At the end of last year the Minister of Infrastructure of Ukraine Volodymyr Omelian gave a final interview to “Cenzor.NET” on river transportation. In particular, it was said that, “if earlier there were attempts made by some companies to monopolize the sky, now there is an attempt of some companies to monopolize the river”. The Minister made it clear that we are talking about NIBULON.
In this context, I decided to comment on this charge of the Minister and other his statements concerning the scandalous draft laws on inland water transport. 
You know, I’m glad that after a series of intrigues and behind-the-scenes attempts “to resolve the issue quietly”, the discussion returned to the public spotlight. Is the Minister outraged by the fact that not everyone shares his opinion? Instead of proving his case not in words, but using calculations, he proceeds to charges. Well, unfortunately, this is, probably, his vision of the industry management. But I also have what to say in this regard.
Our company and I repeatedly publicly and officially expressed our position on river transportation in order to make the Dnipro River and other our rivers “Ukrainian Mississippi”.  In order to make this happen, we have studied the European, American experience and even experience of Belarus. Therefore, our company has been engaged in creation and development of the existing infrastructure for river transportation over the last 10 years, and calls on others to use Ukrainian rivers to transport cargoes.  What have we faced during this period of time?
I remember that 6-7 years ago, a former Minister of Transport said concerning construction of terminals along the rivers: “There are people who build “pimples” on the banks”. He also meant NIBULON. This Minister has gone; there are terminals. Following the NIBULON, many companies have built their facilities in the mouth of the Dnipro-Buh estuary, now they are building on the Dnipro River. 
Another Minister of Transport did everything to prevent call by vessels to private terminals and to establish monopoly of the state sea ports. Everyone knows the situation with “Preventer” vessel, which is wild for any maritime country in the world.  “Preventer“ vessel  wasn’t allowed to entry the berth of NIBULON’s terminal in Mykolaiv for half a year (since October 2009 till March 2010).  
The next Minister continued to monopolize the sea ports and began to prepare them for privatization. Of course, he didn’t work alone, but in cooperation with a group of friends. So, the law on sea ports was written so that all the regions of Ukraine, including rivers, should work for ports of Big Odesa. That is why our, Mykolaiv Sea Port, and Kherson Port  are subsidizing  the Ports of Big Odesa, but we get only damaged roads, uncleared canals and  decaying infrastructure.
Nobody has created any conditions for river transportation either for NIBULON or for NIBULON’s interests during all this period of time; we didn’t ask for it and we didn’t count on. It’s more likely that everything was quite opposite; we have faced such trials and repressions so there is little who would withstand them.  We haven’t only survived in extremely unfavorable conditions, we have continued to build, develop, invest. During this period of time our company has invested more than USD 1 billion 200 million, built 10 facilities, and we are preparing to build a lot of things. I say this not to brag, but only because the Minister started a conversation – who, what and how many did or intend to do for Ukrainian infrastructure. Therefore, I continue.
After the Revolution of Dignity I hoped that the quality of management in the industry and the quality of decisions will change radically. Therefore, when Andrii Pyvovarskyi was appointed as Minister of Infrastructure, I believed that he really wants to establish fair rules for industry development and formation of modern infrastructure in Ukraine. It seemed so for some period. Pyvovarskyi’s team picked up our idea of river transportation development, which wasn’t interesting for anyone, except for our company. In general, the idea of preparing a law on inland waterways of Ukraine, which would take into account the interests of all market participants, and, firstly, – the state interests, – appeared during management of Pyvovarskyi, in our discussions with him. It was he who invited our company to become a participant of the working group on the development of the given draft law. We accepted this proposal, I believed him. 
I must confess: I am irritated by the so-called political games, when ministers say one thing and do the opposite.  One cannot do so in business because a word and reputation are links of a chain, honesty and trust of partners – the basis of doing business. This is the main rule NIBULON has been following for more than 20 years. So, I do not take ministers who act differently.
Unfortunately, everything that has happened in connection with the development and promotion of draft laws on the inland waterways of Ukraine was done outside of the given rules. I want to note that both then and now our position remains unchanged: there shouldn’t be the river due, because it increases the tax burden, and the one offers its introduction, puts the next corruption schemes for erosion of money out of the state system. On the other hand, those draft laws which one is trying to impose, make inland waterways non-competitive for cargo transportation and create worse conditions for domestic shipowners, as compared to foreign ones.
During the discussion of the given draft laws, the main discussions were between NIBULON and “Ukrrichflot”, a private company whose owners, as one writes in media, are Kostiantyn Hryhoryshyn and Yuliia Levochkina. This company lobbied and continues lobbying for the introduction of the river due. That is, the draft law “On Inland Water Transport” is actually a law about an additional tax, a law on the river due. We proved harm of its introduction for the industry using calculators, and the participants of the discussion agreed. The participants of river transportation market agreed this version of the draft law, without the river due.
The next morning a mirror draft law, the opposite draft law, which completely negated the months of work, hopes of river carriers, current and potential, but fully consistent with the things  that  Hryhoryshyn’s company was lobbying for, was posted on the website of the Ministry of Infrastructure.  As if there were no meetings, discussions and final arrangements.  
This way of conducting business is unacceptable for us. Therefore, at a meeting, which was initiated by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Developmant, I said to Pyvovarskyi that his words and his deeds are opposite, that the river due and other tax burdens on the river business, he was allegedly against of, have been included to the draft law.
Pyvovarskyi was offended because he perceived any criticism very painfully. He left the meeting, but the same day he invited me for a meeting. Only at that meeting after my insistent demands, the Minister of Infrastructure familiarized himself with the draft law which was posted on the website of the Ministry, and made sure that I ‘m right, the posted draft law is not the document that was agreed on the eve.
When and with whom was he really sincere? Didn’t he really know about the substitution of documents while posting the draft laws on the website or did he pretend? I find it difficult to judge. But there was an impression that one working group had been developing the draft laws on inland water transportation openly and publicly, was interested in and had been taking into account opinions of the key market participants, local communities, who are not only objects but also the subjects of this process. But at the same time, we can assume that there was another working group which had been secretly developing another draft law, beneficial to one company – “Ukrrichflot” and a group of persons who decided to create a administrative structure on the Ukrainian rivers, similar to Sea Ports Authority, in order to establish the movement of the shadow cash flows to defined and agreed pockets beyond the state treasury. It seems that the second group didn’t argue and advertise itself; it replaced the draft laws by other ones and provided their legitimization through the official website of the Ministry. People’s deputies picked up this draft law and submitted it for consideration to the Verkhovna Rada. A kind of plagiarism.
How do the Ministry and the deputies, whose names are written in the column of authors of the draft laws, look like in this situation? Did Volodymyr Omelian who was Pyvovarskyi’s Deputy Minister know about this? If he didn’t know, he wasn’t a bad Deputy Minister. If he knew, his current statement is a conscious misrepresentation.
However, Volodymyr Omelian had time to get it all sorted out after his appointment as Minister of Infrastructure. People who call themselves technocrats should be able to count. So, when they say that the river due will replace five other dues and reduce the tax burden on business, I say, “Prove”. Use calculators and count where it will be reduced and added? Is it “not a tsar’s case” to calculate risks,  potential profits and losses from the given draft laws? I insist on the position that the river will be no less than five current dues. So what is the point of its introduction? The point is that the due will go by the state budget – to the treasury of new river authority, whose creators aren’t fastidious about any means uses t achieve their goals. What for? It is for enrichment of a certain financial and industrial group and everyone associated with it, including the Parliament.
This group will be a monopolist in respect of “river” profit and in respect of any decisions. A Minister will be “pushed” again, as in the case of Sea Ports Authority.
What does Minister of Infrastructure affect today? Does it form policy of the industry development? What way does he do this if he learns about personnel changes in maritime complex from the media and certainly doesn’t affect them? The way he doesn’t affect other processes, e.g. dredging in ports. Scandalous renders worth of billions, personnel reshuffle; in Mykolaiv, for example, there has not yet been appointed a head of the sea port, and Mykolaiv is not the only port without its head. What is the policy of the industry defined by the Minister?
As for the statements on NIBULON’s intention to monopolize the river, it is a shame to hear this from the Minister. It is necessary to “learn the material” and to be ashamed of his/her ignorance of antimonopoly legislation. It’s better to try to make up the leeway faster and fill the gaps in knowledge. In terms of educational assistance to the Minister, I can announce that our company has never participated in privatization processes. We have never got river stations, ports, quays, berths, hydraulics. We haven’t bought either river or sea facilities or their rights. We build our infrastructure and coordinate construction of each object with local authorities, develop ourselves at our own risk, build terminals, vessels, reconstruct our shipbuilding yard. We use our fleet to transport our agricultural commodities and grain which other agricultural producers bring to our terminals. Our activity hasn’t caused interest of the Antimonopoly Committee.  We are not a monopoly and don’t plan to be a monopoly in the market. After all, the volume of the services we provide to other companies is very small and we are not a monopoly in the market of river transportation. But after a series of allegations, I was forced to appeal to the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine in order to receive an official opinion on the position of our company in the market of river transportation. We’ve already got answers. In particular, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine states that they hadn’t taken decisions on the recognition of NIBULOL as a monopoly in the market of cargo transportation by inland water transport.  Thus, the Antimonopoly Committee has dispelled the myth of the so-called monopoly position of our company, which is being shaped with by the Minister and some people’s deputies-lobbyists of the draft law with such a diligence.   
I repeat once again, “NIBULON always acts openly. To lie, dodge, say one thing in one place, the another thing in another place, organize conspiracies, plots, divide the spheres of influences – it is not about us.  The Minister could have understood it. Recently, last December, just a week before this interview, we signed loan agreements with him in Brussels. He signed an agreement for electrification of the railway, which is certainly very important, and I signed the agreement which will enable one to invest USD 200 million in development of river logistics. Volodymyr Omelian had no questions either to me or to our company. Why does he by his statement about our intentions of monopoly, in fact, cast doubt on activity of our company and its intentions instead of calling on others to follow the example of NIBULON – move to the transportation of cargoes by water, invest in development of river infrastructure?
I ‘ve been tired of lay people in government, from the fact that each new team in the Ministry had started from scratch in order to understand the problems and prospects of the Ukrainian infrastructure. However, we have never descended to this level of discussion. On the contrary, our specialists are some of the best in the industry, have always been willing to share their analysis, estimates, and projections with officials of all levels. Volodymyr Omelian also asked to present our materials on the draft laws on inland water transport. And after reading it he agreed with us that there is no need in the river due, that it will only increase the tax burden on business. Moreover, he told me about it not one-on-one, but in the presence of a third party. What did turn the Minister’s position upside down so now, according to him, it’s not he, but I abandon preliminary agreements and lead subversion?
The current team of the Ministry calls themselves reformers. I want to ask, what is the gist of the reforms? Is is in the fact that our ports continued subsidizing the ports of Big Odesa in order to change nothing in this regard? Is it in the fact that the reformers of the Ministry successfully acquire grants of international financial institutions? They write some strategies, conduct forums, speak for 10 minutes and then leave, without a huge interest in result. It seems that this ministerial team lives in a parallel reality, apart from what is happening in the industry.
But on the Minister’s request we have provided the programme of 28 items on revival of navigation on the Dnipro River, the Southern Buh River, and other rivers. This program has not been discharged for NIBULON’s interests, it takes into account the interests of all shipowners, all business entities. What has changed? Nothing. We were forced to spend 2 years to get permission for the installation of mooring buoys on the Dnipro River and the Southern Buh River. NIBULON spent UAH 2 million to install them. Are we doing this for ourselves, for our “monopoly”? Or will the mooring buoys be used by everyone who navigates along these rivers?
Apropos to who is doing what for activation of river navigation. And the Ministry still does not want or cannot resolve the basic issue so that two barges simultaneously enter the lock. Why does Omelian cannot ask those of his employees who were on tour in Holland what they were said to that. But if two barges entered a lock simultaneously, as at all the major rivers of the world, we would increase cargo transportation by water by 150 thousand tons per year. Not only would NIBULON benefit from it, all companies that are engaged in transportation of cargoes along the Dnipro River would benefit. And the state would benefit – it would get more taxes from economic activity. Moreover, denying simultaneous locking of two barges, SEIW “Ukrvodshliakh” imposes unnecessary services on additional two-fold locking of tugs to river carriers, increasing the unproductive load on units and components aging locks, accelerating their runout.
But no, only words and declarations, “but lock isn’t moving”. There are a lot of such problem examples. For example, for three years we have not been obtaining the permission for connecting track of railway spur for freight handling directly to our reconstructed shipbuilding and repair yard. Also about three years we can’t achieve that we are not charged tonnage and other port dues for transit passage (without arrival at a port and without performance of cargo operations) through channel of general usage (Sea Ports of Mykolaiv and Kherson) which are included in water areas. Private firms connected with the former management of Mykolaiv Port who blocked the pilotage of “Preventer” under the support from the side of Ukrainian Sea Port Authority and the captain of the Sea Port and under patronage of Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine force shipowners up unnecessary expensive service in tug escort during the passage through Buhsko-Dneprovsko-Limaskyi Channel. About two years the Ministry also has been refusing to consider the proposition of NIBULON which appealed to release shipowners from imposed services for them, providing them with free choice. Herewith, a private firm provides these services of harbor vessels which are rented in SE “Mykolaiv Sea Commercial Port” at the price which is significantly lower than market price. Consequently, rising in price of water transportation only for the account of this service reaches USD 0.5 per one ton.  Under the general cargo turnover of Mykolaiv Port (about 20 million tons per year) it is easy to calculate incomes of this private company. Herewith, for many years the Ministry has been refusing to consider an issue about reduction of rates of port dues in Mykolaiv Port not allowing for it to realize its competitive positions.
As a consequence of such actions Mykolaiv Port continues to be the most expensive port in the world. Thus, forcing unnecessary commercial services, some structures are engaged in obvious pumping money from business. But then a question arises. Who finally holds monopoly position in the rivers? NIBULON or patronized enterprises by Ministry of Infrastructure, ports, “Ukrvodshliakh’”? So when the Minister says that everything is ready for water transportation, I don’t believe him. Because what readiness to start can be without deepening and clearance of the Dnipro River. But the Minister prefers not to remember about this, thus experts of United States Army Corps of Engineers that learnt this issue said directly that the river should be deepened.
I think that the situation with the Dnipro River will be the same way as with the South Buh River. We have waited for a long time when it would be decided about clearance of river navigation channel and then we annoyed to wait, and we made dredging of the South Buh River at our own expense. Thus, while in the Ministry they continue to self-promote on the topic of weighing complexes and insist on their installation, NIBULON started river transportation of grain from Voznesensk to Mykolaiv, removed 12 thousand trucks from the roads of Mykolaiv region.
Our company proved that the more terminals would be on the riversides, the faster necessity in usage of heavy trucks would be dropped essentially, as to use them in radius of 80-100 km would be not of economic benefit. 
I know this and I can prove as I have the calculations. Does Minister know about that? It seems to me he doesn’t, stating that weighing complexes are overloading panacea. And I believe that its part of corporate interests and corruption tightening up on the auto road, because there are people on weighing complexes and only few of them can resist the temptation and bribery. 
I had straight talk to Omelian concerning the weighing complexes. He asked me to promote this idea, but I said him “No”. And I asked him in turn, “Can you watch there personally”? He also said “No”. I explained him, that no one could control the controllers honestly and incorruptible. That is why it is need to solve the overloading problem on the roads in the way of economic profit and without human factor. For example, it is dealing a subject of weighing complexes installation in Poland, that would count the truck weight while moving without breaking. Firstly, it is doing for the prevention of the truck stoppage. and secondly. for the being off the corruption. And all we have in that context is populism and dog-and-pony show and if we would spend money for buying and installing of the new complexes we would invest to corruption. But that is the Ministry of Infrastructure policy today under Volodymyr Omelian leading.
And now about the agitation against the crude bill adoption concerning the river transport in the Parliament. Volodymyr Omelian is “sincerely indignant” because of fact of the receiving of the analytic materials by people’s deputy about what really state that draft laws, for whom they are profitable and what would happen after their adoption. He says that in his interview: “What if we receive some strange mail out for all deputies in the Parliament saying not to vote for that draft law”. The brochures are being distributed right and left stating that it is awful and it is the end of the shipbuilding…” Just think about it, Minister of Infrastructure is “sincerely indignant” not because of the behind-the-scenes arrangements, secret agreements of the influence sphere and cash flow separation and distribution, dull corrupted personnel. He is indignant because of the deputies that are against the bills he promotes and honestly state there position and convince colleagues to vote for sending under development this bills using figures and facts. He is indignant not because of the fighting at the tribune but because of civilize parliament work of the people’s deputies, willing to make decisions and vote prudently and consciously, not on a signal.
I am, on the other hand, very glad that many people’s deputies share our estimation of these draft laws. Particularly, deputies from the regions, where the Dnipro River flows.They understand that the draft laws on inland water transport must be returned for modification, so in the last version to take into consideration interests of market participants and local communities. And majors and governors of riverine regions spoke uniquely: they are not comfortable with the role of mutes, that were determined by these draft laws. But according to the laws, which are trying to be imposed to all of us, the role of municipal government during the construction of the project of river infrastructure comes to nothing – they will not be able to influence on anything. Whatever conceived to build on the territories of the cities and villages near the river, for this will need to get the permission exclusively in the central government, but local council will not be asked by anybody. So if such law was in force earlier, and we had to negotiate the building of 10 terminals in the Ministry, we would have never built them. There are no conditions for business. Such is the ministerial decentralization. Nevertheless, majors and governors of Cherkasy, Poltava, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Mykolaiv regions are thrilled with attracting investments in riverside infrastructure, in building of new projects, because it will help to relieve pressure on roads. They, as well as people’s deputies on the part of these regions, understand well, what will happen, if the laws about inner water transport will be adopted like this. 
Why did they understand this, but not the Minister? There was more than enough time to take it all. But did not you have the opportunity also to deal with it?
I emphasize once more: we provided all detailed analytical information on these draft laws to the Minister, and to the representatives of international financial institutions, which educational grants the Ministry uses with pleasure. But agree, it is strange, when the Embassy of Netherlands and the USA, the representatives of the World Bank, EBRD and other international financial structures at the Ukrainian side’s request meticulously scrutinize all the package of the draft laws on  inland water transport, in order to help Ukraine to use the best world practices in organization of river transportation and to avoid potential mistakes, and our Minister at the same time desperately tries to ‘promote’ the adoption of the laws in the Parliament with powerful corruption implication.  How does it interestingly work with our young reformers: they agree to take grants of million dollars on education and training, and refuse to relearn.
Judging by everything, NIBULON looms everywhere and in everything to the Minister. Even though, any business association did not support these draft laws, in the part of introduction of the river due. However, no, one supported. It is little known and few in numbers pocket association “Rivers of Ukraine”. Nobody knew about it lately, except the “Ukrrichflot”, what is understandable, because “Ukrrichflot” is the only organization interested in moving of these draft laws, creating “river administration”, introduction of river due and pumping money from the rivers in circumvention of the state treasury.
As I said earlier, the main thing that was made and continuing now in our industry with the previous government is to divide the ports of Ukraine between two major players: sea ports of Big Odesa assign to well-known financial and industrial group, river ports assign to not so well-known group. Everybody knows about it, but not everyone resists of it. Even those who must know because of their duty. And the Minister doesn’t resent about unfair dividing of natural and geographical resources of the country.
It is not bother him that anti-corruption committee of Verhovna Rada has given the conclusion of the draft laws, where are clearly marked: draft laws on inland water transport do not meet  the standards of anti-corruption legislation.
The Minister doesn’t hear shipbuilders. Because in Mykolaiv we feel what does the loss of shipbuilding for Ukraine mean. There are 9 000 people only in our shipbuilding yard waiting in a line. People are waiting for a job, here, in their country and they are tired to work all over the world, and they dream to come and work home. Today we reconstruct shipbuilding plant NIBULON. It will be the one of the modern in Europe with equipment from the best world’s manufactures. Its power will allow us to build no less than 30 complete vessels. 
The Minister suggests to let here floating second-hand with any “beneficial” flags. If it happens, he will be the only Minister in the world who allowed this. None European country allows foreign ships to use their own inland waters. Under the foreign flag – only sea port and not farther. We are suggested to make the Dnipro River open for everyone, including Russian ships. Moreover, with economic preferences for them.
As I said, it is not productively for Ukraine either in political or economic ways. It is profitable for some politicians and dealers, but not for the country.  “Ukrrichflot” is the only company that is interested in this. Once it was a state company, and built ships for state money. Now it belongs to several people and ships that were made by state money are output in offshore. Now they are trying to take back to bring to the market of river transitions under “beneficial” foreign flags. The former “Yurii Makarov”, named after famous Mykolaiv shipbuilder, is among them. Now it is called “Sea Leader” and works in Russia. And it all was given for foreign investment.
You know, ministers come and go away. NIBULON stays. We have seen and heard of many. And judge managers, officials, politicians by their deeds. Because in such a way we do our job and make our plans. NIBULON’s intentions have never contradicted the interests of Ukraine. We wish that to all Ukrainian ministers. Today and for all time.