Fence to nowhere

What explains Poland’s disregard for the dire situation in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha border region?

Placing security concerns on one side of the scales and ecology on the other, Poland has made a choice, alas, not in favour of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha: despite the enormous risks to nature, it has erected a barrier in the old-growth woodland. But was it necessary to choose at all? After all, any object can be built intelligently, even if it is a metal wire fence. It is not just that it is a pity about the animals impaled on it, but also that the entire ecosystem of what is still one of Europe’s rarest gems is suffering. Larisa Lukina, Head of International Co-operation Department at Belarus’ Ministry of Natural Resources, has spoken about the efforts taken by Belarus to save the forest.

Belarusian-Polish border, Peschatka checkpoint, Brest Region        Aleksandr Kulevsky

Double standards in ecology

Belarus has been sounding the alarm for over four years. The process of saving the only territory on the European continent where primeval forests have been preserved in their pristine state remains unresolved. “Since 2020, Belarus’ Ministry of Natural Resources — together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park, Belarus’ Academy of Sciences, and other interested parties — has been making significant efforts in all available international platforms to draw the attention of the global community to the Polish authorities’ violation of several international treaties to which both Belarus and the Republic of Poland are states parties,” pointed out the specialist. “In accordance with international environmental law, the Polish side — before commencing construction of the barrier — should have carried out several procedures both at the national level and with the involvement of Belarus. Poland ignored this.” The list of problems facing this unique area of nature is quite extensive, as noted by experts. Thus, changes in the level of ground water can lead to the death of valuable old-growth forests in the border strip. And this is one of the most unique features of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha! The list of problems also includes the degradation of typical and rare biotopes, fragmentation of forest massifs, disruption of the natural development of forest ecosystems, and the penetration of invasive — that is, alien — plants that are extremely aggressive towards the native species of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha. In addition, the main migration routes for animals are effectively blocked, whereas animals need to cross from one territory to another more than once during a day, because they feed in one place, sleep in another, and raise their offspring in a third. The inability for animals to move freely through the territory of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha may lead to the depletion of the genetic pool. “The Polish side, of course, states on all platforms that they have left crossings for animals. Yet in reality, the passages — a mere 10 centimetres in diameter, supposedly intended for small animals — are blocked with sand, grass, and snow,” the specialist noted. “The gates or larger passages, which the Polish side points to, are located a metre above the ground and are constantly closed. Moreover, to what extent does the location of these gates correspond to the routes traditionally used by animals?”

Main thing is to get to negotiating table

The first platform to which Belarusian ecologists turned was the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. The agreement operates within the framework of the Council of Europe and defines the existence of such significant projects as The Emerald Network and Natura 2000. That is, it includes a list of sites of special protection and care.
“The Belovezhskaya Pushcha was included in both The Emerald Network of protected areas and Natura 2000,” stated Larisa Lukina. “It would seem that we should have received support from this convention. But, unfortunately, double standards very quickly began to manifest themselves. At first, we were simply not heard, then, without discussion with the Belarusian side, they essentially believed on the bare word of Polish representatives and stated that there was no subject for dispute. Subsequently, we were completely deprived of the opportunity to fully participate in the work of this international treaty. Then a decision was made for Belarus to withdraw from the Bern Convention, because working in such conditions seems simply impossible and unproductive. This once again demonstrated the real attitude of European states to environmental protection issues and the complete politicisation of this issue.” 
Belarus appealed for aid and support to other international bodies as well, but only the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), which is a specialised agency of the UN, heard us.
In March 2024, a reactive monitoring mission, consisting of representatives from UNESCO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) — an international organisation which includes governmental and non-governmental organisations working in the field of environmental protection and having a high level of authority — visited the Belarusian and Polish parts of the transboundary UNESCO World Heritage site. “It should be said that the international experts, having visited both parts of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha, confirmed all the conclusions that the Belarusian side had previously voiced in all platforms,” emphasised Larisa Lukina. 
As a result, at the 46th session, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee considered the UNESCO/IUCN mission report and adopted a decision in which the majority of the recommendations were addressed to the Polish side. The gist of them is that Poland must ensure a reduction in the negative impact of the fence on the ecosystem of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha and resume cross-border dialogue with the Belarusian side. However, the ignoring from the Polish side persists.

Process of saving the only territory on European continent where relict forests have been preserved in their untouched state
remains unresolved        Pavel Bogush 

“Now we continue our fight for the Belovezhskaya Pushcha,” said Larisa Lukina. “We will conduct it on two platforms — this is, certainly, UNESCO, as well as the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (Espoo Convention). We have also sent a request to the Espoo Convention Implementation Committee, which monitors the implementation of the provisions of this international treaty by states, asking it to open a case on the non-compliance by the Republic of Poland with its obligations. We are still in correspondence with the committee and there is no decision yet.”
Last year, Belarusian environmentalists learned from the media about the neighbouring country’s intention to implement a new plan — the East Shield National Deterrence and Defence Programme. “We have sent a request to the Polish side proposing to hold bilateral consultations, because the implementation of this programme involves further work on the territory of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha,” revealed Larisa Lukina, expressing her concern. “But again, the Poles have remained silent. Nevertheless, we do not intend to cease our efforts to draw the attention of the international community to the violation by the Republic of Poland of its obligations in the environmental sphere.”
According to the specialist, UNESCO is extremely concerned about the situation Belarus has found itself in. If the Polish side continues to ignore the decisions of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and does not enter into dialogue, then UNESCO may use a mechanism such as including the territory of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha region on the list of World Heritage sites in danger. “Inclusion on this list means much closer attention to a specially protected natural area or cultural value,” explained Larisa Lukina. “But getting off the list afterwards is very difficult.”
Where does this indifference of Poland to the fate of the unique territory come from? One can only guess. Yet, the specialist is convinced that rationalism, concern for the environment, and practical approaches will prevail over political issues.
It is obvious that mitigating the consequences of the impact of the barrier on the ecology of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha will be difficult and costly. “At the same time,” emphasised Larisa Lukina, “we need to start with the main thing — to sit down at the negotiating table.”

By Vera Arteaga