I have been to the delta many times, and every time it's like an adventure to paradise. The nature there -- it's incredible, it's like a fairy tale. There are so many birds, fish, insects, plants -- it's really exciting to go there, you really get an inspiration for your future work in nature protection. It's important not just for Ukraine, but also for the world. It has almost the largest reed beds in the world, and it is one of the world's largest, most beautiful, and least altered wetlands. A lot of migrating birds stay there, breed their families, and have a good time, because there are plenty of fish there. The territory was recognized as a wetland of international importance [under the Ramsar Convention], and as a World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve under the auspices of UNESCO.

Construction of the canal in such a magnificent area would have an adverse effect on the environment. It would cut the territory into two parts, and [if constructed as planned] it would go through the most sensitive and most valuable territory of the reserve. There are a lot of threatened species that have their spawning and breeding grounds nearby, so the noise pollution and water pollution from the canal would have negative effects on the fish, birds, and many other species that are found there.

Three years ago the government decided to dig this canal, and the information was posted in the newspaper. We decided to take this case because the territory was very, very important for Ukraine, and for the international community. Also, it was a very negative precedent to have a very valuable natural area sacrificed to economic interests. We feared that if the government succeeded, it could result in more illegal attacks on protected areas in the future, not only in Ukraine but also all around the world.

This case was the first big case for me -- it was my first court experience, and my first court victory. I owe a lot to my colleagues and to my mentors, who had confidence in me, and who said, "You need to take this case." First I was just coordinating the case, but now I am leading it.

I was a little bit nervous, especially the first time I went to court. Actually, I was more than nervous -- my hands were shaking, my voice was breaking, and it was really scary. And my opponents were quite strong. The government of Ukraine employed a lot of lawyers who came to court all the time, too, sometimes three at a time, and they were quite aggressive.

I was very sympathetic toward nature, toward the Danube Delta. The nature there gave me a strong impetus to work further on this case. Also I liked the friendly style of family life in the delta. I wanted the people there to keep what they had, so I was also representing them in court. Also, the people in my organization who trusted me, who were confident that I would be able to do this -- there was no way I could let them down. So I had to take this seriously, I had to work hard, and I had to win.

The most powerful argument was that the government was breaking many, many legal norms. We were trying to persuade the judges that this territory is worth being preserved for future generations, that they need to keep this territory clear and not allow the shipping canal. The number of international conventions that were violated during canal construction was really large -- more than 10 conventions -- and so we argued that if Ukraine dredges the canal in this area, it would have problems with the international community.

I think the Orange Revolution was very important, almost the turning point in our struggle. The new government seems to be more sympathetic toward the environment, and toward the establishment of the rule of law in the country. They want to keep the good faith in the international community.

The canal project is still alive, and the new president has said that we need to complete the construction. So we want to make sure that the government makes its decisions in a sound way, in a legal way, and involves the public. The decisions need to be environmentally and scientifically sound.