This year Ukraine stands every chance of becoming the first country to sustain sanctions applied in accordance with the Aarhus Convention (in full: the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters), ditto the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.
In December 2011, the Verkhovna Rada passed the bill “On Regulation of Urban Development Activities,” contrary to the objections of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (Minpryrody) of Ukraine and environmentally concerned public. It nullified the environmental assessment procedures.
Why is this so important for Ukraine? Because the said international conventions have to do with two aspects – (a) public access to environment data and (b) environmental impact assessment – without which an adequate national management of the environment is impossible. According to a study entitled “Proper Management of the Environment in the Eastern Partnership (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine),” carried out by the Ukrainian Environmental NGO MAMA-86 (full Ukrainian text on http://www.mama-86.org.ua), Ukraine is third on a list of six countries coping with such environmental management reforms. Restricted public access to environment data, the factual absence of environmental impact assessment, and the so-called administrative reform (that has actually further weakened the Minpryrody position) are among the main obstacles on Ukraine’s road to the leading position in this region of the world.
After Ukraine joined the Aarhus Convention (it envisages public access to such data, including decisions on the construction of facilities posing threat to the environment), bills were passed, supposedly meant to help implement this convention.
This, however, has proved insufficient, so that people in Ukraine are mostly unable to exercise their right and have free access to such data. Olha Melen, an expert with the NGO Ecology-Law-Individual, such regular deviations from the convention will end up with Ukraine suffering the most serious sanction, with its membership rights and privileges suspended. This would be a very big political decision and it would damage Ukraine’s international image, even though it wouldn’t mean any financial sanctions. There are practically no such precedents, so this would make the damage even worse.
The urban development regulation law (ratified in December 2011) remains the biggest problem. Natalia Andrusevych, an expert with the Society and Environment Resources and Analysis Center, says that “the main consequence of this law is the abolition of expert environmental assessment, considering that previously such assessment was mandatory when building a waste disposal facility or highway. Now all such and other construction projects can be carried out assessment-free. Previously, an average of 6,000 such assessments were made every year. It is safe to assume that the number of such assessment-free projects built during the year will have an impact on the environment and man that will show its negative effects with time.”
By nullifying environmental assessment, Ukraine acted counter to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. This may also result in international sanctions (Romania might well take advantage of the situation, being dissatisfied with the Danube-Black-Sea Channel).
