Polluted, according to the constitution and laws

Marija Pavleska

Two days ago, on October 31, the European Environment Agency ranked Macedonia as the most polluted country in Europe. In the agency’s report, Macedonia is a “leader in Europe” with more than one-third higher levels of PM2.5 than the country that is placed second it in the report. Findings from the report are based on data from 2015, collected from more than 2,500 locations in Europe. The report points out that the levels of pollution are reduced in EU member states, but are still far from the standards that the Union and the World Health Organization (WHO) have set. In addition to this leading position, last week the State Statistical Office (SSO) announced that in 2017 the poverty rate increased compared to the previous year. Thus, in 2016, there were 445,000 poor people, and another 15,000 people joined them in 2017, increasing the number to 460,000 or 22.2% of the population.
Another report came out In February this year, this time by Transparency International. In it, the data ranked Macedonia as the most corrupt state in the Balkans and the region, and as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index 2017.

Just a month earlier, in January, analyzes conducted by Gallup and Eurostat, published by Reflector in our country, show that – the greater the poverty, the more religious people get. You probably guessed it already. Macedonia compared with other countries in Europe, is the highest on this list. Research shows that religion plays a particularly important role in poorer countries and it serves the population as a hope in everyday struggles, unlike developed countries where material assets are a minor problem.

Although all four data are extremely serious, we have, over the years, learned to function in poverty and high levels of corruption. However, when breathing air causes more than 500,000 deaths every year in Europe, and we are the highest rated country on the scale, we should all seriously ask ourselves about policies that are in line with environmental protection.

During the referendum campaign, several European leaders visited our country. If you now try to recall their speeches, will not hear any of them publicly reacting to the state of poor quality (read poisonous) air in Skopje, as well as throughout Macedonia. Perhaps it is not very diplomatic give us lessons  at press conferences on filters, reducing extreme construction activities and ways of handling waste; but isn’t human health / life a priority? Isn’t this why all laws, as well as those European ones that we adopt, exist primarily to protect the people?

Is allocation of 160,000 euros from the Ministry of Environment’s budget for the campaign in the referendum, instead of environmental projects and protection measures, a smart move?

At that time, ministry representatives informed that this amount is minor in relation to the funds that Macedonia will receive after joining the EU and NATO. It was also mentioned that those 160,000 euros were not from the budget intended to combat air pollution, but money intended for other activities of the Ministry. From there they added that dealing with pollution is working with massive investments in green initiatives, possibly implying that 160,000 euros are a minimal sum.

The objective circumstances determined the position from which one speaks, so this is where Roland Barthes would say: “The system of reading must be published because a neutral system is not available.”
If for the representative of the Ministry of Environment, 160,000 euros are a small amount of money to make them an improvement in the environment, they are a long-lasting dream for the ecologist that can be used effectively and which may contribute perhaps to small, but significant results.

The British newspaper The Guardian, through publishing reports on the death of any eco-defender, hopes to raise awareness of the deadly battle of the ecological line. In 2017, nearly four environmental defenders were killed each week in the world, or a total of 197 people who lost their lives last year in defending their land, wildlife or natural resources. This data is collected by the international organization Global Witness.

In his work The Scientific Outlook, Bertrand Russell writes: “There is, in the modern world, a great body of well-attested knowledge… but as soon as any strong passion intervenes to warp the expert’s judgement he becomes unreliable, whatever scientific equipment he may possess.”

So, there will be a building complex near the Old Railway Station in Skopje, there will be an apartment building near “Majcin Dom”, there will be a landfill in the village of Godivnje near Debarca and so on.

The old railway station is one of the symbols of Skopje. Together with the clock indicating the time of the earthquake. “By building around these symbols of the city, its silhouette and history will be destroyed,” reacted activists and architects from the initiatives. But the mayors who came to power with the promise of a moratorium on construction activities in Centar, recognize the beauty of concrete this time, rather than the importance of the interruption of construction activities and the protection of the area of ​​such cultural and historical significance.

We can protest as much as we like, but we will be told that everything is valid as it is planned and that everything is in line with the constitution and laws.

Last October, Debarca residents also held a referendum against the construction of a regional landfill in Godivje. A referendum with 68 per cent turnout, of which 87 per cent opposed the construction of a landfill. The referendum was successful.
Someone here does not understand that democracy actually means: “state decisions are implemented directly or indirectly by the majority of citizens through a fair election process” (Wikipedia). How else can one dare announce that he will talk with these inhabitants of Debarca to indicate that the location is the most suitable and that there should be a landfill there, and that as an argument should be stated that otherwise the money received from IPA funds would be lost.

The United Nations alarmed that the world has ten to twelve years to take measures to tackle climate change. This can also be interpreted to us as: there is no climate change, until we join NATO and the EU. Because democracy is not a form of rule of the people, but a tool for interpreting statistics, isn’t it?