Template responses to various questions, shifting responsibility onto other departments, actively seeking reasons for inaction — these are the main working methods of many state bodies when it comes to actual control.
This problem became particularly evident in the work of the Land Resources Management Department (LRMD) of the Akmola Region, which turned the handling of complaints about violations of environmental legislation into a bureaucratic farce. For a month and a half, officials examined three different requests concerning industrial activity in water protection zones, only to issue identical responses and ignore direct legal requirements.
CONTINUATION OF THE STORY
Earlier, the FBRK editorial team had already reported in detail on how the Land Resources Management Department of the Akmola Region spent a month and a half 'studying' three requests about violations of environmental legislation near water bodies in Astana, only to issue identical template responses to completely different problems.
As a reminder, the issue concerned industrial activity in the water protection zones of the Ishim River and the Astana Reservoir, where extraction is carried out in close proximity to the capital's drinking water sources. Instead of conducting actual inspections, the department limited itself to a formal review of documents and forwarded the materials to other agencies.
TEMPLATE RESPONSES TO DIFFERENT PROBLEMS
The department demonstrated a truly creative approach to civil service. For three completely different requests, officials issued nearly identical responses.
The situation regarding the second request about agricultural plots near the reservoir is particularly telling. In the response, the department talks in detail about... subsoil use near the Ishim River! The officials did not even bother to change the text; they simply copied the response to the first request.
The request clearly specified the cadastral numbers of the agricultural plots. The response, however, lists completely different plots for subsoil use.
This creates a fantastical situation: journalists ask about agriculture near the reservoir, and they receive a response about quarries by the river.
CONCESSIONS FOR THE SAKE OF FORMALITY
The situation appears particularly cynical given that the FBRK editorial team initially accommodated the department. At the officials' request, the type of request was changed from a media inquiry to a statement, which extended the review periods and allowed more time for a thorough inspection.
The department deliberately asked for additional time, justifying it by the need for a careful study of the issue. In the end, this time was spent... copying text from one document to another.
SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITY AND LEGAL CONTRADICTIONS
Instead of using its own supervisory powers, the department chose to shift responsibility onto the Yesil Basin Inspectorate. The responses state: "The Department has forwarded the material to the RSU 'Yesil Basin Inspectorate' for inspection activities within its competence".
Such a position contradicts Articles 147-148 of the Land Code, which directly empower the territorial divisions of the Land Resources Management Committee with authority to monitor compliance with land legislation.
Furthermore, according to Article 126 of the Water Code, work in water protection zones must be carried out in coordination with several bodies, including the territorial divisions of the Land Resources Management Department. Consequently, the department not only has the right but is also obliged to check compliance with these requirements.
The department's responses contain glaring contradictions. On the one hand, officials acknowledge that, according to the Subsoil Code, conducting subsoil use operations is prohibited "on the territory of water fund lands" and "within the contours of underground water deposits used for drinking water supply".
On the other hand, they immediately state that all disputed plots have been allocated precisely for subsoil use based on resolutions of the regional akimat. This creates a classic situation: the department knows about the prohibition but sees no violation in its systematic disregard.
IGNORING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
The requests posed extremely specific questions:
- Are the restrictions related to water protection zones taken into account in the land documents?
- Were inspections carried out to check whether the use of the plots matched their designated purpose?
- On what basis were plots allocated in violation of water protection norms?
- What measures are planned to restore the protective zones?
The department ignored all the questions, limiting itself to general musings that "land plots within water protection strips may be granted for temporary use on the condition of compliance with established requirements".
RENUNCIATION OF ITS OWN POWERS
After complaints were filed regarding the unsatisfactory responses, the department issued new responses which turned out to be even more formal. The officials listed all land users in detail, provided legal justifications for their rights, but still did not answer the main question: is environmental legislation being complied with in this process?
The department demonstrated remarkable ingenuity in finding reasons for inaction. Two phrases from the responses are particularly telling: "Assessment of ecosystem damage and penalties for violating environmental norms in water protection zones are not within the department's competence" and "state bodies are prohibited from carrying out functions not assigned to them by law".
This creates a paradoxical situation: the body that is supposed to monitor compliance with land legislation in water protection zones considers this not its business and actively seeks reasons to abdicate its own powers.
A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM OF STATE CONTROL
The story of the LRMD is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a systemic problem in the work of the region's control bodies. As practice shows, similar problems are also characteristic of other capital's agencies.
Earlier, the FBRK editorial team had already encountered similar sabotage from the Department of Ecology and the Sanitary and Epidemiological Control Department of Astana. In those cases, officials demanded that journalists themselves identify the environmental violators, and inspections were called off due to... the company director being out of town.
Identical responses to different questions, shifting responsibility to other departments — all of this demonstrates a systematic approach to evading actual control over compliance with the law.
As a result, potential environmental violations go unnoticed, and citizens receive dismissive replies instead of protection of their right to a favourable environment.
CONCLUSION
The situation in the Land Resources Management Department of the Akmola Region likely requires intervention from higher authorities. Citizens and journalists have the right to quality work from civil servants, not bureaucratic games and formal dismissive replies.
Perhaps it is time to stop sabotaging state control under the pretext of 'incomplete competence' or 'the complexity of the issue'? Checking compliance with environmental legislation is the direct duty of the relevant bodies, not a privilege that must be begged for over months.
As long as officials prefer copy-paste to real work, the situation with environmental violations in the region will only worsen. And the capital's residents will be forced to accept that their sources of drinking water are turning into a zone of uncontrolled industrial activity.