Conversation with Simin Rouzgar

Sam Keshvarifard received his Master’s degree in Environmental Management from Tehran in 1381 and is now a PhD student at Twente University in the Netherlands. Alongside publishing numerous articles, reports, and notes on the environment in Iran, he has also written two books titled “Iran’s Natural Heritage” and “Iranian Lion” which have been published by the Cultural Research Office. Before leaving Iran to continue his studies, Keshvarifard was a consultant for the international project “Conservation of the Asiatic Cheetah and its habitats” and played a significant role in the development of the second phase of this project, in collaboration with the United Nations Office for Project Services and the Environmental Protection Organization of Iran.

You will read the conversation about peace talks with Mr. Keshvari, which mostly revolves around polluted fuels, mismanagement, and the consequences of the air pollution crisis in Tehran.

Mr. Keshavarifard, one of the reasons for the worsening air pollution in Tehran is the polluted gasoline, and it is said that even the imported gasoline does not meet the necessary standards and quality. With this description, in your opinion, how accurately can the decision to import gasoline by the current government be evaluated?

The question being raised here is why, after almost 100 years since the oil industry in Iran, are we still heavily reliant on importing gasoline? Our slogans of self-sufficiency were only limited to self-sufficiency in wheat, and of course, with the destruction of nature! It must be asked why, in all these years, there has been no serious effort in the field of petrochemical production, gasoline production, and oil derivatives. This is a serious question.

Another point that should be mentioned is that after the sanctions were imposed against Iran, the government under Ahmadinejad’s presidency decided to produce a large portion of the consumed gasoline. They announced and implemented this decision within a short period of 48 hours. At that time, the slogan was that Iranian experts and capable hands could produce gasoline. But later it became clear that the domestically produced gasoline was highly polluted, not up to standard, of poor quality, and intensified air pollution. After Mr. Rouhani’s government came to power, the issue became controversial, as officials, specifically Ms. Masoumeh Ebtekar, announced that petrochemical gasoline would no longer be produced. But after a while, Mr. Bijan Namdar Zanganeh, the Minister of Oil, announced that petrochemical gasoline would not be distributed, most likely referring to its non-distribution in Tehran. Therefore, petrochemical gasoline, which is a pollutant, is still being produced. Mr

The issues raised by the government officials are contradictory, while the government’s rivals also argue that both the domestically produced gasoline is not as polluted and substandard as claimed, and the imported gasoline is not as standard as claimed.

With these characteristics, the truth of the matter is not clear. This means that the statistics and information that are published are not comprehensive and reliable; not only in this matter, but even in issues related to water scarcity, the costs paid for the construction of various dams, or even the revival of wetlands, we do not have accurate and correct statistics. What has been published so far has been according to the statements of responsible or supervising individuals or members of parliament. Therefore, judgment on these issues is based on statements rather than existing documents.

What does it mean that the Minister of Oil said petrochemical gasoline will not be distributed? Does it mean it is currently being produced?

When they say that petrochemical gasoline is not being distributed, it means that it was being produced but not distributed in specific areas such as Tehran and other large and polluted cities. At the same time that the issue of contaminated gasoline was being discussed, this matter was also brought up, but it received very little attention and was quickly overshadowed by the statements of Ms. Ebtakar. The important point is that Ms. Ebtakar’s statements are not seriously criticized and the words spoken by her and her colleagues are considered as evidence and justification; although they also take into account the opinions of opposing individuals and media outlets, who always oppose and criticize, even though they do not pay much attention to the issue.

If we accept Mr. Zangeneh’s claim, is it right to distribute such gasoline in cities that are not polluted?

Of course, it is not a correct action. Anyway, gasoline is polluted and contains toxic and dangerous substances. However, because the weather or geographical conditions of these cities are not such that pollution reaches its maximum and intensifies, as a result, this amount of gasoline, which is produced domestically and must be consumed somewhere, finds its way to the market. Moreover, due to the economic situation of the country, it is not possible for all the required standard gasoline to be imported from abroad. Therefore, from an economic point of view, it may be possible to justify this, but it is not acceptable or justifiable from a health and environmental perspective.

Why is proper supervision not being carried out regarding determining the quality of gasoline, and is there any way to address this issue outside of partisan disputes?

The reason is that there is no independent reference laboratory to determine the quality of these gasoline, free from political-party disputes. In fact, the reference laboratory that should determine and approve the quality of gasoline is under the supervision of the government, and only the company producing and distributing petroleum products claims that the quality of gasoline is good. Let me give you an example: when lead-free gasoline was eliminated in the late 1970s or early 1980s, it was the company producing and distributing petroleum products that claimed we removed lead from gasoline and added another substance called “MTBE”. This substance is organic and, in addition to being a pollutant, is very carcinogenic and dangerous. There was no reference to reject or confirm the officials’ statements except that citizens had to accept these statements. As far as I know, an independent laboratory has never published a report on it; currently, the situation is the same.

If there was proper supervision, for example by the parliament or the country’s inspection organization, which have the duty of oversight, they would have done their job well and the air quality would have been different, but this is not happening and it seems that the concern for the health of the people or the state of the environment is not being addressed.

Given that it is election season for the parliament, I believe the solution is for the people themselves, especially NGOs and environmental organizations, which number more than 700 institutions, to demand from candidates to have oversight and present a specific plan in this regard. We should see, for example, what ideas a representative who is going to the parliament through the Tehran constituency has for improving air pollution? Of course, this issue should be separate from political discussions and recent events that have been caused by fundamentalists in the parliament and are constantly making noise about air pollution. How come in the previous government, when the number of polluted days was even worse than today, none of these representatives spoke up?! Environmental demands should be pursued in a united and coordinated manner by civil institutions such as organizations. Perhaps in this way, the situation will change. Otherwise, expecting clean air to come automatically is impossible.

People, through organized groups and registered institutions, should demand from their representatives to take the issue of air pollution, health, and specifically the issue of water scarcity seriously, regardless of political disputes. They should have plans in place for it. As long as people do not demand it, we will continue to go around in circles.

You mentioned a large number of NGOs, but how much freedom do these organizations have in our country and can they operate independently?

Apparently, it seems that with the change of government, the NGOs have also become a little more open (I emphasize, a little). However, the point here is that our NGOs are generally not independent; meaning that they are financially dependent on projects that usually come from the government and are, in a way, government agents. This is in direct contradiction with Directive 21. In 1992, during a conference held in Rio de Janeiro under the title “Earth Summit”, a proposed directive was put forward that received serious attention from various angles and perspectives of environmental protection. One section of this directive was related to non-governmental organizations and it was stated that these organizations should try to be independent from the government and secure their own budgets through various means in order to be able to monitor the performance of governments and if any mistakes are made, they can alert and prevent them. However, as long as NGOs continue to receive assistance from the government to advance their projects, their duty to warn, inform,

As a result, in my opinion, if NGOs want to have a significant impact, they must either reduce their reliance on government funding or, in other words, disregard government budget and strive to independently fund their budget and expenses. Otherwise, their work will become somewhat difficult.

If we want to talk about the experience of other countries in dealing with air pollution, which country would you mention as an example compared to Iran and how much do you evaluate their efforts positively in this regard?

It is better to disregard the experience of London, Los Angeles, and other cities in Western countries and instead take a look at Mexico. In the 1990s, Mexico City was in a situation similar to Tehran, but with several detailed programs such as modernizing public transportation and developing public transportation and standardizing fuel, they were able to make it one of the cleanest cities in the world, despite its population of over 21 million people.

Perhaps it would be better to look at the laws and efforts that we have ourselves, instead of focusing on other countries and their experiences. In our country, in the early 1950s, the issue of air pollution in Tehran was raised and since then, plans have been written, both in the previous regime and even after the revolution. However, the problem is that they are not implemented, such as the comprehensive plan to reduce air pollution, which was developed with the help of the Japanese International Cooperation Agency at a huge cost. Another example is the disregard for a law that was passed in 1995 called “Preventing Air Pollution”, which is one of the comprehensive laws in the field of environment. If all its provisions and executive regulations were implemented, the air quality would have been much better than it is today.

Regarding the lack of development in urban transportation, the discussion always arises that the government is not paying its share to the municipality. How true is this issue and what is the solution?

Yes, these are internal disputes, although they are true; as predicted, the government had a budget deficit of 50 trillion tomans this year. This issue is related to the decrease in oil prices, but the main problem should be sought in mismanagement. Currently, ways such as imposing taxes and levying fees are being found to cover this deficit, making the situation even more difficult for owners of personal vehicles. With this, people are more inclined to use public transportation and the obtained budget can be allocated to the development of public transportation. But the government does not do this. The reason is that since it does not have a social base, it does not want to be tough on people; because strictness towards citizens in any field increases dissatisfaction and the government does not have the ability to fight against dissatisfaction. As a result, this issue has become a vicious cycle that cannot be easily solved.

On the other hand, despite the fact that the main cause of air pollution is the government, people also contribute to it because they have no other choice. This means that the government produces non-standard gasoline on one hand and on the other hand, it produces and provides non-standard and polluting vehicles to the public, and people are forced to buy them. Remember the campaign of not buying cars; this campaign was progressing successfully to the point that Mr. Nematzadeh, the Minister of Industry, Mines and Trade, also came out and said that anyone who does not buy a car is a traitor to the country. But as soon as the government offers a 25 million loan, people go and buy cars again. Why? Because their daily struggles do not allow them to prioritize the environment and their health.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us.