doing - this, of course, people feel for themselves. And in other regions, this also happens, of course, and there are such groups.

- The story of the defenders of the Khimkinsky forest, which began under the presidency of Medvedev, perhaps to some extent catalyzed the more massive protests that happened after the election.

- These people at first simply wanted to protect their forest, and as a result, they became actually the leaders of the political opposition. In general, they were forced to do this, put in such conditions.

-As in the late 80s, the ecological movement turned into a political. People went out to protect the forest, and then understood ...

- That you need to change the system. This is true. But I have to say that Greenpeace, we have a fundamental position, that we do not play in completely political things, we are engaged in a pure environmental conservation. It is clear that these are very poorly separated things.

- Environment became more interested in ecology, did Greenpis also have more attention?

- Yes, our organization also arouses some interest as an organization that, according to people, can help them. Unfortunately, very often the aspirations of citizens are not justified, because we actually have no levers. But we often receive appeals that are sent simultaneously to the president, to some minister, to the General Prosecutor-and to Greenpeace. Because people understand that, most likely, from other places they will receive some unsubscribes, and at least we will give useful advice. But this is almost all that is in our power - to suggest, to draw attention to the problem. Of course, not everyone suits everyone.

ARCTIC Sunrise activists at the port of Murmansk

- It is even surprising that people write letters to the President and Greenpeace simultaneously, given which campaign is deployed against public organizations, and even with foreign roots.

Attempts to somehow demonize the Greenpeace in the eyes of the public in recent years intensify

-Yes, attempts to somehow demonize Greenpeace in the eyes of the public in recent years are intensified. Usually this is a reaction to some of our sharp actions, well, relatively speaking, the same situation with the bay-line ( the protest of Greenperap activists on the Oil Platform in September 2013 ended with the detention of the Arctic Sunrise vessel and an international scandal.-RS) , and not only. As soon as we begin to fight with some serious projects, the actions of the authorities, or there are companies, officials, businessmen close to the authorities, a response is immediately turned on. It applies not only to us, but to a greater extent concerns at all environmental organizations. For example, most of the regional environmental organizations are to one degree or another are recognized as “foreign agents” now. We are not, but many of our partners are included in this list. And this is very much, in fact, weakens the ecological movement, because it is difficult for people to work with this status, and legally difficult, because there is a lot of additional problems, and morally difficult. It is not clear why people who are fighting for their native nature suddenly become "foreign agents." Therefore, many closed.

- Why are you not a "foreign agent"?

- There is a formal explanation of the Ministry of Justice that we cannot be recognized as a “foreign agent” because we are a branch of a foreign organization. We can be recognized as an “unwanted organization”, there is still such a form, but so far we have not come to us. We do not give out grants, but if they were given, those organizations that we would give them would most likely be recognized as “foreign agents”. Well, everything is very funny there with this law ... Well, it is clear that we have many citizens believe what they say on TV, and since on TV they say that we are “foreign agents” and “hires of world imperialism”, which is probably the way that is it.

- Demons!

- Demons, yes. And sometimes this happens in various situations, completely incomprehensible cases. As a case last year in the Kuban ( in September 2016, armed people attacked the camp of the Greenperap Fire Expedition in the Krasnodar Territory, Mikhail Crandlin himself was injured in particular. In May 2017, the investigation was suspended . - RS ), since I participated directly in it ( laughs ). We still do not fully understand who we interfered so much. We just stewed fires, but for some reason it turned out that they did not want to see us there. And then there were all sorts of stories in Russia-24, where we were accused of arson ... well, standard. Here I personally now mainly deal with the laying of the North Stream gas pipeline through the Kurgalsky reserve. It is clear that the project is absolutely political, and although we try to clearly position that we are not against the project, but against this route, but it is clear that we are trying to bring us to the fact that we are enemies, because we want to stop such a project that we need to stop.

The consequences of an attack on a camp in the Krasnodar Territory

- But Putin, as you know, loves all kinds of animals and birds very much, Sergei Ivanov does not just love them, but is appointed to protect them in a sense ...

- Yes, and he said that we are terrorists.

- ... in a word, the protection of nature in the country is in the country in reliable hands.

-Well, to some extent, yes, they try to show it to the public. Of course, we also try to use it, sometimes even it turns out. Our director Sergei Tsyplenkov is part of the Presidential Council under the President, and we, of course, sometimes bring our aspirations to the president, and they result in some assignments.

- Speaking specifically about the reserves that you are engaged in, Putin’s love and some of his close to animals gave a positive effect?

-Sometimes it gives some effect. For example, the state of the Bikin National Park, for which we had been fought for a long time, since the 90s, has improved to a large extent, money is allocated there, on the same Far Eastern leopard. You see, it all depends on who is closer. Because there is a story with a Caucasian reserve, and on the one hand, the president there in every possible way says that he supports this project of introduction, restoration of the Asian leopard in the Caucasus; And on the other hand, he signed a law that actually allowed the construction of ski resorts in the same Caucasian reserve. So far, however, they are not being built, but nevertheless he signed the law, and from the point of view of the legislation, no obstacles to building there.

And in 2013, Putin signed a law that actually allowed to change the borders of the reserves, and then signed an order to prepare a new bill, which prohibits changing the borders of the reserves, and to refrain from the previous change before the adoption of this law. And this order is still valid. Now this law has been prepared, but in this bill, again, the government is trying to enter the possibility of changing the borders of the reserves by decision of the president. This is a constant struggle in which different groups participate with different interests.

One of the latest shares of the Greenpeace of Russia is against the construction of a floating nuclear power plant in St. Petersburg, April 2017

- The projects that you have to fight becomes less or more?

- Rather, more. If we return to my topic, to reserves, a system of specially protected territories, we have one of the most difficult periods. Of course, now the state spends much more money on this than before, this is true, there is money, but at the same time some ideas arise all the time-to build something, lay, cut down, cut off a piece. And the main thing is that now they are all the time trying to fix it in law, because the law prohibits all this, and they are trying to change it. So it was necessary to hold the Olympics in Sochi - they allowed to build sports facilities in all national parks. They wanted to expand their objects - they allowed to build ski resorts in biosphere training grounds, in biosphere reserves, and allowed to secrete biosphere training grounds within the borders of the reserve. Well, these are just examples. There were attempts, we need to start obtaining gold in the Yugyd VA National Park - they even started, the Ministry of Natural Resources allowed them to be canceled, but in the Supreme Court this case was canceled, and now there were already several attempts to legislatively consolidate the possibility of excluding a specific section from the Yugid VA National Park, but this has not yet been possible.

- Surprisingly, given the modern judicial specifics that you, in principle, manage to win in the courts.

- Well, it all depends on what we are fighting with. It is clear that if there is a direct instruction to prevent us from winning, we will most likely lose. If there is no such indication, but at the same time we are absolutely tough, absolutely legally correctly doing everything, then I think we have some chances. It is clear that the situation is still changing, that the courts are also different in different ways, and judges can be subjective to us differently. Some are neutral to us, some obviously do not like us.

- Given the demonization.

- Yes, given the demonization.

- In the mass representation of Greenpeace, it is rather associated with bright protest actions than with courts, lobbying, paper and legal work. At the same time, there is a feeling that approximately after the story with the Arctic Sanraise, there are less and less high -profile actions.

If earlier these bright, beautiful actions aroused interest in essence, now everything is rather simply noted: here, they caught, twisted ...

- Yes, I think it is. But the point is not the Arctic Sanraise, but in a very strong tightening of legislation related to rallies. Now everything has become very risky, and we do not want to substitute people. Among other things, this is my opinion, the attitude of people in principle has changed a bit, and if earlier these bright, beautiful actions aroused interest in essence, now everyone is more likely to note: here, they have caught, twisted ... that is, they don’t particularly climb into the essence of the media. I believe that now the action is the last remedy. Of course, for some permitted promotions we can receive approvals, for all sorts of rallies, pickets, but they are not interesting to anyone. Well, if we do not collect 50 thousand people, of course, and we, most likely, are now so much on the streets and not to take it off. А что-то такое несанкционированное, красочное, что связано с задержаниями, – сейчас это, во-первых, рискованно, во-вторых, это моя личная точка зрения, это не даст того результата, на который мы рассчитываем. Хотя мы это иногда делаем, просто реже, чем раньше.

– Гайки закручены, в общем, по другим причинам – из-за протестной активности, но под это попадают любые выступления против чего угодно.

– Естественно, конечно!

Акция Гринписа против строительства мусоросжигательных заводов в окрестностях Санкт-Петербурга, март 2015 года

– И к тому же, наверное, к разного рода акционизму люди тоже привыкли.

– Да, я и говорю, это уже стало никому не интересно. В разных странах, кстати, это по-разному. В некоторых, наоборот, Гринпис больше акций проводит. Но мне кажется, что мы другими способами достигаем того же. Во-первых, мы проводим так называемые киберакции, когда мы призываем подписывать какие-то обращения, и иногда это работает. И даже по не очень интересным широкой общественности моим заповедникам, регулярно 30, 40, 50 тысяч подписей мы собираем.

– И это работает? Сколько подписей нужно собрать под петицией, чтобы это хоть немного на что-то повлияло?

С Утришем вопрос решен, мы его исключаем, потому что нам проще согласиться, чем объяснять 40 тысячам граждан, что они не правы

– А это никогда не известно, потому что все зависит от общего уровня проекта. Понятно, что, если бы мы собрали 500 тысяч, скорее всего, это было бы весомо, но таких возможностей у нас нет. Моя позиция – никогда один метод не даст результата, надо разные методы совмещать, в том числе юридическую работу, судебную, обращения граждан. На этом фоне мы показываем, что мы не одни, за нами стоит достаточно большое количество людей, которые нам верят. This is important. Хотя у нас был совершенно конкретный случай. Минприроды решило преобразовать заповедник Утриш в национальный парк, а это заповедник, где еще в свое время Медведев хотел построить себе дачу. Там люди грудью останавливали бульдозеры. И остановили. Потом в 2014 году Минприроды решило преобразовать его в национальный парк, и стало понятно, поскольку он предполагает рекреационную деятельность, там можно было бы потихонечку себе эту дачку построить. Но мы тоже в очередной раз собрали свои 45 с чем-то тысяч подписей, и тогдашний замминистра Гизатулин на каком-то совещании, общественном совете сказал, что "с Утришем вопрос решен, мы его исключаем, потому что нам проще согласиться, чем объяснять 40 тысячам граждан, что они не правы". Это цитата, был сюжет в РИА "Новостях".

– Вы часто сталкиваетесь с ситуациями, когда вы выступаете против проекта из экологических соображений, а он очень нужен не просто властям, но и местным жителям, потому что это рабочие места, например?

– Мы стараемся учитывать эти вопросы. Иногда нам приходится самим предлагать решения. Был такой случай у нас – национальный парк Калевальский в Карелии, мы очень много вкладывались в его создание. Когда мы начали только эту работу, в 90-х годах, там была такая ситуация: денег в Карелии не было, и все расчеты бюджетные были древесиной, и нам сказали, что не вопрос, делайте парк, но эти леса отведены для строительства школы в одном поселке. Там все делалось через западные компании, лес продавался в Финляндию, это были порядочные деньги, соответственно, на них строилась школа. "И если вы нам не дадите рубить, значит, школы не будет. Вот вам жители, идите к ним и объясняйте". Понятно, что это плохой расклад, поэтому нам пришлось найти нужное количество древесины вне тех участков, которые отводились под национальный парк. И мы их нашли. И в результате местная власть была вынуждена с этим согласиться.

Были и другие примеры. Мы, конечно, считаем, что Гринпис – природоохранная организация, и социальные вопросы – это не наш конек, но иногда мы вынуждены про это думать и предлагать какие-то решения.

Митинг против строительства Восточносибирско-Тихоокеанского нефтепровода, февраль 2006 года

– Что вы считаете вашей самой яркой победой за 15 лет в Гринписе?

После этого лично Владимир Владимирович Путин своей рукой фломастером на карте нарисовал, что надо обойти Байкал

– Много было побед! И поражений, конечно, было много. Я думаю, что из таких серьезных побед стоит сказать о переносе нефтепровода "Восточная Сибирь – Тихий океан" от Байкала. Хотя это не имеет прямого отношения к нам, это была действительно народная победа, я очень рад и горжусь тем, что мы там принимали участие. В 2005–2006 годах компания "Транснефть" решила построить нефтепровод "Восточная Сибирь – Тихий океан" – в Китай, Японию и так далее. Ну, похоже на "Северный поток". И по наиболее приемлемому для них с экономической точки зрения варианту он должен был пройти по северу от Байкала, в 800 метрах от берега. Понятно, что любая авария на таком нефтепроводе – и вся северная часть Байкала покрывалась бы нефтяной пленкой. Решения все были приняты, проведена экологическая экспертиза, которая сначала пыталась протестовать, но там поменяли состав экспертной комиссии, было выдано положительное заключение, и было распоряжение правительства. Но тут поднялся народ. В первую очередь, конечно, он поднялся в Иркутске, в Улан-Удэ, на Байкале, ну, мы тоже довольно активно организовали протестное движение. Организовали митинг в Москве. Это очень смешно, потому что сначала его согласовали, а потом поняли, что будет очень много народу, и попытались его не допустить. Мы получили замечательную бумагу, что нас просят воздержаться от проведения митинга "в связи с подготовкой к празднованию Дня Победы, а также угрозой схода оползня на Воробьевых горах". This is a quote. Это правда – про оползень на Воробьевых горах, не вру, бумажка до сих пор сохранилась. Но мы митинг провели. И после этого лично Владимир Владимирович Путин своей рукой фломастером на карте нарисовал, что надо обойти Байкал. В результате трасса пошла севернее.

– А ведь Байкал – объект всемирного природного наследия. Насколько это вообще кого-то волнует?

– Смотрите, до того, как Гринпис вообще взялся за это дело, в России не было ни одного объекта Всемирного природного наследия. Первым объектом стал как раз национальный парк "Югыд ва", который мы отбивали от золотодобычи. Сейчас в России 11 объектов Всемирного природного наследия. В пяти из них что-нибудь плохое происходит прямо сейчас. Над "Югыд ва" висит все время угроза золотодобычи. На Кавказе, там тоже объект Всемирного природного наследия, "Роза Хутор" и "Газпром" хотят влезть с лыжными курортами в биосферные полигоны на юге заповедника. На Алтае до сих пор есть угроза строительства газопровода "Алтай" в Китай через плато Укок. Скорее всего, сейчас он построен не будет, потому что там Китай совсем охладел к нашему газу, но тем не менее проект есть, и все решения по нему приняты. На острове Врангеля в 2014 году начали строить военную базу.

– С этим, кажется, связана какая-то удивительная история.

На этом участке нет растительности, почвы, животных, поэтому ставить вопрос о его ценности и какой-то угрозе неразумно

– Да, это удивительная история. Мы думали, что острову Врангеля уж точно ничего не угрожает. Просто чему там можно угрожать? Оказалось, мы ошибались. Там начали строить военную базу. Причем это заповедник, и там ее строить в принципе строго запрещено законом. Для начала там провели военные учения, высадили десант. Я совсем не мог понять, неужели нельзя было найти в Арктике места, куда можно было высадить десант? Нет, именно туда! И комитет Всемирного наследия несколько раз довольно жестко выступал. Сначала не было никакого ответа, потом из Министерства обороны ответили, что, во-первых, там ничего не строится. Им сказали: как не строится, когда вот у вас на вашем же сайте Министерства обороны написано, что строится. А это, – сказали они, – государственная тайна. И потом, когда ЮНЕСКО запросило информацию, на первый запрос вообще Россия ничего не ответила, а на второй они ответили совершенно замечательным текстом, что на этом участке нет растительности, почвы, животных, поэтому ставить вопрос о его ценности и какой-то угрозе неразумно и бессмысленно.

– Когда удобно – объект наследия, когда нет – нет почвы и растительности, как на планете Шелезяка.

- Yes. На высшем уровне декларируется, что мы там всеми руками за Всемирное наследие. Лично Владимир Владимирович встречался с генеральным директором ЮНЕСКО. Но в действительности все время используются двойные стандарты. Вот Россия предложила очень жесткую резолюцию Генассамблее по разрушению культурных памятников Сирии – Пальмира и так далее, это всё объекты Всемирного наследия. С этим никто не спорит, прекрасно, все это поддержали. Но с природными объектами в самой России происходят похожие вещи, честно говоря.