#Official Commentary of Vladimir Bidyovka on final sale of Ukrainian forests
Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze believes that the existence of a moratorium on the export of round wood is the only reason why Ukraine cannot receive the second part of the EU’s macro-financial assistance of €600 million.
This assistance is very necessary for Ukraine, but let’s take a look at the other side. If you lift a ban and roundwood will be exported to Europe, the development of woodworking industry is out of the question. It makes sense if Ukraine would be engaged in woodworking instead of exporting damp wood. The sale of final product could exponentially increase revenue in this area and nature would be safe.
According to First Vice-Prime Minister Stepan Kubiv, Ukraine can manage without the EU’s macro-financial assistance of €600 million, if they increase the volume of wood processing. It is possible to achieve economic growth and increase of commodity production by lengthening a chain of manufacture of raw materials into final product. So why do western curators guide the Ukrainian government to ecological and economic collapse?
Despite the moratorium on the export of round wood, which was imposed on wood species but pine on November 1, 2015, and pine wood on January 1, 2017, corrupt officials find a lot of ways to get around it and bring timber into the EU illegally. For instance, round wood is exported as a mine wood. Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze wonders what European countries actively build mines if so much mine wood is exported. Also, according to some reports, six-meter wood is chopped into several pieces, approving its size with Romanian companies in advance, to which they deliver it. This is due to the fact that the Ukrainian legislation has many loopholes and meaningless limitations on weight and length of timber, which corrupt officials successfully bypass.
At one point, the EU government reported that it fully supported a Ukraine’s desire to protect the environment and had helped to counteract deforestation. Then, how we are supposed to understand the EU’s position regarding the ban of the export of round wood, which is a restriction of a free trade and is contrary to international obligations under the World Trade Organization and the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement. Blackmailing in order to receive the second tranche looks unfriendly, because, initially, it is necessary to lift the moratorium on the export of wood to receive it.
In case if Klympush-Tsintsadze is supported by Ukrainian deputies, who care not about benefit of the country, but about how to line their pockets and execute an order of the master, the Ukrainian corrupt officials will be plundering forests and, on the top of that, the most of it will go to Europe. What kind of the EU’s prevention of deforestation could be? It is hypocrisy and nothing more.
Of course, migrant workers, who are killing Ukrainian forests and committing such acts, will be the ones who says it is for the good of the country. And when there will be bald hills with stumps instead of Carpathian forests, deserted land instead of fertile chernozem, debris instead of factories and ports, Ukrainian pseudo-rulers will not find timeservers, who are responsible for their actions. Of course, it is possible to put this all on Kremlin, because it has worked so far.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko supports Klympush-Tsintsadze. Despite the fact that it will not change the Ukrainian ecology and economy for the better, the insatiable oligarch is thinking of lifting the moratorium on the export of damp wood and accepting the EU’s terms to receive the next tranche of macro-financial assistance.
Perhaps, many Ukrainians have doubts about whether Europe wants to see Ukraine as an equal partner or as a raw material appendage with a cheap labor. Poverty is already familiar to Ukrainians. Until then, the western curators are looking for a bottom of the most appalling conditions for survival in Ukraine, those, who shout the loudest about protection of people, are rapidly lining their pockets and income declarations of people’s representatives are direct proofs.
Vladimir Bidyovka,the DPR People’s Council deputy