National Environmental Policy of Ukraine (main) - UNDP in Ukraine

Ministry for EnvironmentalProtection of UkraineGlobalEnvironmental FacilityUnited NationsDevelopment ProgrammeNationalEnvironmentalPolicy of Ukraine:assessment and development strategy

National Environmental Policy of Ukraine:Assessment and Development StrategyKyiv - 2007

AuthorsAdvisory Council on document elaborationFrancis O’DonnellVasyl DzhartyResident Coordinator of UN System in Ukraine,UNDP Resident Representative in Ukraine, co-chairMinister for Environmental Protection of Ukraine, co-chairVasyl Shevchuk Minister for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine (1998-2000),Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine (2002-2003), Deputy Directorof Institute on Legislation under Verhovna Rada of Ukraine, Head of UkrainianAssociation of Nature Protection, Co-chair, Head of Editorial GroupGeorgiy BilyavskyBogdan DanylyshynStanislav DovgiyValeriy KukharHead of Department of ecological auditNational Aviation UniversityCorrespondent Member of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,Head of Council on Study of the Productive Resources of Ukraine(under the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine)Correspondent Member of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,Member of the Parliament,Member of the Parliamentary Committee on BudgetAcademician of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,Director of Institute of Bio-Organical Chemistry and Oil-Chemistry , member ofEditorial GroupSergei Kurykin Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine (2001-2002),Head of Green Party of UkraineValeriy KalchenkoYuriy SatalkinYuriy ScherbakYuriy Shelyag-SosonkoVasyl SribnyIhor StarchevskyVasyl TolkachovTetyana TymochkoMember of the Parliament, Chairman of Parliamentary Committee onEnvironmental Policy, Natural Management and Chernobyl CatastropheConsequences EliminationVice-President of International Dnipro FundMinister for Environmental Protection of Ukraine (1991-1992), Ambassador ofUkraine, member of Editorial GroupAcademician of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,Head of Division of GeobotanicsInstitute of botanic (under National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine)Head of Commission on Environmental Protection at the Ukrainian Union ofIndustrialists and Entrepreneurs,General Director of State enterprise “Argentum”Director of Engineering-Technological Institute Biotechnika (under UkrainianAgrarian Academy of Sciences)UNDP Project Manager, secretary of Editorial GroupFirst Deputy Head of “All-Ukrainian Ecological League”

Sergei VolkovAnatoly YatsykMykhailo ZgurovskyUNDP Senior Programme ManagerCorrespondent Member of the Ukrainian Agricultural Academy of Sciences,Director of Ukrainian Scientific-Research Institute of Water Management-Ecological ProblemsAcademician of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,Rector of the National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”Authors of some chapters and sectionsIgor BazilevychAnatoliy BorusevychAndriy DemydenkoHanna Golubovska-OnisimovaMykola KlestovMykhailo KrasnozhonSemen KublanovNataliya LiutaNataliya MalyshevaYuriy MasikevychOleksandr MazurkevychOksana NezhentsovaOlena PashchenkoVolodymyr PatykaAndriy SerdyukLeading Research FellowInvestment Policy DivisionCouncil on Study of the Productive Resources of Ukraine (under the NationalAcademy of Sciences of Ukraine)Director of Interregional Center of Ecological AuditSenior ConsultantUkrainian Center of Environmental and Water ProjectsHead of Public Council at the Ministry for Environmental Protection of Ukraine,Head of NGO “МАМА-86”Director of Scientific Center for Nature Conservation under the Ministry forEnvironmental Protection of UkraineDeputy Director of Ukrainian State Institute on Geological SurveyDeputy Director of “InterService” companyHead of Department at the Ukrainian State Institute on Geological SurveyCorresponding Member of Law Sciences of Ukraine,Head of Division on Environmental Law Institute of State and Law (under theNational Academy of Sciences of Ukraine)Dean of Ecology and Law FacultyChernivtsy State UniversityDeputy Head of Ukrainian Association of Nature ProtectionDeputy General Director of the Center for Sustainable Development ResearchCoordinator of All-Ukrainian Child Union “Ecological Guard”Academician of the Ukrainian Agricultural Academy of Sciences,Director of Institute on Agroecology and Biotechnology under the UkrainianAgricultural Academy of SciencesCorresponding Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine,Director of Institute on Medical Hygiene and Ecology under the Academy ofMedical Sciences of Ukraine

Yuliya ShevchukMykola StetsenkoYuriy TunytsiaOksana VeklychPost-graduate of the Institute on Legislation under Verhovna Rada of UkraineFirst Deputy Head of State Service on Nature Conservation under the Ministry forEnvironmental Protection of UkraineCorresponding Member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,Rector of the National Forestry Engineering UniversityChief Research FellowDivision on Spatial Development and Land RelationshipsCouncil on Study of the Productive Resources of Ukraine (under the NationalAcademy of Sciences of Ukraine)International ExpertsJean-Joseph BellamyInternational consultant on legislationUNDP teamJoanna Kazana-WisniowieckaSergiy GrytsenkoElena PedashenkoDeputy Resident Representative in UkraineCommunications OfficerProject ExpertPublishersShelley JicklingAndriy SlivkaZenon ZawadaEnglish editorEnglish editorEnglish editor“VAITE” CompanyViktor KopyletsVolodymyr PetryninYuliya NurtazinaCoordinator of worksDesignerProof-reader

ContentsINTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................................... 6Chapter 1. Complex strategic evaluation of the national ecological potential......................................... 71.1 Ecosystem potential: integral evaluations................................................................................................................................................................ 71.2 Complex evaluation of similarities between the Ukrainian and European systemsof ecological management and policy............................................................................................................................................................................. 91.3 Actualization of national ecological policy in accordance with sustainable development principles............................................... 111.4 Institutional and functional modernization of the state ecological management system in accordancewith global sustainable development principles ......................................................................................................................................................... 121.5 Potential of international, national, and state programs..................................................................................................................................... 131.6 Potential of regional ecological policy and ecological management............................................................................................................ 141.7 Ecology and health............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 161.8 The Chornobyl catastrophe and ecological problems......................................................................................................................................... 301.9. Harmonization of energy policy and ecological safety....................................................................................................................................... 371.10. Potential for ecological culture................................................................................................................................................................................. 391.11. Development of ecological partnership in approval and realization of strategic decisions.............................................................. 401.12. Informational basis for strategic ecological assessments and management........................................................................................... 41Chapter 2. HARMONIZATOION OF UKRAINIANAND EUROPEAN UNION LEGISLATION......................................................... 442.1. Constitutional and legal guarantees of citizens’ ecological rights.................................................................................................................. 442.2. Review of fundamental European Union documents in the environmental protection sphere......................................................... 48Review of EU policy and legal principles in environmental protection and management........................................................................... 51European Union expansion process.................................................................................................................................................................................. 632.3. Structure and system of Ukraine’s ecological legislation................................................................................................................................... 71Basic legal acts in the field of environmental protection........................................................................................................................................... 72Chapter 3. ECONOMIC MECHANISMS OF NATURE USAGE AND RESTORATION:identification, coordinationand strengthening effectiveness....................................................................... 883.1. Reforming the economic system of nature use and recovery ......................................................................................................................... 883.2. Reforming the licensing-permitting and taxation systems.............................................................................................................................. 913.3. Ecological audit and ecologization of production................................................................................................................................................ 963.4. Insuring ecological responsibility and ecological risks....................................................................................................................................... 983.5. Ecological entrepreneurship: development, support, and encouragement ............................................................................................. 99Chapter 4. National natural resources potential:preservation, recovery, loss reduction and expenses.............................................................................................................. 1014.1. Soil resources...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1014.2. Water resources................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1044.3. Mineral resources.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1084.4. Biodiversity.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1104.5. Preservation fund............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1124.6. Forest fund.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1144.7. Atmosphere........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1164.8. Waste management......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1184.9. Improving the ecological monitoring system........................................................................................................................................................ 123Chapter 5. Development of science and education.................................................................................................... 1265.1. Ecological science of Ukraine for sustainable development............................................................................................................................. 1265.2. Modern innovative scientific and engineering potential of Ukraine............................................................................................................. 129Water industry problems....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1365.3. Education towards sustainable development ....................................................................................................................................................... 143Chapter 6. Non-governmental and ecological civil organizations: ................................................................. 1496.1. Implementing the Aurhus Convention Regulations in Ukraine...................................................................................................................... 149reinforcing partnership, interaction and development.............................................................................................................................................. 1496.2. Role of non-governmental and civil organizations in planning and realizing state policy in the sphere of environmetalprotection.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 154Chapter 7. Ecological initiatives of local societies: state support, encouragementand development.................................................................................................................................................................. 1647.1. Possible directions for local societies’ ecological activities............................................................................................................................... 1647.2. Methods of realization for local societies ................................................................................................................................................................ 1647.3. Ways of introducing local societies’ initiatives....................................................................................................................................................... 1667.4. Implementation of local societies’ initiatives (water management as an example)................................................................................. 1667.5. State support and stimulus for civil organizations .............................................................................................................................................. 168Chapter 8. Ukraine’s international integration IN THE SPHERE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.................... 1708.1. Bilateral Cooperation....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1708.2. Multilateral Cooperation................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1728.3. Implementation of Kyiv Conference decisions ..................................................................................................................................................... 1868.4. Use of international technical assistance and attracting investment............................................................................................................ 187General Strategic Recommendations........................................................................................................................... 190

IntroductionAs Ukraine undergoes the processes of integrating with Europe and acceding to the World TradeOrganization (WTO), the strategic possibility arises to create and realize a balanced sustainabledevelopment policy. WTO membership, European integration, and sustainable developmentare mutually dependent objectives, and interconnected parts of a complete Ukrainian nationaldevelopment agenda.The WTO’s environmental requirements and the instruments for realizing them are expressedthrough regulations regarding the life cycle of aggregate product. The goal is to minimize the negativeecological impact on the environment and public health – at all stages, from raw material acquisitionto waste utilization. This represents the foundation of sustainable development policy, which isoriented toward exchanging unstable production and consumption models in favor of ecologicallyclean ones.Therefore, in declaring its decision for European integration and WTO membership, Ukraine hasto coordinate its national reform agenda with WTO and EU requirements, as well as internationalcommitments to sustainable development in general and ecological commitments in particular(regarding climate change, securing biological diversity, struggling against desertification, changingunsustainable models of production and consumption, improving the ecology and recoveringecosystems, river basins, etc.).Strategic state policy has to be realized trough implementation of national strategy for sustainabledevelopment and through national ecological policy.The purpose of this document is to provide a strategic evaluation of Ukraine’s national environmentalpotential, and present key recommendations for further its development. Strengthening publicawareness is key, as is boosting the competence level of those who participate in making decisionsthat impact society’s life activity and the country’s sustainable development.Another important goal of this document is to create a foundation, from which to strengthen thegovernments administrate environmental protection system, foster the rational use and restoration ofnatural resources and promote environmental safety. This will also help the government establish theenviro-economic conditions for transitioning to a system of ecological management and sustainabledevelopment.The “National Environmental Policy of Ukraine: Assessment and Development Strategy” isa result of collaboration between government authorities, politicians, scientists, experts and NGOs.The coordinators of the separate chapters were: Vasyl Shevchuk (Chapters 1, 3, General strategicrecommendations), Nataliya Malysheva (Chapter 2), Valeriy Kukhar (Chapter 4), Georgiy Belyavskiy(Chapter 5), Oleksandr Mazurkevych and Tetyana Tymochko (Chapter 6), Anatoliy Yatsyk (Chapter7), Yuriy Shcherbak (Chapter 8). Some articles of the document were prepared by: Yuriy Satalkin(1.1-1.6, 3.3-3.5), Valeriy Kukhar (1.8, 1.9, 4.7, 4.8), Andriy Serdyuk (1.7), Oksana Nyezhentseva(1.10, 1.11), Ihor Bazylevych (1.12), Jean Joseph Belami (2.2), Nataliya Malysheva (2.2, 2.3), YuliyaShevchuk (2.1), Oksana Veklych (3.1, 3.2), Volodymyr Patyka (4.1), Anatoliy Yatsyk (4.2, 7.1-7.5),Mykhailo Krasnozhon and Nataliya Lyuta (4.3), Yuriy Shelyagh-Sosonko (4.4), Mykola Stetsenko andMykola Klyestov (4.5), Yuriy Tunytsya (4.6), Semen Kublanov (4.9, 8.3), Georgiy Belyavskiy (5.1-5.3, 8.2), Tetyana Tymochko and Olena Pashchenko (5.3), Oleksandr Mazurkevych and TetyanaTymochko (6.1, 6.2), Serhiy Kurykin, Ghanna Gholubovska-Onisimova, Andriy Demydenko (8.4),Yuriy Masikevych (8.4), Vasyl Tolkachov (8.1-8.3).The general editing of the strategic document was performed by the Coordinating Council’smembers – Vasyl Shevchuk (chair), Valeriy Kukhar, Yuriy Shcherbak, Vasyl Tolkachov (executivesecretary). Lyudmyla Myalkivska is the Ukrainian document’s text editor and the English languageversion was edited by Zenon Zawada.The document was developed within the framework of the UNDP/GEF project “National CapacitySelf-Assessment for Global Environment Management in Ukraine.”

Chapter 1. Complex strategic evaluation of the nationalecological potential1.1 Ecosystem potential: integralevaluationsThe characteristic feature and fundamentalprincipal of sustainable development isan ecosystem-based approach to solvingproblems of all scales and on all levels:global, regional, national, and local.The ecosystemic approach is based onone of the fundamental values of the twentyfirstcentury - a respectful, careful, safe, andnon-consuming approach towards nature.On the basis of such an approach and suchvalues, it is necessary to alter unsustainablemodels of production, consumption and lifeactivity in the interest of current and futuregenerations.The ecosystemic approach as a newphilosophy of life activity in the twentyfirstcentury was approved by the WorldSummit for Sustainable Development(Johannesburg, 2002). The summit specificallydescribed itself as: “States cooperatingon the basis of global partnershipwith the aim of securing, protecting andrecovering the healthy state and integrity ofthe Earth’s ecosystem.”To realize such an approach in Ukraine,a complex program of implementation wasoriented on the national level of decisionmaking,approved at the World Summit forSustainable Development (Johannesburg,2002) and confirmed by Ukraine’s Cabinetof Ministers in 2003.Departing from a traditional “resourceand consumption” development strategyrequires changes in social behavior,development of a new concept for statemanagement and business activity, andtransformations in how the roles andmeanings of ecosystems in the lives ofpeople and of society are understood.The existing state management system,however, is dominated by an expense-basedapproach to exploiting natural resources,the natural environment and its ecosystems.Society has yet to appreciate the intrinsicvalue of the natural realm as a vitalresource in and of itself. Evidence of thisis a lacking national strategy for sustainabledevelopment, integrated evaluations of thenation’s natural potential and a program ofspecific actions strengthening the naturalbasis for human life and society’s life activitywithin the natural environment.Ecological systems and their potentialshould be evaluated not only as a resourcebase for economic growth, but also as “themain natural fund” to secure society’s lifeactivity and the home of all life on Earth,of which maintenance in a proper staterequires constant investment. Therefore, anevaluation of ecosystem potential shouldbe integral: as an economic resourcefor sustainable development and as anecological resource for the life activity ofthe biotic community, and in particular, ofits “sapient” representative - the humanbeing, who does not want to invest theaccumulated results from the use of naturalcapital towards renewing its ecosystems.Any integral evaluation of ecosystempotential (global, regional, national, local)must therefore consider simultaneously,the economic resources that support socialdevelopment, and the ecological resourcesthat maintain ecosystem functioning andrestore the ecosystem as an environmentthat supports life.The system of integral evaluationrequires the development of a nationalscientific-methodological and legislativebasis. So far, there is no such integratedsystem. Although some of its elementshave been applied, they are not widelyimplemented yet. These are cadastres ofnatural resources and ecological monitoring.The sphere of their implementation islimited by the orientation of the economy’sinsurance of resources.An ecological audit has been orientedas an instrument in realizing ecologicalpolicy and management in the ecosystemapproach. A law was adopted in Ukraine,“On the ecological audit”. But still themulti-targeted functions of the ecologicalaudit remain unregulated and that iswhy they have not been realized in the

practices of the state, branch and corporateadministrations.Politically speaking, Ukraine is alreadya party to major international conventions.On a legislative level, it has approvedvarious national and all-state programs.Among them are the National Program forEnvironmental Rehabilitation of the DniproRiver Basin and Improvement of the Qualityof Drinking Water, the All-State Program forEstablishing Ukraine’s National EcologicalNetwork for 2000-2015, the All-StateProgram for Protection and Rehabilitationof the Azov and Black Sea Environment,and the All-State Program for Toxic WasteManagement.Mechanisms for realizing Ukraine’sinternational obligations are developed withexternal support. Implementing the mechanismshowever, has come to a virtual stand-still.This is due to political developments thathave worked against creation of a strongnational environmental management systemthat effectively attracts investment, providesenviro-economic stimulus, and dividesresponsibility among state, society, andbusiness. Ukraine’s ecosystem, which ischaracterized by anthropogenic exhaustion– the result of extensive exploitation anda consumer-oriented approach – is proofan environmental management system isneeded.An imbalance between the exploitationof natural capital, on the one hand, and itsrestoration, on the other, has generatedwide-ranging destructive processes, whichpose a real threat to human health andsocial development.For example, the land fund’s agriculturalcultivation at the beginning of 2005 reached72 percent of the country’s territory, with56 percent under plough. In comparison,ploughed land area is 19 percent in theU.S., 31 percent in Italy and 38 percent inFrance and Germany.The area of the eroded lands isestimated at 49 percent of the land fund’sagricultural area. The area of flooded landsis 13.4 billions hectares (32 percent ofagricultural lands).The total amount of land used for storingwaste materials (spoil heaps, pit refuseheaps, slag holders, different junk, etc.)covers more than 160,000 hectares, or400 tons of waste materials per person.Each year, 35 billion cubic meters of wastematerials are produced in the country.The country’s water basins are in a crisisstate as a result of violations to the waterecosystems regimen, overregulation of riverflows, sewage pollution and violations to theecosystemic support of water sites (waterprotection areas).The forested area of Ukraine is 15.6percent, which is almost three times lessthan that of Western Europe (43.2 percent)and not optimal (20 to 22 percent).Natural landscapes are today in sucha condition that they only partially complywith the criteria that need to be fulfilled ifthey are to be included in the pan-Europeanecological network.In general, the anthropogenic load onthe national ecological system must beconsidered unfavorable, if the question isof restoring that system and reinforcing itsnatural assimilative functions.At the same time, Ukraine’s base ofminerals and raw materials has a significanteconomical potential which can not onlyensure the economy’s future development,but also recover the national potentialfor sustainable development and someecosystem sections as safe environmentsfor human health and society as a whole.In spite of the fact that Ukraine coversless than six percent the area of Europe,it contains approximately 35 percent ofits biological diversity, which is aided byUkraine’s placement at the crossroads ofmany natural ecosystems, migration pathsof fauna and a wide array of flora.In a comparatively small territory,four natural ecosystems have formed:forest, forest-steppe, steppe and seaside.Ukraine’s peculiarity is the presence ofthe steppe ecosystem, which is uniquefor Europe, and Dnipro’s powerful waterecosystem, with its diverse natural

Law of Ukraine, “On protecting the naturalenvironment.” The state’s monopolyon ecological responsibility has led toa weakening in responsibility of thosewho consume natural resources (e.g.economic subjects and landowners, andowners of capital assets). Contradictionsexist between the scale of the changes inownership that have occurred (privatization)and the administrative responsibility forecological damage. This is a determiningfactor that delays the creation of a nationalenvironmental management systemmodeled on European precedents.The process of identifying nationaland European systems of ecologicalmanagement is being restrained by thefollowing factors as well:1. Unreadiness (psychological, professional)of state institutions and authoritiesto approve strategic decisions concerningEuropean ecological integration, and anunwillingness to comprehend it and totake the appropriate measures to evaluateand improve the competence of managingpersonnel (this is precisely the case whena political decision has to be made, butcompetence is lacking to carry it out).2. The lack of an inventory of divergingand non-conforming legal, regulatory,institutional and methodological bases of anational system of ecological managementand policy on the level of inter-branch andinter-sector integration, and distributionof authority and functions between local,regional and central bodies of power.A complex evaluation of the nationalsystem of ecological management’s identityconsists of evaluating its components:state, public, and business (corporate)systems of ecological management; theirtargeted and functional balance, andalso basin management. As much as thenational system of ecological managementhas not been determined legally atpresent, a complex evaluation can be onlyfragmentary.According to current Ukrainian law,the state administration is oriented towardprotecting the environment. In the majorityof EU countries, this is the prerogative oflocal bodies (as far as the central authoritiesgo), the dominant ecological managementconcept is to harmonize interaction betweensociety and nature, restore ecologicalbalance, rehabilitate the environment andprovide ecological security. This means notprotecting nature, but rebuilding it.The basin principle of Ukrainian waterresources management as a sphere ofrealizing the ecosystem approach has alegal basis and has been realized for theDnipro River’s basin, though with certainlimitations. The deterrent factor is theimperfect economic mechanism, orientedmainly towards budget financing.Civil ecological governance is definedby the Law of Ukraine “On Protecting theNatural Environment” as the governanceof civil associations with a range ofcorresponding authorities. The dominatingcivil governance concept should be directedtoward harmonizing cooperation betweensociety and nature, with state and societyhaving joint responsibility. Environmentalprotection should be a priority for societyand local councils.Corporate (business) ecologicalmanagement is not legally determined.The ISO 14000 state standards, entitled“Recommendations for EnvironmentalManagement,” were put into effect, butcomplying with them is not obligatory.Recommendations1. To develop and approve ascientifically grounded methodology ofcomplex evaluation of the balance andidentity of a national system of ecologicalmanagement.2. To develop and introduce anadequate national ecological policywith strategic targets oriented towardssustainable development and Europeanintegration.3. To develop and approve a programof institutional and functional modernizationof a state system of ecological managementbased on European principles and10

specialized for the conditions andpeculiarities of Ukraine’s development.4. To develop and introduce a legalbasis for an economic mechanism offunctioning for the basin system of waterresources management, based on theprinciple, “The polluter and user pay the fullprice,” and self-redemption of recoveringbasin ecosystems.1.3 Actualization of national ecologicalpolicy in accordance with sustainabledevelopment principlesRegarding ecological policy inthe political declaration and plan forimplementing the decisions of the WorldSummit for Sustainable Development(Johannesburg, 2002), the following wasdetermined:• the necessity of long-range perspectiveand wide participation in the developmentof policy, reaching and executing decisionsat all levels;• change in unsustainable models ofproduction and consumption by meansof ecologizing the whole life cycle ofproduction, preservation and rational use ofthe natural resources base of economic andsocial development through the use of theecosystem approach.The Fifth Ministerial Conference“Environment for Europe” (Kiev, 2003)specified what Ukraine had to do politically.Of particular importance were theFramework Convention on the Protectionand Sustainable Development of theCarpathians; the Declaration of Ministers ofUkraine, Russia, and Belarus on EcologicalRehabilitation of the Dnipro Basin; theDeclaration on Education for SustainableDevelopment; the Strategy for EcologicalPartnership and Cooperation AmongCountries of the UNECE Region; and theMinisters Declaration on Ecological Policyfor the First Decade of the 21 st Century.The basic methodology for thedevelopment and realization of nationalecological policy is based on the followingapproaches:• the ecosystemic (biotic) approach, whichguarantees the security and recovery of thenatural environment and its ecosystems;• the integration approach, which shouldensure the process of integrating ecologicaldemands (aspects) into all spheres of lifeactivity and sectional policy;• systemic integrity and interconnection ofdeveloping and realizing ecological policy;• the complex approach, which offers thepossibility of avoiding conflict of interestsduring the preparation and realization ofdecisions, and to ease the processes oftheir approval.Ukrainian state policy for Euro-integrationand accession to the WTO requiresdevelopment and approval of nationalenvironmental policy with a view toward thedecisions made at the World Summit onSustainable Development in Johannesburgand the “Environment for Europe”conference in Kiev. The problem is that theapproved state documents are declarative,rather than forming a conceptual basis fordeveloping a national environmental policy.A sustainable development strategy forUkraine, meant to determine priorities forecological-economic policy, has not beenapproved.The Main Directions for Ukraine’sState Policy in the Field of EnvironmentalProtection, Natural Resource Use andSecuring Ecological Safety, approved bythe Verkhovna Rada in 1998, requiresfurther development. The approvedconcepts do not comply with new ecologicalrequirements and Euro-integration policies,which must be actualized with a view nottoward the state, but toward the nationallevel. In fact, a new national ecologicalpolicy is needed, based on Ukraine’sinternational obligations in the areas ofclimate change, biodiversity preservation,and desertification. A new policy shouldtake into account the WTO’s ecologicalrequirements and mechanisms, as well as11

the decisions of the Johannesburg summitand “Environment for Europe” conference.Recommendations1. To perform a complex ecologicalaudit of the acting legal, instructive andprogramal bases of national ecologicalpolicy with the goal of coordinating themwith European requirements, principles ofsustainable development and the ecologicalrequirements of the WTO.2. To develop and implement theeconomic mechanisms of realizing nationaland state ecological programs according toEuropean standards.1.4 Institutional and functionalmodernization of the state ecologicalmanagement system in accordance withglobal sustainable development principlesThe institutional and functionalEuropean structure has been orientedtowards maximum delegation of authorityto regional and local managing levels.The main function of the central bodies ofadministration is to plan and control therealization and adjustment of nationalecological policy. Accordingly, in preparingand approving strategic decisions, thefollowing function on a central level:• systems of strategic ecological evaluations;• systems of legal and instructive support formechanisms of realizing national ecologicalpolicy:• systems of complex ecological andeconomic calculation;• systems of promotion to integrate the aimsof ecological policy into social and economicpolicies;• coordination of the cooperation of systemsof state, public and business (corporate)management;• international cooperation.The Euro-integration process’ corefunctions include: harmonizing ecological,social, and economic goals for the country’ssustainable development; integratingecological policy; and coordinatingstate, corporate, and local ecologicaladministrative systems based onsustainable development principles.Implementation of system-creatingfunctions and introduction of principles ofsustainable development and Europeanintegration has been delegated to theMinistry of Natural Environmental Protectionof Ukraine (the ecological constituent ofsustainable development), the Ministry ofEconomy (the economic constituent of thesustainable development) and the Ministryof Labor and Social Policy (the socialconstituent).The administrative work of these keyministries has, however, been characterizedby instability, limiting the promotion ofsustainable development and Europeanintegration. For example, the sustainabledevelopment committee within theCabinet of Ministers has been limited to aperipheral role of consulting and advisoryrole, and never became an integratingbody. The national Council for SustainableDevelopment, created in 2003 under theauthority of the President of Ukraine, hasnot yet been convened.The functions of the administrativeinstitutionalinfrastructure of the Ministryof Natural Environmental Protection ofUkraine with its regional (oblast) boardsand specialized departments (for ecologicalcontrol, inspection, nature reserves fund,etc.) are limited by acting legislation and,most of all – by the Law of Ukraine, “Onprotecting the natural environment”, whichis not adapted to European ecologicallegislation and does not correspond withprinciples of sustainable development.The problem of ecological regulationin Ukraine lies in poor practical applicationof laws. That can be explained by theimperfection of legal-administrativemechanisms and regulatory functions ofgovernment bodies.The administrative structure forstate ecological management is heavilycentralized, while functions are duplicated12

at regional and local levels. As civil societyand a market production infrastructureare being formed, state managementresponsibilities should be redistributed onthe national level.Economic stimuli for encouragingcompliance with ecological requirementsare not yet fully developed, providinglimited incentive for polluting enterprisesto make their production technologiesmore environmentally friendly.Furthermore, the economic mechanismsthat regulate environmental and naturalresource protection are limited in theireffectiveness. One major problem withimplementing economic mechanisms inan unstable macroeconomic environmentis price creation. Ignoring price creationmechanisms leads to worsenedenvironmental conditions. As was mentionedabove, contemporary economic stimuli areunable to force polluters to change theirproduction models, because they fail totake market requirements into account. Thisleads to ineffective distribution of funds.Institutional and functional modernizationrequires significant professionalreorientation, including the retrainingof administrative personnel. A complexretraining and competence evaluationsystem for state officials must be created.Recommendations1. During improvements to thestate’s constitutional system, to optimallyredistribute the functions and infrastructureof ecological management.2. To prepare and approve the concept(or law) on a national system of ecologicalmanagement in order to legislatively supportthe institutional and functional modernizationof state ecological management.3. To reform the Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection of Ukraine into theMinistry of Ecological Policy (analogues– the Ministries of Industrial, Agricultural,and Social Policy), reinforcing its authorityin the sphere of strategic planning in thetransition to sustainable development, itspolicy of European integration, ecologicaland economic regulation and coordinationof territorial-administrative and controllingfunctions.1.5 Potential of international, national, andstate programsEcological programs are the meansto implement national ecological policy.Programs work toward specific goals,using specific methods and involvingspecific target projects with differentimplementation mechanisms; the moreadvanced the mechanism, the greater thepotential of such international, national,and all-state ecological programs. Suchpotential was demonstrated through theUkrainian-Canadian joint work in realizingthe international environmental-governanceprogram in Ukraine (Dnipro River basin).Each of the program’s strategic goals wastransformed into concrete actions andprojects, developed with the involvementof project coordinators and the Ukrainian-Canadian Program ManagementCommittee. Each project had its ownfinancing mechanism, depending on itspriority and potential results. Monitoringand reporting were also performed for everyproject. However, the experience gained inimplementing the international Developmentof Environmental Management in Ukraine(Dnipro River Basin) program has not yetbeen applied to other national and all-stateecological programs.The Complex Program of Realization ona National Level of the Decisions Approvedat the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (Johannesburg, 2002) for2003-2015 requires implementation inUkraine. Certain ecological programs arebeing implemented at a minimal level:The National Program for EcologicalRehabilitation of the Dnipro Basin andImprovement of Drinking Water Quality,the All-State Program for Protectionand Restoration of the Azov and BlackSea Environments, the Program forDevelopment of Water Supply and SewerSystems, the State “Forests of Ukraine”Program, and the All-State Program for13

Recreating the National Ecological Networkof Ukraine for 2000-2015.The key challenge in implementingthese programs is the lack of financing. Therequired funds exceed the state budget’sallowance for nature preservation. Often alarge number of initiatives are planned yearsin advance, with little or no considerationgiven to financing. As a result, budgetfinancing is often insufficient.There is limited information about theimplementation of ecological initiatives,or about the outcomes of all the approvednational and all-state programs. Morespecifically, no monitoring is taking place.This restricts the potential of international,national, and state ecological programs.Therefore, it is necessary to revise thepriorities that govern implementationof approved ecological programs andattracting new mechanisms for financing.Recommendation1. To extend the experience ofeffectively using the potential of theInternational Program for EcologicalRecovery of the Dnipro River Basin,having organized training, having adopteda special Cabinet of Ministers of Ukrainedecree, having conducted target seminars,and having published the appropriateinstructions, methodologies, and trainingmanuals.2. To perform a complex ecologicalaudit of all approved and acting national andstate programs to evaluate the effectivenessof employing their potential and to offerrecommendations regarding correcting themechanisms of their realization, relyingon the gained experience of internationalcooperation.3. To activate the execution of theComplex Program of Realizing Decisionson the National Level, adopted at the WorldSummit for Sustainable Development(Johannesburg, 2002) for 2000 - 2015,involving effective mechanisms of monitoring,financing, and coordinating prioritieswith specific aims.4. To renew and approve the Programof Scientific Investigations into theProblems of Sustainable Development inUkraine project that was stipulated by thecomplex program mentioned in the previousparagraph.5. To prepare and approve the Cabinetof Ministers of Ukraine decree on enforcingthe potential of executing international,national, and state ecological programs,renewing the mechanisms of their realizationand orientation on the principle,“The polluter and user pay the full price.”1.6 Potential of regional ecological policyand ecological managementThe global and European principles ofregional ecological policy are based onthe ecosystem approach and contain thefollowing:• development and implementation ofregional strategies, involving targetindicators of ecosystem preservation withthe goal of overcoming modern tendenciestowards degradation;• insurance of sustainable, well-balanceduse of land using ecologically rationalterritorial planning and land resourcemanagement;• creation of complex regional infrastructuresof protection, improvement and recovery ofthe natural environment and its ecosystems(water use, soil use, sanitary-hygienicstructure, system of waste treatment, etc.);• development of clean production,stimulation of ecology-oriented enterprises,availability of ecological information;• development of regional strategies calledto stimulate changes in the irrationalregional structures of consumption, takinginto account local cultural traditions.In the EU’s government decentralizationprocess, the national governments ofmany countries tranferred a wide rangeof authority for natural environmentalprotection to local authorities.Due to the absence of an approvedsustainable development policy, regional14

ecological activity remains unregulated. Thisleads to conflicts between administrativebodies on the central and local authoritylevels (oblast, city), and to gaps inresponsibility.Imbalance often exists between thefunctions and authorities determined bythe Law of Ukraine “On Protecting theNatural Environment” and other ecologicallegislation. Imbalances can also be createdby local level regulations and sub-legalacts.In the concept of state regionalpolicy, aspects of ecological policy havenot been coordinated with aspects ofother policies. As a consequence, theregional ecological management systemis unbalanced. The present system ofstate ecological management is still toocentralized, undemocratic, and in essence,bureaucratic.Therefore, Ukraine has no adequateEuropean regional ecological policy, thoughcertain initiatives in regional policy testify toits significant potential.Disregarding the excessive centralizationand non-democracy of the stateecological governing system, Ukraine hasexamples of initiative, as well as activeregional policies and local administration.These are the Donetsk-Prednipro,Zaporizhia, Kharkiv regions, as well as thecity of Kyiv. They have their own conceptsof sustainable development, which containaspects of effective regional ecologicalpolicy. Unfortunately, because of well-knownpolitical factors (frequent governmentturnover), the potential of local regionalecological policies is not being developed orsupported by the state.For example, it’s worth supportingand spreading the Kyiv initiative tocreate complex systems of ecologicaladministration and an audit of the economicsystems of the city’s life support, basedon the example of the transport systemmodeled on the European regimen EMASin the framework of the Kyiv city program,“Transport Ecology.”We have an analogous initiative inthe city of Nizhyn in the Chernihiv oblastregarding the creation of a complexmunicipal system of managing the treatmentof hard waste materials.In the Kharkiv region, the program“Ecobusiness Khakivschyna” is approvedand implemented, which unites about50 ecological citizens and businessorganizations to develop practical marketmechanisms to interest to small- and middleclassbusinesses in making manufacturingecology-friendly, and involving them inrealizing regional ecological policy.In Zaporizhia, a program was developedof producing organic and mineral fertilizerusing the sediments from the city drainagesystem’s sewage.It is possible to give dozens of moreexamples of regional initiatives of ecologicalpolicy that need to be supported by thegovernment. For that, it is necessaryabove all to know the real scale of regionalinitiatives to evaluate their potential at thenational level.Ukraine is characterized by a largenumber of depressed and ecologicallydegraded territories. Among these areirradiated areas in the Kiev and Kirovogradregions and elsewhere, inundated lands,landslide and flood areas. These challenges,however, have not been prioritized inregional ecological policy. Environmentalrehabilitation and ecosystem reconstructionmust become primary goals for regionalecological policy and administration.Recommendations1. For the period of absence of a legallydefined concept of sustainable developmentfor Ukraine, to work out and implement atemporary governing document for regionalecological policy, relying on Ukraine’s actinglegislation about local authorities, Europeanreferences, and the experience of regions indeveloping and realizing ecological policy.To determine the priorities of resolvingregional ecological-social problems withthe appropriate mechanisms of distributing15

esponsibility and resources in a transition,regulatory document..2. To implement regional (oblast)and local ecological programs of action,according to methodology recommendedby the regional ecological center for thecountries of Central and Eastern Europe(hereinafter referred as CEE).1.7 Ecology and healthPublic health is an important indicatorof its social and economic development. Ifwe forecast the situation in Ukraine fromthis position and evaluate the population’squality of health, we can’t turn our attentionaway from the fact that, along with socioeconomic,hereditary and lifestyle factors,one of the biggest influences is thedenatured environment.In January 2003, the United Nations(hereinafter – UN) once more emphasizedthat strategic ecological evaluation shouldbe the basis for political and legislativeaction, and human health was determinedto be an integral part of this evaluation. Andthis is natural. After all, the main slogan ofthe present times is the urgent necessity tocreate entirely new interrelations betweenhumans and the nature. Suffice to saythat according to the Index of EcologicalStability, the World Economic Forum inDavos (2002) placed Ukraine in 137 th placeout of 142 countries.In 1998, unprecedented events tookplace in Ukraine when at the time, scientificresearchand governmental institutions,within the framework of the EuropeanCharter for the Natural Environment andHuman Health, and in cooperation with nongovernmentalorganizations of an ecologicalorientation, created the National Plan ofAction for Environmental Hygiene for 2000-2005. For the first time, the country obtaineda complex, serious and well-considereddocument with a fundamental analyticalsurvey, consisting of an outline of the mainprinciples, mechanisms, and priorities withininterrelations between the sectors of healthcare, environmental protection, governmentinstitutions and civic society.The National Plan of Action forEnvironmental Hygiene characterized theecological situation in Ukraine and thestate of human health as those in crisis,determined the main reasons, as well aspriorities to overcome them. The term ofthe plan’s activeness has finished, though ithas been fulfilled at about 20 percent. Themain goal of the plan of action – to improvethe health of society by means of alleviatingdisease and worsened self-confidencerelated to environmental factors – has notbeen reached yet.The country is seeing a declinein demographic indicators and in thepopulation’s health, partly due to high levelsof ecological contamination (chemical,physical, and biological).Medical-demographic crisisIn 1991, Ukraine saw its death rateexceed its birth rate for the first time. In theyears that followed, the rate of populationdecline accelerated. The medical-demographiccrisis peaked in 1995-6. Therewas a sharp drop in the population’sstandard of living at that time. The nation’shealth, the birth rate, and the death ratewere all affected by people’s inability toadjust to market conditions, by social andpsychological stress, and by the influenceof negative environmental factors.Ukraine’s population level iscontinuously falling: in the last ten years,it fell by 4.1 million people. As before, themortality of men of able-bodied age remainshigh, specifically four times higher thanthe mortality of women of the same age.The difference in life expectancy betweenmen and women has reached 10 years,which exceeds biological discrepanciesand reflects the overmortality of men. Theaverage life expectancy for men is nowbetween eight and nine years less thanin developed countries, and it’s betweenfour and six years less for women. Thetotal fertility rate of women (the number ofchildren born by a woman during her life) isless than one, while rates of 2.2 to 2.4 areneeded for the population’s regeneration.16

Based on mortality rates, Ukraineis among the top ten countries in theworld community, and it places 60 th in lifeexpectancy. The main reason for deaths inour population are multifactored diseases(cardiovascular, oncological, endocrine,mental, etc), which arise as a result ofa combination of heredity, social, andenvironmental factors. The prevalenceof morbidity among the disadvantagedpopulation exceeds by 45.7 percent theanalogous indicator among the wealthy.A most troubling phenomenon is therising number of illnesses among Ukrainian’schildren. Kids are vulnerable throughout theentire period of their development – fromfertilization to adolescence.Harmony of ecological conditions andhuman healthDespite these alarming statistics,establishing a system for evaluating healthand environmental quality, and the relationbetween the two, is progressing slowly. Mostresearch on the environment’s influence onhuman health is based on demographicindicators pertaining to illness and disability.These indicators, however, are notcompletely relevant if the goal is to definehealth as “complete physical, spiritual, andsocial well-being” (WHO), as they fail toanalyze the most important issues – thesocioeconomic component of a country’sdevelopment, and the complicated synergyof the “environment-health” system.The modern environment is a systemthat is on the edge of stability. In the eventof a slight change in its parameters, such asystem will become unsustainable. That iswhy the identification of threats and dangersto human health, their measurement,evaluation and characterization opensup real perspectives to evaluate theenvironment’s negative influences on humanhealth. The obtained information shouldbe suitable for explaining managementdecisions, as well as for informing thepopulation.People have a right to health and acreative life in harmony with nature whilejustly satisfying the ecological and economicneeds of current and future generations (Riode Janeiro, 1992; Johannesburg, 2002).The existing situation requires an activeintervention as opposed to the passiveobservation of the population’s health andenvironmental conditions. The state andregional authorities must see social andeconomic initiatives which could improvethe nation’s health and boost Ukrainians’quality of life and life expectancy. The riskof not taking such steps could lead to futureenvironmental and public health conditions.Impact of particular environmental factorson public healthThe environment’s main problematicfactor, which caused the internationalcommunity to cooperate for nature-rescuingaction, was pollution of the atmosphericair. Exactly because of the impossibility ofresolving issues regartding the transbordermovement of air pollution over longdistances, and for creating conditions toimplement common prophylactic measuresand technological innovations within theframework of two multilateral processes,“Environment for Europe,” and “Environmentand Health,” Ukraine in 1999 announced inLondon the National Plan for EnvironmentalHygiene, which contained a chapter onatmospheric air hygiene with a list of shortandlong-term measures to lessen thepolluted environment’s influence upon thepopulation’s health.Special attention to this problem hasbeen created by the permanent influenceof atmospheric pollution. The immenseindustrial potential, built up on thecomparatively small territory of Ukraine,became the main source of harmfulemissions into the air environment.Ukraine’s level of chronic illness is risingdue in part to the levels of air pollution incities with metallurgical plants. The resultsof which cause the organisms’ protectivesystems to be degraded, causing newillnesses. The result is a closed circle.Presently, regardless of many years ofindustrial decline, emissions volumes have17

eached between 6 and 8 million tons peryear. In many industrial cities, the level ofair basin pollution remains high, and begangrowing within the last two years.Residents in cities with high levelsof air pollution show a 20-40% higherincurrence of: heart and vascular disease,respiratory difficulties, damage to thenerve system, malignant formations, andtuberculosis. Sadly, children suffer the mostas their bodies are more sensitive to harshenvironmental factors, which can lead tochronic, non-specific impacts, and allergenicor mutagenic effects. Statistics show thatimmune system deficits are increasing,causing increased levels of infectiousdiseases.Biological atmospheric contaminationcreates an additional load on ecosystems.The idea of removing potentially allergenicplants from human environments has beenraised, since allergies occupy leadingpositions on lists of widespread ailments.The most common allergies are pollengenerated(hay fever), which represents thebody’s reaction to plant pollen, appearing inspring, summer, and fall. A bill, “On banninguse in florally-sufficient population centersplants which may cause allergic reactions,”is currently being prepared, which envisagesstep-by-step (over 10 years) changes inthe dangers regarding allergy elements inflorally-sufficient population centers.In Ukraine, there is a stably formedrange of chemical mutagen andcarcinogenic pollution phenomena of theatmospheric, water and soil varieties. Thesesignificantly exceed established hygienicnorms. They are mostly phenomena thatrelate to the priority carcinogens- multi-ringbenzene hydrocarbons and their indicators:benzopiren, nitrosamine, and heavy metals.The main causes of environmentalpollution with carcinogens are:• significant amounts of carcinogenicemissions into the air, wastewater drainage,and accumulation of cancer-risk wastematerials;• appearance of big geochemical areas oftechnogenic origin as the result of manyyears of industrial giants operating onlimited territories;• increasing level of car usage. Accordingto international evaluations, the contributionof transportation vehicles towards ruiningthe planet’s ozone layer is between 12 and13 percent. As a result, ultraviolet radiationis increasing, leading to an increase inoncological diseases;• penetration of carcinogens into differentspheres of human life activity: air,water, food, chemistry of everyday use,construction materials, etc.The International Agency for Researchon Cancer ties 85% of human tumor casesto environmental impact and lifestyle, andclassifies the majority of industrial objects(found in various Ukrainian industries) asposing cancer risks to humans. At the sametime, evaluation of the real conditions ofUkraine’s environmental pollution problem,and its impact on human health, remainsobviously insufficient. Acccording tointernational data however, an estimatedchemical substances threat, besidesquantitative characteristics, should be basedon comparable qualitative criteria, whichare notable for a wide range of biologicalinfluences: toxicity, cumulativeness,delayed action, and specific effects. Almost18 million chemical substances have beensynthesized in the world. Approximately5,000 of them are applied. Only 400 to 500are hygienically approved. The majority ofchemical substances were never examinedfor their mutagenic and carcinogenic effect.According to data from Ukraine’sNational Cancer Registry, the number ofcancer patients is constantly rising. Untilrecently, oncological pathology appearedin every sixth woman and every fourthman. Today the situation is worse: everyfifth woman and every third or fourth man.Studies show that the cumulative risk ofdeveloping cancer is now 28% among menand 18% among women. Judging from thedynamic changes in oncological illnesses18

and their frequency, we can see that, asa biological system, the human body isquite sensitive in reacting to negativeenvironmental factors.It is obvious, therefore, that preventivemeasures against cancer should becomea priority in order to reduce the number ofpeople affected by the disease. The mainmechanisms for this should be steps toprotect the environment and encouragea healthy lifestyle. WHO experts haveconcluded that prevention of contact withcarcinogenic elements, and excluding themfrom industrial production and in everydaylife, can drastically (by up to 70%) decreasethe number of cancer patients.To fulfill the tasks aimed at decreasingthe harmful influence of atmospheric airpollution on the population’s health, it’spossible to use two primary approaches.The first one is traditional, which has beenbased on governing sources of pollutionemissions. The aim of this approach is tosecure adherence to national requirementsconcerning the quality of atmospheric air.This approach is linked with implementingmonitoring according to the decree of theCabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (Decree#343, dated March 9, 1999). On the basisof a six-year experience with the problem, itis possible to ascertain:• the resource base of laboratories,responsible for monitoring, is insufficient;• the list of polluters which has beenregistered is very limited and instead ofgrowing, it becomes shorter;• automized stations of atmospheric airpollution control are not implemented;• a shortage exists of software andinformational instruments to collect andanalyze information;• despite the widespread European programto decrease the content of dust particlesby 2.5, 5 and 10 mcm in the atmosphericair (dust particles are the most harmfulair pollution and seriously increase thepopulation’s mortality caused by lungcancer), currently in Ukraine there are nohand impactors and automatized stationsfor studying thinly dispersed dust particles.The second approach is not at variancewith the first one. It is based on thepopulation’s health management, it is moreproductive, it requires a thorough study ofspace-time distributions of concentrationsof harmful additives and a quantitativeevaluation of air’s influence upon health.In the WHO report, “The State ofWorld Health” (2002), it was mentionedthat “the healthcare of a population startswith evaluating risks to health, informingabout the risks and developing methodsto lessen them, the characteristics of riskproducingfactors and the government’srole in protecting people from those risks.”New for Ukraine is the implementation ofa methodology of evaluating risks to thepopulation’s health, oriented, above all,towards giving priority to nature-protectingactivity in the sphere of protecting theatmospheric air.The international community widelyuses this methodology to characterizethe atmospheric air quality, determiningdamage to health and evaluating theeconomic effectiveness of measures aimedat lessening waste.Involving new scientific data on riskevaluation will facilitate the fulfillment ofinternational agreements and conventions –the Convention on Transborder Air PollutionAcross Long Distances, the Kyoto Protocol,the Stockholm and Orchus Conventions,and other international documents.Recommendations1. To revise provisional documentsabout air quality, considering the demandsof European Union regulations.2. To make an inventory of emissionsources.3. To improve state and productioncontrol on adherence to technologicalregulations in all enterprises.4. To evaluate the risk of carcinogenesisto the population caused by emissions ofharmful substances into the atmosphere.19

Drinking waterThe problem with the drinking waterquality remains to be a relevant challengefor Ukraine. In terms of water supply,Ukraine ranks near the bottom comparedwith other European countries, howeverin terms of water consumption as apart of gross domestic product Ukraineexceeds European countries by severaltimes. Adding to this challenge is thefact that Ukraine’s water resources areused, and therefore contain a higher levelconcentration of pollution in comparison toother countries.Almost all surface sources areapproaching class III pollution levels, aswater-purifying equipment and technologyremain unchanged. As a result, a significantpart of the Ukrainian population receivesdrinking water that is of a lower quality thanwhat is considered healthy.This problem is alarming for tworeasons. First, water is essential for humanlife. Second, consumption of low-qualitywater leads to infectious and non-infectiousdiseases, many of which have seriousimplications.According to WHO information, everyyear approximately 25 percent of the worldpopulation is subject to the risk of gettingsick from poor-quality drinking water, andalmost a tenth of the planet’s inhabitantssuffer from its usage.The problem becomes significantbecause contemporary technologiesnecessitate the wide use of chlorine,creating many chlororganic compounds indrinking water. These have a cumulativecarcinogenic character.In some regions of the country, indicatorshave suggested that subsurface artesianwaters are degrading. Such waters areused for centralized water supply withoutpurification.Supplying drinking water to villagepopulations, who use mostly groundwateras their drinking water, is a dilemma.Groundwater quality studies show allaroundbacterial and chemical pollution, withthe presence of nitrates, pesticides, mineralfertilizers, and so on. In 2005, around30% of drinking water samples taken fromdecentralized water supply sources failedto meet norms for sanitary and chemicalindicators, and around 23% failed when itcame to bacteriological indicators.Only one fifth of villages have plan-builtdrinking water supply systems. Almost halfof these, because of overuse and age,function with stoppages and cannot providepopulations with water of the requiredquality. In 14 Ukrainian oblasts, for naturaland technogenic reasons, 1228 inhabitedareas lack guaranteed water supplysources.The situation has been aggravated bythe large amount of drain water producedin Ukraine as a result of urbanization. Forexample, in Ukraine, 19.6 cubic metres ofdrain water account for one hectare; in theRussian Federation, 6.6 cubic metres; andin Belarus, 3.9 cubic metres.Heavy usage of minerals and organicfertilizers in both agricultural facilities and theprivate sector has lead to groundwater beingpolluted with nitrates. It is worth pointing outthat there are practically no effective methodsfor excluding nitrates from water that comesfrom a decentralized water supply.Microbiological pollution indicators forUkrainian water objects, and the presenceamong the population of infectious diseasesassociated with water, allows us to concludethat the water-supply condition in the country isunsatisfactory.The inconsistency in the quality ofdrinking water using normative measurementrequirements is one reason for the spreadof various diseases, both infectious (cholera,enteric typhus, viral hepatitis A, dysentery,salmonella poisoning, rotavirus, etc) andnon-infectious (digestive system illnesses,cardiovascular disorders, endocrine systemillnesses, etc).The particular role of water in theinfectious morbidity of humans occurs whenpollution of water supply sources reaches20

such high levels that old technologiescannot purify the water from pathogenicagents. Besides, it becomes more andmore difficult to draw a line between thepathogenic and non-pathogenic bacteriaand viruses. Generally known germ cultures,which dominate in treatment plants, becomesustainable with chlorine, ozone, and otherdisinfectants in the water-supply network.The quality of drinking water is highlyinfluenced by: the utterly unsatisfactorystate of plumbing which has deterioratedbetween 40 to 70 percent in some regions;and scheduled water supply and frequentdisconnections of water supply sites fromthe power supply system, which leads tointense pollution of treated drinking waterby infectious pathogens of a bacterial andviral nature.High levels of drinking watermineralization, observed in Ukraine’ssouthern region, increases the frequency ofgastrointestinal tract diseases, in particulargastritis, gallstone and urinary-stonediseases.Thanks to the advent of pre-packedwater, alternative water supply has beenwidespread. Often, the lack of moderntechnology in preparing such water andproper standard documentation leads towater on the market that has an even lowerquality than what is in the water supplysystem.Thus, according to data of the Instituteof Hygiene and Medical Ecology of theAcademy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine,32 percent of the samples of tested prebottledwater from various regions ofUkraine did not correspond qualitativelyto the hygienic norms of microbiologicalindices.The government should do everythingpossible to realize the “State Programfor Drinking Water of Ukraine for 2006-2020,” and implement cooperation andcoordination in work between ministries andother central and local authorities in thisquestion of vital importance.Recommendations:To improve drinking water quality, themain priorities should be:1. protecting and improving watersupply sources;2. renovating water supply and drainsystems;3. improving and implementing newtechnologies for supplied water and drainwater purification;4. improving control over drinking waterquality;5. adjusting legal bills and methodologydocumentation to EU requirements.Soil pollutionUkraine’s soil is polluted by chemicalsubstances because of rule violationsregarding fertilization; and storing mineraland organic fertilizing substances, pesticidesand air precipitation of various xenobiotics,which are the constituents of industrial andtransport atmospheric emissions.As a result of the Chornobyl disaster,more than 8.4 billion hectares of soil,including 3.5 billion hectares of ploughedlands, were polluted with radionuclides.About 38 percent of lands have beenslightly degraded, 46 percent moderately,15 percent seriously and one percent waspolluted to the highest degree.Breakdown of drainage systems, thelack of drain networks in many populatedareas, accumulation of rainwater and itssludge because of inefficient rainwaterdrainage systems and farm and privatelivestock waste causes soil’s biologicalpollution, according to bacteriological andhelminthological indicators that are catalystsof infectious and parasitic diseases.Various xenobiotics which reach thesoil, and to the human body by naturalmeans afterwards, may absorb doses andlevels of people’s adaptation-compensatoryreserves independently of their chemicaland biological characteristics, negativelyinfluencing health and causing variousdiseases (salts of heavy metals increase the21

isk of macroelementosis, hepatitis, cardio-,nephro-, and encephalopathy, carcinogenicdiseases, etc.; nitrates have a carcinogeniceffect; drain water and sludge become thesource of infectious and parasitic diseases).Environmental pollution after theChornobyl disaster influences human healthnot only directly, but obliquely as well, if theecological balance of nature is changed.Microorganisms, being the primarydestructors of various compounds, respondto biosphere pollution above all. Theirinteraction with radionuclides is multifariousand can lead to pauperization of biocenosis,stimulation of biota development, andgenetic mutations and elimination.The participation of microorganisms intransporting and translocating radionuclidesfrom soil to plants isn’t excluded. Pathogensof anthropogenic and zoonotic infectionsfound in the soil may become activated.Different waste materials are one ofthe most influential soil polluters from anecological and medical point of view. Theproblem of treating industrial, hard commonand agricultural waste materials is linked toprotecting the environment from its pollutionwith chemical and biological components,which those materials contain, as well asprotecting the population’s health that iswithin their area of influence.Hard waste materials are a seriousecological problem which affect city dwellersmost of all. Ecological and sanitary-hygienicconsequences of burying waste materialscan be revealed not in a short time, but afteryears or even dozens of years, with pollutedunderground waters and soil as a result.Nonetheless, this influence is not any lessserious than air pollution.The Law of Ukraine, “On wastematerials,” is ineffective, since the properinfrastructure and financing to deal withwaste materials has not been secured. Theenergy after burning part of hard commonwaste materials is “thrown to air,” whereasmany countries use it for other industrialenterprises, or classify the waste andprocess it.Hard waste materials contain heavymetals, pesticides, nitrates, multiple harmfulchemical agents (benzol, dichloroethylen,etc.), lots of stulae of infectious diseases(dysentery, tetanus, leptospirosis, etc.)and parasitic diseases (ascaridiasis,trichocephalosis, etc.).Chemical and biological characteristicsof agricultural waste materials and themost dangerous of them – livestockwaste, which contains a significant amountof organic substances – is evidenceof their bacteriological contamination,presence of pathogenic microorganisms(staphylococcus, salmonella) andgeohelminth eggs.The above-mentioned toxic ingredientsand also the agents of different infectiousand parasitic diseases are really dangerousbecause of their negative influence to thehuman population in the areas of wastematerial accumulation, especially taking intoaccount the long-lasting entry of dozensof components into the environment, thelow level of processing technologies andthe unification of waste in contemporaryconditions. The biggest threat appears inthe regions of big- and medium- size cities,especially those with populations of lessthan 100,000 people, where the majorityof dumps are in unsatisfactory sanitaryhygienicstate.Ukraine’s current situation regardingthe accumulation of waste materials isvery disturbing since, despite productiondecreases, it is not being improved. Theareas of storing hard, common wastematerials often do not satisfy sanitaryhygienicrequirements. The majority (80percent) goes to surface dumps thataren’t adjusted garbage areas, therebypolluting the environment. The situation iscomplicated with the fact that every seconddump of hard common waste materialsaccepts II-I classes of industrial waste,which contains incalculable numbers oftoxic substances.22

Ukraine has more than 8,000 variousinstitutions and organizations whoseactivity is associated with producingradioactive waste materials. About 5,000of them are industrial enterprises andmedical and scientific institutions, whichuse radioactive materials and ionizingradiation sources. Collecting, transporting,processing, conditioning and storing wastematerials is performed by the UkrainianState Association “Radon,” which consistsof six special industrial complexes, five ofwhich have areas of storing radioactivewaste materials. Currently, the technicalequipment of Radon’s interregional specialindustrial complexes (which were builtbetween 1965 and 1970 with 30-year termsof use) and deactivating stations don’tsatisfy modern requirements for radiationsafety. Still unresolved are the problems oftransferring and storing at Radon’s specialcomplex ionizing radiation sources withexpired terms of use on behalf of bankruptor defunct enterprises, as well as thetransfer of highly active ionizing radiationsources used in research institutions.Several cases of importing wastematerials and dangerous chemicalsubstances to Ukraine from other countrieshave been reported. A striking exampleis the problem involving chemical wastematerials (“Premix”), which entered theZakarpattia region from Hungary. Thesituation produced ecological and medicalthreats to the area’s population, wherethe above-mentioned wastes were kept.Now the proper measures are being takento remove and utilize those wastes, anddetoxify the territory where they had beenkept.Recommendations:To decrease the risk to human healthin waste materials treatment, the mainpriorities should be:1. improving legislation to implementstate control and supervision of industrialand common waste materials;2. implementing a system to treat wastematerials (collection, sorting and repacking,accumulation, transportation, identification,inventory, utilization and removal);3. processing industrial and commonwaste materials and developing secondaryuses of resources;4. developing and implementing amethod of evaluating and protecting thepopulation from risks to human healthcaused by the accumulation of wastes andpesticides.Food productsNutrition is one of the dirigible factorsthat most significantly affect the population’shealth and ensure a high quality of life.Adequate rationing, quality and varietyof food and its availability is the basis forprophylaxis of alimentary and alimentarycauseddiseases and insurance of thepopulation’s longevity.According to WHO experts, a person’shealth is 50% dependent on socio-economicconditions and lifestyle, the most importantcomponent being food. In the majority ofEuropean countries, as well as in Japan,the USA, and Canada, the question ofwhat sort of food the population consumesis reviewed at state level, making it underthe government’s continuous attention.This has lead to those countries managingto decrease illnesses and deaths fromcardiovascular and other sicknesses by 30-40%, and prevented tooth decay in almost90% of the population. The types andquantity of food consumed has impactedthese figures by up to 40%.After signing the World Declaration andPlan of Action in the Nutrition Field (Rome,1992), the governments of participatingcountries, including Ukraine, obligedthemselves to eliminate, or significantlyshorten, heavy starvation and widespreadpartial starvation caused by a lack of certainnutrients; insufficient nutrition, especiallyamong children, women and the elderly;infectious and non-infectious illness relatedto the safety of food products; inadequateiodine, vitamin A and other importantmicroelements, particularly iron; and social23

and other obstacles to optimal breastfeeding.Among the above-mentioned targets,only one is being fulfilled in Ukraine:salt iodization is under implementationaccording to UNICEF requirements.The importance of a rational diet forUkraine’s population may be illustrated withthe following materials. The energy valueof one-fifth of the Ukrainian population’srationing is less than 2,100 kilocalories,which is considered by the WHO as belowpoverty level. According to State StatisticsCommittee data (2003), compared to 2000,consumption of biologically valuable foodsof animal origin (meat and meat produce,milk and dairy produce, fish and eggs)has sharply decreased (10 to 15 percent).Consumption of fruits and vegetables hasalso decreased.Unbalanced nutrition leads to deficiencyof animal proteins, vitamins (especiallyantioxidants A, E, and C) and macro- andmicroelements (iodine, iron, calcium,fluorine and selenium). Such phenomenonbecame a widespread, permanentlyacting negative influence that endangersthe nation’s physical and mental health,leading to the development and sharpincrease of chronic non-infectious diseasesin the population (of the cardio-vascularsystem, gastro-intestinal tract, as wellas metabolic and oncological diseases)that bear an epidemiological character.Socially conditioned infectious diseasesare spreading, such as tuberculosis, whichis also stimulated by insufficient proteinnutrition.The monotonous fat and carbohydratediet among the population’s majority causesadiposity, which affects 30 percent ofwomen, 15 percent of men and 10 percentof children. Increases in body weight speedsup the development of atherosclerosisand causes hypertension, diabetes typeII and oncological diseases. The socialconsequences of this phenomenon are veryserious – a loss of ability to work and earlydisability.One problem associated with the nation’sgenofund should be underlined in particular:deficiencies of iodine, selenium, andother microelements must be eliminated.According to the WHO, deficiencies ofthese microelements can lead to seriousillnesses, including grave neurological onesassociated with intellectual capabilities.In significant portions of Ukraine– portions that account for 15 millionpeople - food rations lack vitally importantmicroelements. As a result of theChornobyl disaster, some of these areasare contaminated with radionuclide.Consequently, around 3.5 million peoplein the country, 800,000 of whom are kidsunder the age of 14, suffer from metabolicdamage and problems with their endocrinesystem. Reproductive health is worsening,making it hard to maintain the populationlevel, potentially lowering work andintellectual potential.In its time, the Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine (Decree #1418, dated Sept. 262002) adopted the State Program of IodineDeficiency Prophylaxis of the Populationfor 2002-2005. Today, certain successes inthe prophylaxis of this pathology have beenachieved. At the same time, use of nonorganiciodine only (iodized salt, water, andcertain food) can’t ensure its high efficiency.That is why scientists from differentcountries search for substances that containorganic compounds of iodine and othermicroelements to reinforce prophylaxismeasures to eliminate iodine deficiency.Ukraine’s scientists should participate in thisas well.There is currently an acute problem withfood-product quality and safety, and withraw food materials. Consumption of lowqualityfood products (which can containantibiotics, hormones, and pesticides) candamage health, and increase the number ofinfants born with congenital defects. There isstill the concern of biological security, whichis associated with the use of geneticallymodified organisms in food production. Awell balanced diet of non-contaminated foodis important in helping prevent oncological24

illnesses, with an impact of up to 35-50%,according to the WHO.Disturbing is the insufficient trainingof doctors regarding balanced nutritionrequirements of the population’s differentage and professional groups, newachievements in dietetics and improvementsto food rationing using biologically activeadditives and special food products.Relations with international organizationshave been initiated – FAO, WHO, UNICEF,Commission Codex Alimetanrius andothers – concerning the development offood standards. This creates an additionalobstacle for Ukraine on its way to the EUand WTO.A separate matter arises with the issue ofcreating a system of biosafety. It requires:1. developing a system of markinggenetically modified products which areimported;2. a system of control and monitoringits circulation;3. developing an appropriate resourcebase to control and monitor the circulationof genetically modified products (a sufficientnumber of trained specialists and properlyequipped laboratories);4. declaring legal a methodology ofdetermining the influence of environmentalrisks on human health, as well asscientifically based criteria determining therisks of using genetically modified products;5. developing a mechanism of informingabout genetically modified products(according to the Orchus Convention);6. spreading educational activityconcerning the possible medical consequencesof genetically modified organisms.Recommendations:1. To improve the legislative basis.2. To implement control in the qualityand safety of raw food and food products,which contain biotechnological constituents,especially those prepared using geneticallymodified organisms.253. To increase attention towards foodproducts for children.4. To switch to a system of guaranteedquality of food production.5. To organize the population’s sanitaryeducation on the prophylaxis of foodpoisoning and the negative influence of theenvironment’s polluted compounds.Ionizing radiationTwenty years have passed since theday of the Chernobyl nuclear power plantcatastrophe. Since its first days, scientistsand medical experts joined to solve itsmedical-ecological problems. A lot hasbeen done. But now new approachesaimed at minimizing the disaster’s medicalconsequences should be realized:• normalizing life and activating victims’work activity;• directing special attention to the health ofvictimized children and youth;• mastering the “lessons of Chernobyl.”For the residents of polluted territories,“the disaster goes on” because of prolongedradiation. But transition mechanismsranging from protecting the population incase of a radiation disaster to protecting oracting in conditions of prolonged radiation,as well as determining the criteria for “anend to the disaster,” still are not scientificallyand legislatively defined. It’s necessaryto create them as additions to the rules ofradiation safety.The problem of long-lasting (prolongated)irradiation resulting from thetechnological remains of higher-containingnatural and manmade radionuclides(uranium production, minerals industry,etc.), or the residue from prior disasters,is very acute. Just within the city limits ofDniprodzerzhynsk in an area occupying270 hectares, nine sites of technologicalremains of uranium production are situatedwith a total mass of more than 42 billiontons and total radiation level not less than3.6x1015 Bq. In comparison, after theChernobyl disaster, radiocesium of thesame activeness had declined on Ukraine’sterritory. These sources of prolonged

adiation are not at all regulated by theappropriate legislative acts.Another considerable radioactive polluterof the environment is radon, a natural gasand decay product of uranium that createsthe highest doses of radiation – 4.5 mSvper year (about 65 percent of the averagecumulative dose received by Ukraine’spopulation.) For reference: the averageradiation dose is between five and tentimes less now than during the Chernobyldisaster.The problem of radon is typical forcountries with moderate climates. Accordingto analysis performed by internationalinstitutions, radon causes up to 45 percentof total lung cancer mortality. That is whyin almost all countries of Europe, as wellas the U.S., Canada and the RussianFederation, appropriate measures wereimplemented in recent years to solve theproblem.About 20 percent of houses in Ukraine(mainly one-story buildings) do not conformto the requirements of sanitary legislationconcerning this factor. Between 8,000 and10,000 possible cases of lungs cancer peryear are caused by the presence of radonin the indoor air of Ukrainian houses. Thenation’s direct losses resulting from thenonparticipation of dead people in GDPis estimated at 400 million hryvna peryear. Moreover, as a result of ineffectiveprophylaxis and the low level of diagnostics,lung cancer is diagnosed at the third orfourth stage. Its treatment costs the stateand patients up to 800 million hryvna peryear.Of equal importance is the problem ofprotecting the population’s health after theChernobyl disaster. Radiation doses in thesettlements of the evacuated areas are nowequal to the doses from other sources of“non-disaster” origin. According to data ofdosimetric passportization taken from thosewho suffered in 1,705 population centers(out of 2,200), doses of radiation are lessthan 1mSv per year. According to domesticand international norms, it is allowable tolive with such doses without limitations.26But the population’s increased morbidity inthese territories plagued with illnesses thatcan’t directly be related to radiation testifiesto the disaster’s many factors in negativelyinfluencing human health. This includesthe sense of fear for one’s own health andthe health of relatives (psychogenic factor),the worsening of the family’s welfare, theincreasing endemicity of territories, etc. Inworld practice, there is no experience ofminimizing the disaster’s consequencesfrom the above-mentioned factors. That iswhy special investigations are necessary.One thing is obvious: improving the family’swelfare is a priority in the problem ofprotecting its members’ health.On Sept. 5, 2005, members of theChernobyl Forum in Vienna reviewed theU.N. report, “Chernobyl: The Real Size ofthe Disaster,” which included the expertevaluations of more than 100 scientists.The Forum’s chair, Dr. Burton Bennett,stressed that the governments of the threemost affected countries (Ukraine, Russiaand Belarus) had understood that they“need to find a clear way to move forwardand progress has to be based on a rationalconsensus concerning ecological, medicaland economic consequences, and on somethoroughly developed recommendations andsupport from the international community.”The most serious problem in healthprotection as caused by the disaster isthe ruinous psychological influence in theabsence of exact information, which resultsin negative self-appraisal of health, certaintyin a shortened life span, apathy and a lackof readiness to live healthy and productivelifestyles.Recommendations:In light of the new data, to review andalleviate the existing “zoning” of territories,above all the districts of “strict control.”1. To review state programs forrehabilitation and social benefits with thegoal of improving their use and giving helpto those who truly need it.2. To improve the economy of theradiation-polluted regions.

3. To implement a long-term monitoringof cesium and strontium radionuclideswith the goal of constantly keeping thepopulation informed, and to decrease fearsfor their own health and the health of theirrelatives.4. It is necessary to prepare andapprove a state program to decrease thepopulation’s radon irradiation in privatelife, at work places and, above all, amongchildren in infant schools and generaleducational institutions.5. To ensure informing the populationof radiation pollution in territories and localfood products, as well as cooking methodsthat decrease radionuclide absorption bythe organism, especially in forest-grownproducts – the ethnic, nutritional componentof those territories’ population.6. To improve medical first aid and tointensify the popularization of a healthylifestyle.Non-ionizing radiationIntensive development of economic,informational, defense and other kinds ofhuman activity has led to the appearance ofa new dangerous factor in the environment– electromagnetic pollution. Its mainsources are radio, television, radio-locatingstations and power lines of high and extrahigh voltage. Since 1994, a great numberof radio stations of mobile, satellite,paging and trunking communication (morethan 50,000) appeared in Ukraine. Eachyear, their number increases by 7,500.All of them significantly increase thegeneral electromagnetic pollution of theenvironment, which is one of the mostserious kinds of pollution, together withchemical and radioactive. This problem nowdisturbs many countries of the world.They believe that every ten years,the level of “electromagnetic pollution”of the environment, especially in bigcities, increases by 10 to 15 times. Mobilecommunication appliances are the mostwidespread sources of electromagneticirradiation in populated areas.The negative effect of this factor onhuman health increases every year.The investigations of scientists ofdifferent countries of the world say thatelectromagnetic radiation negativelyinfluences the nervous, cardiovascular,endocrine and immune systems andfacilitates the appearance of a numberof non-specific diseases, including braincancer, breast cancer in women, andleukemia among children. The WHOincluded the problem of environmentalelectromagnetic pollution in its list ofmankind’s priority problems.The main priorities of actions to decreasethe risk to the population’s health from nonionizingradiation are:• registering the main sources of nonionizingradiation in Ukraine’s settlementsand determining sanitary-protective andlimited construction areas;• determining the population’s real exposureto non-ionizing radiation;• improving legal and methodological documentation.Acoustic pollutionMore than 60 percent of Ukraine’spopulation lives in areas of acousticdiscomfort. An incomplete legal basis andthe lack of economic levers to regulateallowable levels of noise lead to an increasein acoustic pollution in populated areas. Theacting standards are not legally, socially andeconomically defined, and not coordinatedwith world legislation.Today, a tendency exists towardsincreasing areas of acoustic discomfortwithin populated areas as well. Reasonsfor uncontrolled acoustic pollution in citiesand villages are an incomplete legal basis,lack of coordination in domestic and foreignmethodologies in evaluating influencesthat protect the population from high levelsof noise and the lack of economic leversto regulate allowable levels of noise inpopulated areas.The influence of acoustic energy on aperson can result in:27

• damaging the hearing function, with partialor complete loss;• impairing the ability to produce and receivesounds of speech;• irritability, anxiety, sleep disturbance andinattention while performing habitual work;• changes in inherent physiological reactionsto stress signals;• influencing psychological and somatichealth;• influencing work ability and productivecapacity.Loud sound is an unbearable irritator atnight, affecting a person’s sleep and restafter the working day, and leading to theresult that tiredness becomes chronic. Thisstimulates the development of wide-rangingillnesses, particularly hyptertension-relateddiseases. An increasing use of sedativesamong those living in uncomfortableacoustic conditions has been reported.Recommendations:1. To improve hygienic norms,evaluations and calculations of acousticlevels for different sources of noise.2. To develop acting and forwardlookingmaps of acoustic pollution in cities.3. To decrease acoustic pressure uponthe population and transportation workers.4. To decrease losses caused byworsening capacity for work and increasingmorbidity in conditions of acoustic pollution.5. To develop and implement economicmethods of acoustic pressure regulation.Indoor living environmentWHO specialists and a number ofEuropean countries, as well as the US,consider the indoor home environmentas the main source of risk factors on thepopulation’s health. People spend between80 and 86 percent of their time awayfrom work in their homes. It is proven thatthe atmosphere of an enclosed space isbetween two and ten times more pollutedthan that of populated areas. It containsmore than 400 chemical substances,aerosols, bacteria, fungus, dust ticks,etc., which increase the morbidity of thelung cancer (benzapyrene, formaldehyde,nitric oxides, radon), allergic diseasessuch as asthma (dust, fungus, dust ticks),myocardial infarction (compounds oftobacco, carbon monoxide) and diseases ofthe blood (benzol, toluene, xylol).Modern engineering decisions of energy,heating, hot and cold water supply, drainwater removal, waste materials utilizationand elevator service have shifted thebalance in the living environment to physical(noise, vibration, electric and magneticfields, insulation, illumination, ionizing andnon-ionizing radiation, radon), chemicaland biological influences as risk factorsto human health. The above-mentionedharmful influences act complexly andnegatively influence the population’s mostsensitive age categories during longerperiods than in natural conditions.Microclimate conditions can complicatecardiovascular and metabolic diseases.Recommendations:1. To improve hygienic and designnorms, as well as construction andreconstruction regulations of the housingstock and living conditions.2. To adopt legal acts andmethodologies of evaluating the indoor stateof houses according to EU requirements.New approaches to ecology and healthThere is a known correlation betweengenetic elements, ecological elements,lifestyle, and the health care system (20%,20%, 50%, and 10% respectively) when itcomes to impacting health. However, thiscorrelation does not apply in regions thathave a significant anthropogenic load orthat are considered ecological disasterzones. In such affected areas, the healthimpact of malign environmental factors canbe much larger, and the correlation shouldbe determined on an individual basis.28

It is necessary to consider thatepidemiological investigations in the field ofenvironmental hygiene are highly expensiveand such projects are mainly performedby several countries in cooperation, oftenunder the WHO’s aegis.In the last 30 years, methodologies ofrisk evaluation have been used to determinethe degree of influence of environmentalfactors. This kind of analysis is mostsuitable in management decisions, since itmakes it possible to:• compare the risks of different etiology anddetermine the most important among them;• quantitatively characterize the future andreal damage to the population’s health;• determine the priority of existing threats;• develop an effective strategy and tactics toregulate risks.It is necessary to recognize thatimplementing risk evaluation methodologyin the practice of making managementdecisions is held back by, aside from thetypical conservatism of authorities andtheir advisors, the lack of appropriate legaldocumentation in Ukraine. Also rare aresystematized computer bases of toxicometrydata and dose-effect dependence necessaryto determine risk.In contemporary Ukraine, whereapproximately 30 million people live inconditions of continuous and significantatmospheric pollution, evaluating anthropogenicelement risk impact and thepotential public health implications isof primary importance. In the majorityof developed countries, they use thelatest interdisciplinary knowledge,societal information, and risk probabilityassessments for public health as it isimpacted by pollution. They conclude thatthe constant presence in the environment ofrisk factor substances potentially harmful tohuman health always creates some degreeof real threat. If the factors (the sources) ofrisk are a qualitative measure of danger,then the risk to health characterizes thethreat quantitatively.Data received within the last severaldecades about the influence of xenobioticson the human body immune system starteda new direction in medicine – immunetoxicology. Its development is directlyinterdependent with solving the questionof immune toxic compounds dosage,which on the one hand, is important forhygienically evaluating the quality of theenvironment, and on the other hand, forevaluating risk, forecasting and preventingthe influence of environmental factors onthe population’s health. This is the basisof primary prophylaxis of diseases ofallergic, auto-immune and infectious origin,as well as carcinogenic diseases, whichare preconditioned by immune systemsuppression.Thus, the scientific basis for the mainprinciples in determining the risk in complexenvironmental factors has become one ofthe leading trends in primary and secondaryprophylaxis of immune-intermediarypathology.Use of risk evaluating methodologyoffers the possibility of making effectivegoverning decisions in improving thepopulation’s health, along with explainingthe priorities of ecological policy on theterritorial and local levels and developinga mechanism and strategy of action whichgive preference to regulating those sourcesand risk factors which are most harmfulto health. A background is created forcalculating the economic effectivenessof developed measures of prophylaxis;analysis of strategy and mechanisms ofimplementing various regulation measuresand forecasting the state of health; medicaland ecological insurance and a medicalecologicalaudit of enterprises. Withoutresolving the above- mentioned issues,joining the WTO becomes problematic forUkraine.Of great importance is the problem ofcreating in Ukraine an informational systemconcerning the natural environment andhealth, developed on the basis of the WHOrecommendedmodel DPSEEA (Drivingforces – Pleasure – State – Exposure –Effect – Action). Choosing several indicators29

and implementing such a system in Ukrainewould:• implement a monitoring carrying outa national plan of action regardingenvironmental hygiene and other relatedprograms;• improve the quality of management inenvironmental hygiene and determinepriorities;• ensure a correct comparison of thesituation in Ukraine with that of otherEuropean countries;• create a base for scientific research;• ease citizen access to information aboutthe environment and health, fulfilling therequirements of the Arhus convention.RecommendationsTo improve the medical-ecologicalsituation in Ukraine, it is necessary toimprove the methodology of developingstrategy and tactics in this regard based on:• understanding the necessity of interbranchapproaches;• multilevel and transparent determination ofpriorities;• determining the real threat to humanhealth from environmental factors on thebasis of risk analysis;• using economic evaluations in the sphereof managing health risks;• monitoring the completion of plans forenvironmental hygiene using the DPSEEAsystem of indicators.Among the priority issues of harmonizingenvironmental quality and the Ukrainianpopulation’s state of health, the mostgeneral matters should be singled out:• creation of an ecosocial market economy,which would ensure the balance of itseconomic, ecological and social (includinghealth protection) constituents;• development of effective mechanisms ofpolicy implementation within the system“Environment – Health of the Nation”. It isnecessary to revise acting laws that holdback or place obstacles before success30in this realm, and adapt them to EUrequirements and international standards;• reinforcement of coordinating theefforts of state bodies, non-governmental(social) organizations and local governingauthorities while resolving problems ofecology and health;• creation of integrated, effectiveinformational systems, which provide just,timely and relevant information to makedecisions – social-hygienic monitoring.Social-hygienic monitoring is a stateinformational-analytical system of longtermsupervision of the environment andpopulation’s health in order to discovercause-effect relations, forecast changesin the environment and health, evaluatehealth risks, determine urgent and longtermmeasures aimed at improving theenvironment, improve the quality of lifeand preserve the population’s health.The positive effect of implementing thesemonitoring systems is observed in EUnations;• creation of a state register of chemical,biological and physical factors which willform the population’s ecologically dependentpathology via air, drinking water and food;• involvement of the nation’s population andsocial institutions in solving environmentaland health problems and actively creating anew ecological conscience among Ukrainiancitizens.1.8 The Chornobyl catastrophe andecological problemsAs a result of the release of radioactivematerials from the damaged fourth blockof the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant onApril 26, 1986, over 53.5 thousand squarekilometers of Ukrainian territory werecontaminated.Radioactive waste materials of theevacuated areaThe Law of Ukraine, “On the legalstatus of the territory which was pollutedby radiation as a result of the Chernobyl

disaster,” the “evacuated area” is definedas the territory from which the populationwas evacuated, and which is considered aradiation-dangerous area. As stipulated bylegislation on the evacuated area’s territoryand the area of imperative (obligatory)evacuation, special activity is beingimplemented aimed at monitoring radiationlevels and liquidating non-sanctionedstorage of waste materials, isolationand grounding of radioactive waste, deactivationof materials and exploitation ofradioactive remains, etc.The major radionuclide that determinecontamination are cesium-137, strontium-90, and alpha-radioactive transuranicelements, gross deposits of which accountfor 720·10 15 Bq of activity. Cesium-137currently accounts for over 90% of the sumof all radionuclide that originated from thedisaster, and thus for 90% of the externalirradiation suffered by personnel in theAlienation Zone and by the population livingin the radioactively polluted territory.The majority of radioactive elements areconcentrated in the so-called “sarcophagus”object. These elements make up close to200 tons of irradiated and unused nuclearfuel, mixed with other materials in variousforms. The general activity of these longlivingradionuclide amounts to approximately700x10 15 Bq. The sarcophagus has beenperforming its protective work for 15years, however, its future stability cannotbe guaranteed. It urgently needs to betransformed, with international help, into anecologically safe facility.The activity of radioactive wastematerials, collected in grounding andtemporary storage areas created in 1986-1987 during de-activation, is equal to13x10 15 Bq.The Exclusion Zone contains ahuge amount of radionuclide, but at thesame time it acts as a buffer preventingradionuclide from traveling beyond its limits.Higher radionuclide levels will continue to bedetected in vegetable and animal products,preventing the Zone from being used foragriculture. Certain examples of flora andfauna in the Zone (such as mushrooms, wild31mammals, and fish that live in still waters)tend to absorb radionuclide up to the pointof exhibiting the same levels of radioactivewaste.Close to 90% of radionuclide that areexported beyond the Exclusion Zoneare carried by water. Particular attention,therefore, should be paid to protectingwater sources outside the ExclusionZone. An additional source of irradiationof air particles surrounding the AlienationZone is the Tran boundary transportationof radionuclide, particularly during fires.When the wind is blowing in a certain waypollutants are carried into Ukrainian territoryfrom the Exclusion Zone’s Belarusiansection. Long-term monitoring shows thatthe Alienation Zone’s airspace is incrediblydynamic, with a wide range of deviation(more than four times) within the containedradionuclide level, depending on specificweather conditions.The main enterprise dealing withradioactive waste and deactivization inthe Exclusion Zone is the special stateenterprise “Kompleks” which finds trenchesand ledges containing radioactive wastesin places where they have been temporarilylocated. It determines their placementranges, then studies and takes inventory ofthe radioactive wastes.To ensure safe and effectivemanagement technologies for Chornobylderivedradioactive wastes can bedeveloped and implemented, the Vektorcomplex - a whole complex for deactivating,transporting, processing, and burying waste- is being created. Launching this complexwill provide a means for reliably isolatingaround 500,000 cubic meters of radioactivewaste. The Vektor program will, in itssecond stage, also include a unified centerfor processing and burying radioactivewaste from the Exclusion Zone (taken fromindustries; scientific, medical, and otherinstitutions; and Ukrainian nuclear powerplants). According to preliminary analysis,in total around 2500 cubic meters of hardradioactive waste, including highly active

material can be streamed to the center forprocessing and burial.The main tasks for dealing withradioactive waste in the Chornobyl zoneare described in the Complex Program forDisposing of Radioactive Wastes, approvedby Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers onDecember 25, 2002, # 2015. Unfortunately,this program lacks national program status,making it just a complex plan, with certainelements being fulfilled in accordance withthe wishes of some ministries and bureaus.Budgets for fulfilling such tasks aredetermined by the participants themselves.As a result of such incomplete financing,a number of planned tasks have not beencarried through. Compounding this issueis the fact that the program’s scientificcomponent still lacks a required budget.Territories that experiencedradioactive pollutionThe conditions within the radioactivecontaminated territories have improved overthe years since the Chornobyl breakdown.This is a result of natural processes, and ofactions that were taken towards preventingradionuclide from spreading beyond theZone. The crisis impact on agriculturalproduction was minimized; deactivatingprocedures were carried out; radiation levelsof people living in contaminated areas werelowered.A whole range of initiatives meant toeliminate the Chornobyl catastrophe’sconsequences was initiated. They were notcarried through to their full completion.The most recent national program whichwas carried out from 1996-2000, lackedclearly defined priorities and the outcomewas limited in terms of its budget. Theresult was that some necessary initiativeswere not fully effective or complete. A newnational program for minimizing the impactof the Chornobyl catastrophe for 2002-2005, was approved in 2006 for extensionuntil 2010.The bulk of the internal irradiationdosage comes from cesium-137. Strontium-90 has significant radiological importance32only in the territory adjoining the ExclusionZone (the northern part of Kiev oblastand the western part of Chernihiv oblast).Around 500 inhabited places have indicatorsthat exceed state sanitary hygienic normswhen it comes to cesium-137 in cow’s milk.These places are characterized by farmsthat make hey from fields that radiologicalindicators say should be off-limits. Pollutionlevels in food products that contain thelargest doses of additional irradiation (milk,the meat of large ungulates, and geese),exceed state sanitary hygiene norms bytwo to three times, and even higher in rarecases.The main constituent of internalirradiation doses is cesium-137. Stronzium-90 has significant radiological importanceonly on the territory linked to the evacuationarea (the northern part of the Kyiv and thewestern part of the Chernihiv regions). Inabout 500 residential sites, indicators ofsanitary-hygienic norms of cesium-137content were exceeded in cows’ milk fromthose farms that are unacceptable territoriesfor use as hayfields and pastures, accordingto radiological data. The maximum levels offood pollution, which form the biggest doseof extra irradiation (milk, meat of cattle andgeese), exceed state sanitary-hygienicnorms by two or three times, and sometimeeven more.The most dangerous (or critical)territories in terms of radiological indicatorsare forests, meadows, and pasturesin which the coefficient of radionuclidetransition from the soil into vegetation issignificantly higher in comparison to thosefor plowed soils.Evaluation of the different anti-radiationapproaches shows that the most effective ofthem are: liming of soils (stored radioactivecesium-137 decreases here, as do storedheavy metals like lead and cadmium);adding higher levels of mineral fertilizer;alkalizing and over-alkalizing meadows andpastures; and performing deep re-plowingof soils where the humus layer allows it.Programs for industrial activity shouldinclude monitoring contamination levels interritories or products with anti-radiation

initiatives carried out on the outcomes ofthese monitoring reports.The results of the dosimeter certification,performed in 1996-2001, showed thatwith the help of anti-radiation measuresand a natural recovery process, the list ofsettlements treated as radiation-pollutedareas may be significantly shortened. In1,350 residential sites where 1.6 millionpeople live, among them 390,000 children,the overall average effective dose ofpeople’s irradiation does not exceed thecriteria of considering them an area ofintensive radio-ecological control – 0.5mSv per year. The main direction in thepopulation’s radiation protection, those livingon radiation-polluted territory, is terminatingthe production and consumption of pollutedfoods that significantly exceed statesanitary-hygienic norms. In this regard, it isnecessary to develop and add to nationallegislation changes forbidding the grantingto citizens hayfields and pastures with highcoefficients of cesium-137 transfer to grass,which cannot be meliorated because theterritories are waterlogged.The results of the analysis testify thatprivate farm production contains higheramounts of cesium-137 than that producedby agricultural enterprises. That is whyto decrease the collective dose of thepopulation’s irradiation, it is necessary totake anti-radiation measures in privatefarms.On radiation-polluted territories, it isnecessary to keep up radiation monitoring,which provides for the dosimetry certificationof settlements and control of radioactivepollution levels of food, forest products,herbs, etc. Dosimetry monitoring consistsof taking samples for their radio-chemicaland spectral analysis, measuring thecontent of radionuclides in the human body,determining the irradiation doses of thosewho live on radiation-polluted territories,analyzing the distribution of radionuclides tocalculate the doses of external irradiation,control measuring, etc.One of the most important tasks towardminimizing the Chornobyl catastrophe’sconsequences is reviving radioactivelycontaminated territories and returning themto normal conditions, as well as providingpopulations with employment. Citizensmust have the opportunity to realize theirown economic potential. This should bean informed decision based on completeexamination of the radiation levels andcharacteristics of each local ecosystem, andthe character of the population’s economicactivity.There is a need for further scientificstudy and research into the challengesfacing Chornobyl as recent researchprograms are declining.According to recent data, levels ofradioactive air contamination in the groundlayers of the atmosphere are lower thanthey were before the disaster. Cesium-137and strontium-90 levels in the waters of theDnipro cascade are significantly lower thanaccepted levels, according to the Norms ofRadioactive Security of Ukraine 97. Thisis why specific attention should be paidto the Polissia territories, with their peatmarsh and podzolic soils, which show highacidity and a deficit of microelements. Thiszone is characterized by a high coefficientof radionuclide transition from soil intovegetation. These territories demandspecific soil improvement programs tostop radionuclide transition from the soilinto agricultural products, and furthertransmission to those who live in the area.The status of each polluted territoryshould be reviewed and assigned to aspecific category. Since the Chornobylcatastrophe occurred, the radiation situationhas significantly improved in the majorityof territories, due to natural processes andradionuclide breakdown. Relatively cleanterritories have appeared even withinthe Exclusion Zone. Recommendationson reconsidering territories’ status everythree years using expert conclusions wereproposed in the population protectionconcept, but the Verkhovna Rada turnedthem down. A change is status for certaininhabited areas would create opportunitiesfor economic activity that is currentlybanned by law, thus, attracting development33

money. The state should focus its attentionand support on solving Polissia’s currentproblems. Unfortunately, the issue ofchanging a territories’ status, therefore,changing the expenditure on developingChornobyl, is highly politicized. Thispoliticization significantly slows down theprocess of getting the required decisionsapproved.Radioactive waste managementManagement of radioactive waste,including sources of ionizing radiation, is atimely challenge for Ukraine. Its timelinessis due to the existence of a nuclear energysector that has recently been taking aleading place in the country’s energyproduction of the uranium-mining industry,along with the use of ionizing radiationsources in medicine and various industrialspheres.As a nuclear energy state, but one thathas to cope with the problems of Chornobyland the Exclusion Zone, Ukraine needs along-term policy for managing radioactivewaste. Currently there is no such policy. Afuture site for long-term storage or burialof radioactive waste must be determined.This long term policy must be createdon a scientific or technical basis. But thestrategy and corresponding programsof its realization will simply remain “inwritten form” if a fund for radioactive wastematerials treatment will be not created.All users of radioactive materials andionizing irradiation sources should becomecontributors to such a fund. Forming thefund and its contributions will offer thepossibility to finance scientific research andinvestigative works, as well as direct activityregarding the treatment of the radioactivewaste products. Such funds function inmany countries which use nuclear energy.The most reasonable place for thenational depository of radioactive waste(and toxic substances which may not be deactivated)is the evacuation area. But thisdecision should be based on a thoroughanalysis of geological parameters andgrounding technologies.If a Fund for Radioactive WasteManagement is not created, this34strategy and its relevant programs forimplementation will remain on paper. Allusers of radioactive elements and sourcesof ionizing radiation must sponsor such afund. Establishing and stocking such a fundwill make it possible to consistently financeboth scientific and research studies, alongwith basic radioactive waste management.Many countries using nuclear energy havesuch funds.Radioactive waste management is basedon a pre-existing system, and on legislationthat approximates global principles. Thesystem was undoubtedly influenced byseveral things: a more advanced cultureof radioactive waste management; afoundation for which was created duringSoviet era; a sense of urgency after theChornobyl catastrophe; and the necessityof reporting to the international communityabout the national management project.Based on volume, nuclear poweris the leading producer of radioactivewaste materials, producing them from itstechnological cycle. Wastes include usednuclear fuel and materials from the uraniumrecovery industry. The biggest amount ofthe nuclear power industry’s radioactivewaste materials was produced during theChernobyl disaster, now situated within the30-kilometer zone.Uranium-mining industry wasteMining and processing uranium orescreates large volumes of waste, suchas mining dumps, tailing crashed ores,colliery water, and dumps. All are sourcesof radioactive pollution and are potentiallyhazardous in emergency situations. Olddeposits that are no longer being exploitedpose the largest security risk.Radionuclide (uranium, lead, andothers) pollution of subterranean watershas been detected on the territory of formerpolygons of underground leaching, eventhough the halo of pollution has a smalldynamic. Tail deposits from the formerindustrial association Pre-Dnipro ChemicalPlant contain 36 million tons of radioactivematerial - uranium ore processing wastes.The tail deposits all fail to comply with

contemporary sanitary requirements. Theway they are physically protected doesnot comply with the Law of Ukraine “OnPhysical Protection of Nuclear Units.”Due to a lack of funding monitoring andmaintenance of tailing dumps is inadequate.Only in January 2005 did a state programbegin implementation, despite beingapproved by the Cabinet of Ministers onNovember 26, 2003.Nuclear power engineering waste productsNuclear energy waste undergoespreliminary processing and is then heldin storage units located on the propertyof nuclear power stations. The maindisadvantage of this set-up is the absenceof a full radioactive waste processingcycle through which waste products canbe received and deposited in long-termstorage facilities. There are plans to equipall Ukrainian nuclear power plants withthe required equipment, but these planshave not been realized due to a lack offinancing. Nuclear power stations’ storagecontainers are being filled up before theirtime, meaning that there will be a need fornew radioactive waste storage capacitywithin three or four years. It is obvious thatUkrainian nuclear power plants do not paysufficient attention to reducing radioactivewaste volumes and using special equipmentto achieve that goal.Considering the similarity of all Ukrainiannuclear power plants’ (with the exclusionof Chornobyl), it would be optimal to havea single waste management strategy andinfrastructure.The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power planthas put into use a “dry” storage facility forspent nuclear fuel. There are plans to builda similar facility at Chornobyl, and it is clearthat all Ukrainian nuclear power plants musthave similar facilities. This will lower thestorage hazards and the save the moneycurrently spent on sending waste to Russianenterprises.Operation of the Chernobyl nuclearpower plant is subject to discontinue. Earlierdeveloped and approved documents onthe matter need to be regularly checked35and revised, which is linked to insufficientfinancing of the necessary measures.Reactors of the first three blocks stillcontain nuclear fuel because of thedelayed new depository of used nuclearfuel construction (SVYaP-2). First, the thirdblock needs to be discharged, hence it isworth emptying before the start of realizingthe new Shelter project at the fourth block’sconstruction. This forces maintenance ofthe safety systems serviceability and almostall the reactor compartment equipment,which offers no possibility to relieve somepersonnel, redirect them to cease operationand decrease corresponding budgetexpenditures. For just the third block, whichmight be deactivated if emptied of nuclearfuel, systems servicing cost 1.6 millionhryvnia in 2004.The development and launch of theIntegrated Program for Radioactive WasteManagement for the Stage of StoppingExploitation of the Chornobyl NuclearPower Plant represents a step forward. Theprogram interconnects relevant Chornobylradioactive waste management programs,the sarcophagus, and projects for creatinginfrastructure, stopping exploitation,and converting the sarcophagus into anecologically safe system.Decisions about the future of theChornobyl cooling reservoir, the bottomdeposits of which contain a significantamount of the radionuclide released duringthe 1986 breakdown, are not being taken.This problem demands attention and ascientific and technical analysis.Judging from the example of Chornobyl,it can generally be said that Ukraine is forthe first time acquiring experience in takingnuclear energy plants out of use. But anumber of technical and organizationalproblems are arising that must be solvedslowly and out of sequence. Changes in thestatus and subordination of the Chornobylplant that took effect over the last five yearshave complicated matters further.

Inconsistencies in the process ofbuilding the sarcophagus may occasionallybe seen on the government level, eventhough an internationally-financed plan ofaction has been approved. This worriesthe Shelter Chornobyl Fund’s countrymembers, and may lead to interruptionsof planned initiatives. On the Ukrainianside, significantly reinforcing control overthe quality of documentation preparation,coordination of action, and so on, is crucial.Management of radioactive wastes fromother sectorsRadioactive wastes from ionizingradiation sources used in various fields(industry, medicine, science, and so on)are processed and buried at the StateUnit Radon special industrial complexes.To solve problems associated with spentand highly active radionuclide sources ofionizing radiation, Ukraine has approvedthe development of a state target programfor secure burial of such waste.Currently, none of the special industrialcomplexes have processing facilities thatcan minimize the waste volumes thatneed to be stored or buried. Analysis ofthe technological instructions developedfor respecification of the special industrialcomplexes shows that they lack separatestorage for burnt or pressed wastes.There exists a clear insufficiency of mobilecementing facilities.One of the main measures of increasingradiation safety levels and ensuring storageof ionizing irradiation sources in Ukraine isthe creation of a state system of registration,stock-taking and control – the State Registerof Ionizing Irradiation Sources. At present,the legal and governing basis for theRegister to function has been developed. In2004, a research-industrial operation of theRegister’s whole system was performed.Recommendations1. To achieve success in fulfilling thenew national program of minimizing theresults of the Chernobyl disaster for 2006-2010.362. To finance and concentrate attentionon the program to decrease the pollutionlevel of agricultural products of the inhabitedterritories of the Polissya region.3. To resume implementation to thefullest extent of designated countermeasuresin the agricultural complex onradionuclide-polluted territories and toredirect enterprises to produce agriculturalproducts of technical use.4. To develop scientific-practical andtargeted theoretical investigations linkedto the problems created by the Chernobylaccident. To increase the monitoringefficiency of ecosystems and dynamics ofnatural processes on polluted territories.To implement measures to increase barrierfunctions in the alienated ecosystem zoneand adjacent territories.5. To achieve success in revising thestatus of settlements, proceeding from thereal radiation situation and irradiation dosesreceived by the population according to theestablished norms in Ukraine.6. To revise programs of puttingChernobyl out of operation and to ensuretheir functioning to the fullest extent.7. Since the Chernobyl plant fromtime to time is passed from “one ownerto the other”, which creates conditionsfor irresponsibility, it is necessary onceand for all to determine its subordination,financing system and relations to differentorganizations.8. To speed up Development of theNational Program of Radioactive WasteMaterials Treatment for 2007-2012,which should include construction of newnuclear fuel depositories, equipment toprocess liquid and hard waste materialsand production of proper packaging(containers).9. To complete the creation of astate targeted program ensuring safegrounding of intensive ionizing irradiation.To implement a State Register of IonizingIrradiation Sources.

10. To organize preparatory work anddevelop a National Strategy of RadioactiveWaste Materials Treatment project.11. To create radioactive waste materialstreatment fund.12. To succeed in achieving full financingof work aimed at launching the “Vector”enterprise and its further development,which should become the first step increating a National Radioactive and ToxicWaste Materials Depository.13. To approve decisions regardingthe potential use of the alienation area tohouse the National Radioactive and ToxicWaste Materials Depository. To approve awell-founded decision at the highest levelto initiate the necessary scientific-researchand investigative work and to ensure itsfinancing and performance control.14. The presence of tailing depositoriesof uranium recovery very much disturbs thepopulation and societies. It is necessary toensure financing of the program’s targetsin the full amount, which is foreseen by theplans. Above all, a thorough monitoringof the natural environment and the tailingdepository area should be initiated with fullaccess for communities to information aboutthe state of sites.1.9. Harmonization of energy policy andecological safetyUkraine’s energy sector, along withmining and metallurgy, is a main sourceof air pollution. Lately, around half ofUkrainian electricity has been producedby nuclear power plants and around 40-45percent by thermoelectric power stations,which function on organic fuel. The thermalenergy sector is known for producing most“greenhouse” gases.The energy intensity of Ukraine’sGDP is 14.3 times higher than the worldaverage. The GDP’s electricity intensity,correspondingly, is 8.8 times higher.This is a result of the industry’s structureand of the use of old equipment andtechnology. Energy consumption is highestin Donetsk oblast, and somewhat lower inDnipropetrovsk, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhiaoblasts.There are certain divergencesbetween experts concerning the evaluationof power consumption per GDP unit.Some of them consider that such highconsumption is caused by the high rateof the shadow economy, and not just bybackwardness of technologies. But even so,power consumption as part of national GDPis much higher than in the countries of theEU or the USA.Burning organic fuel in thermal energyplants that have a low coefficient ofuseful activity: have mostly exhaustedtheir resources; lack effective facilities forcatching dust and hard particles; neutralizesulphur and nitrogen acid emissions; resultsin over-use of fuel per unit of producedenergy and to significant atmosphericpollution. Establishing an energy savingprogram could lower organic fuel use, andthus emissions levels. The complex energysaving program for the period until 2010 canbe only 30 percent completed, however, asits first implementation results show.In 2000, the enterprises of the fuelenergycomplex generated 35.1 percent ofemissions of polluting substances into theatmospheric air. In particular, mechanicalatmospheric pollution (with dust) was 55.6percent, emissions of sulfur dioxide 74.6percent and nitrogen oxides – 58.2 percent.Coal makes up 70% of Ukrainianthermoelectric stations’ fuel. Diggingcoal out of thin layers leads to significantcapturing of other minerals and theneed to enrich the coal. Ineffective andobviously insufficient coal enrichmentleads to significant amounts of ash. Manytypes of energy-coal have ash levels of 40percent (whereas desired ash level is 20-25%). According to expert evaluations, theenvironmental damage caused by coalthermoelectric stations is equal to 4 cents/per kilowatt hour and reaches 35% of coalvalue.Thermoelectric stations’ ash dumpscontain over 390 million tons of ash andslag. Their use level does not exceed 16percent. Thermal energy and the coal37

industry together create 2.5 times morehard waste than does metallurgy. Ashes andslag contain high levels of heavy metals.Electro-energy consumes around 30% of allUkraine’s fresh water, and when cycle watersupply is taken into account, the energysector ends up accounting for about 50% ofgeneral water use.Ukrainian thermoelectric stations are95% effective in catching hard particles intheir emissions (that percentage jumps to99% when electro-filters are used). Thisdoes not comply with contemporary worldrequirements. For coal power furnaces withdry slag-removal, ash content in emissionscomes to 80-93% of the coal’s general ashlevel.In past years, the smaller value of organicfuels used, rather than the use of modernwaste-decontamination technologies, hasgenerated lower air pollution levels (30-50%). Plans to increase coal use canworsen the ecological situation. Moreover,the Donetsk-PreDnipro region has in recentyears seen indications of a relative increasein pollution and of hazardous elementconcentrations that exceed limits duringcertain periods of the year. Rebuilding TES(thermoelectric station) capital assets whileat the same time taking steps to capture orsignificantly minimize air pollution is beingdone extremely slowly.In developed countries, it has becomenormal for power engineering to workwith collecting or preventing atmosphericemissions. In particular, they havetechnological methods of minimizingnitrogen oxides emissions and alsoadditional technologies of completelydeactivating sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Inthe countries of Europe, in Japan, and inthe U.S. during the last 30 years, emissionsfrom TEPS boilers declined by almost 70percent. But emissions limitations constantlybecome more stringent. Now it is necessary,for example, to carry out filtration againstmercury emissions as well.More comprehensive usage of organicfuel energy at Ukraine’s TES could be theeasiest way to decrease fuel consumptionvolumes and lower emissions. A primarytask is to decrease relative consumption offuel for production of 1 kilowatt of energy.This would boost the coefficient for usefulactivity of boiler-facility TES to the level ofthe best modern indicators. Technologiesfor minimizing production of nitrogen acidsand dust emissions should be implementedsimultaneously.In the world, power engineeringtechnology is actively being implementedaccording to the so-called combined cycle,which releases between 55 and 60 percentof fuel energy. Using such technology offersthe possibility of decreasing by twofoldthe amount of fuel needed to produce thesame amount of energy, as generated bythe Ukrainian TEPS. Unfortunately, withoutconsidering all the technical preconditionsand the state of equipment of Ukrainianpower producers, and the worseningrelations with natural gas suppliers,construction of the “combined cycle” TEPSremains just at the level of talks and longtermfuture plans.Another way to minimize fossil fuelconsumption is to use sustainableenergy sources, in particular water (smallhydroenergy), wind, shaft methane, biogasfrom vegetation leftovers, and householdwaste. These approaches will not solvethe basic energy needs of the country’sindustry, but they can be excellent forsupplying energy to smaller enterprises,cities, and towns. Energy-generating use ofbiogas and mine methane simultaneouslyenables a decrease in the atmosphericemissions of methane, which is among theozone-destroying substances.It is important that Ukraine implementactive and even obligatory energysavingprograms. Saving energy willsimultaneously make possible a significantlybetter fuel-energy resource situation, andminimize negative environmental impact.Unfortunately, current Ukrainian legislationdoes not actively stimulate implementation38

of such energy-saving technologies. It isthe energy consumer, and not the producer,who should be compelled to save energyas much as possible. The producer, forits part, wants to sell as much energy aspossible. The state administrative organ forenergy-saving should be independent ofthe Ministry of Fuel and Energy. To speedup energy-saving, the state should combinepressure (legislative acts and norms) withstimuli. For example, it could offer beneficialloans and tax benefits.Recommendations1. To organize a trustworthy registerof all polluting substances of atmosphericemissions according to EU standards.2. To organize a register of hardand liquid waste materials of the powerengineering and coal industries.3. To take efficient measures to ensurecomplete fulfillment of the complex stateprogram of Ukraine’s power saving through2010.4. To renew the state non-budgetaryfund of power saving and implement partialrecompensation by the state on interest oncredit, extended for the purposes of powersaving (preferential crediting).5. To state as the primary national taskto actively develop the use of recoverableenergy sources and the control levels andsteps to reach these determined goals.6. To revise and approve a new versionof Ukraine’s energy strategy, which shouldcontain the following plans:• equipping all TEPS power units withsystems of dust collection and toxic nitrogenand sulfur oxide deactivation;• ensuring the proper quality of energy coalwith the help of coal preparation and coalenrichment of coal-enriching enterprises;• implementing reconstruction orreplacement of boiler units with modernones, enabling to significantly increasethe coefficients of fuel consumption anddecrease the volume of nitrogen oxideproduction;• implementing a program of graduallyreplacing the energy capacity of heatenergy for “combined cycle” units withthe simultaneous development of selfproductionof the necessary equipment;• controlling a gradual decrease in organicfuel-specific consumption in energyproduction;• use of low-potential energy and decreasingenergy loss during its transportation anduse;• developing methods and technologies ofcoal-enriching and heat energy to use hardwaste products as secondary raw materials.1.10. Potential for ecological cultureRespect for the environment has beenrecognized as a fundamental value bythe UN’s Millennium Declaration. Culture,spirituality, and awareness are componentsof this respect.The majority of politicians, educators,and scientists agree that the fourthcomponent of sustainable developmentshould be culture: spirituality in general andecological culture in particular. Changes inhow nature is perceived, in human behaviortoward the environment, and in society areprerequisites for changing our consumption,life activity, and production models.It is also acknowledged that the absenceof spiritual wealth and ecological culture– is it not the main factor restraining thetransition to sustainable development andsolving the most urgent ecological problemsof mankind and civilization.Ecological culture is a component ofEuropean ecological policy and all lifestylespheres. Standards of corporative cultureexist with elements of ecological culture(attitude towards nature).Respect toward nature is natural forUkrainians; it has been their tradition fora thousand years. Everything that hashappened to the natural environmentin Ukraine is the result of a totalitarianregime’s violation of national ecologicaltraditions and culture.39

These national traditions need tobe restored. In contradiction stand theaggressive consumerist psychology andthe opposing view of nature held by asignificantly smaller, but much wealthier,sector of Ukrainian society, and alsoof certain politicians. The road towardseparating business and power in Ukraineleads through rival of natural ecologicaltraditions, of ecological culture, and ofspirituality.Ukraine has examples of formingecological-cultural and cultural-ecologicalcenters, which based on the condition ofgovernment support, may be transformedinto a national cultural-ecological network incombination with ecological tourism.For example, the Carpathian naturalbiosphere center possesses a trilateralPolish-Slovak-Ukrainian natural reserve“The Eastern Carpathians,” the first of itskind in Europe with its unique ethnic culture.The Danube natural biosphere centermay become an international ecologicalculturalcenter as well. The CentralUkraine natural biosphere center has on itsterritory monuments of the Trypillia culture,Shevchenko Memorial in Kaniv and thelandscape park “Trakhtemyrivskiy.”The Crimean Mountains naturalbiosphere center is famous for itsunique interethnic historical and culturalmonuments. The Dnipro-Steppe naturalbiosphere center is famous for its uniquefor-Europesteppe landscape, whichenables ecotourism to develop on the basisof the natural reserve Ascania-Nova.Also worth mention is the ShatskNational Natural Park, Siversko-Donetskyibiosphere center and others that maybecome transborder ecological-culturalcenters.Thus, Ukraine has significant ecologicalculturalpotential that may be realized viaactive international cooperation with theneighboring countries.Executing the National Program FormingUkraine’s National Ecological Network for2000-2015 ought to assist in increasingthe ecological cultural potential, but itsrealization, unfortunately, has not acquiredthe planned scale and tempo.Recommendations1. To prepare and submit viamass-media from all social, ecologicalorganizations an appeal to the President,the Cabinet of Ministers, the SupremeCouncil of Ukraine, political parties andbusiness groups a proposal to revivenational ecological traditions and culture,as supported by the state, business andpoliticians.2. Ukraine has functioning naturalbiosphere and ethnocultural centers, aswell as a natural resources fund. It isnecessary to create on their basis andlegally determine a national ecologicalethnoculturalnetwork as the fundamentalstructure for national ethnocultural andecological traditions revival.3. To prepare a special decree ofthe Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine todevelop ecological culture standards asan obligatory precondition of corporations’(business) ecological behavior.1.11. Development of ecologicalpartnership in approval and realization ofstrategic decisionsEcological partnership is consideredin the program documents for Europeanecological policy sustainable developmentas an effective mechanism of integratingstate and local governing bodies, industrial,business, social scientific and educationalgroups of society in the process ofdeveloping effective approaches for makingand realizing strategic decisions on alllevels of governing.Ecological partnership is based on theprinciples of:• decreasing the information gap andwidening access to information in theprocess of making and realizing decisions;• ecological-economic effectiveness ofcommon decisions;40

• social justice, reliability and safety;• ecological rationality and safety;• ecosystemic usefulness;• official, voluntary (a voluntary agreement)and common responsibility for the ecologicalconsequences of strategic decisions andperforming ecological revision (audit);• internationalization of externalexpenditures for ecosystems recovery,waste materials utilization, etc.The ethico-legislative base for suchpartnerships stems from target volunteerecological agreements. These agreementscan be seen as a form of volunteercooperation and responsibility-sharing inmaking decisions and achieving strategicenvironmental goals on the local, regional,and national levels. A constructive dialoguebetween state, society, and business, whichleads to the establishment of voluntaryecological agreements (and usuallyaccompanied by mass media attention)provides significant mutual benefits.The examples of voluntary ecologicaltreaties in EU countries are theratification in the Netherlands of the treatyimplementing ecological measures in thechemical industry (1993), the treaty aimedat minimizing waste materials production inGreat Britain (1992), the German treaty onpreventing global climate warming (1995),and many others.The country, represented by specializedinstitutions, in particular the Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection, should establishthese sorts of agreements with businessand public associations. The goal beingto prepare socially important decisions,and get them approved. Working in sucha way provides for clearly delineatedresponsibilities and brings a greater chanceof success.Unfortunately, the Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection has held backecological partnership by creating apublic board and public hearings, withoutaccepting mutual responsibility.In order to enhance ecologicalpartnership potential, the ministry shouldrework the decision-approval process toprovide for wider participation of interestedmembers of society who are ready tovoluntarily take on the responsibility formaking strategic decisions. Nationalecological partnership must exist.Recommendations1. To develop and conclude agreementson national partnership between theUkrainian government, business and civicunions in order to ecologically revitalizeand recover the weakest ecosystems,particularly the depressed ones.2. To improve or amend the process ofpreparing, approving and realizing strategicecological decisions, above all thoseregarding sustainable development on theprinciples of ecological partnership andvoluntary ecological agreements.3. To transform the social council tothe Ministry of Environmental Protectionof Ukraine into the coordinating councilfor ecological partnership with clearlydesignated functions fixed in the council’sprovisions regarding preparation, approvaland realization of strategic decisions.1.12. Informational basis for strategicecological assessments and managementThe national ecology informationalsystem should be an identified systemiccomponent of the global eco-informationalnetwork, as well as the national informationalnetwork for sustainable development, whichwould enable searching, collecting, keeping,stock-taking, analyzing and data use in theprocess of making decisions on any level:local, regional, national and international.One of the key steps to identify thenational eco-informational system isestablishing a national sub-system ofcomplex ecological and economic stocktaking,which is aimed at providinginformation for an integrated evaluationof the role of the natural environment andits ecosystems not only as a source ofnatural capital and receiver of life activity’s41

yproducts, but also as the source ofsociety’s vital and spiritual strength.Of special importance is to pay attentionto developing criteria and collecting dataon the environment’s life (air quality of theregions of cities, fresh water resources,forests and pastures, desertification, soildeterioration, biological versatility). Theactivity, aimed at reinforcing ecologicalpotential, should be directed towardsdecreasing informational gaps andfacilitating access to information.Decreasing informational gaps may bereached, first of all, via systemic diffusionand the effectiveness of collecting andsorting primary data.The primary sources of ecologicalinformation are:• state natural resource cadastres;• state data and other ecological monitoringon the physical aspects of the environmentand its ecosystems;• data on ecological mapping and geographicalinformation systems;• ecological certificates of enterprises andecological characteristics of industry;• certificates of waste materialsdepositories;• data on environmental influences evaluation;• data on the ecological-economic balancesof territories;• reports on ecological audits (excludingconfidential information).In the EU, a network of ecological datacenters is established with the functionof collecting, processing and storinginformation, and offering it to governingbodies and the society. These centersimprove the means and methods ofcomplex (ecosystemic) monitoring incooperation with the European Agency forthe Environmental Protection.In Ukraine the biggest developmentsoccurred in the geographical and information42systems monitoring related to land surveysand mapping. This is mandated in therelevant legislative acts for managementof particular natural resources. However,the normative, methodological, scientifictechnical,and organizational bases forcreating an integral national system forecological information remain undeveloped.Fulfilling international ecologicalobligations requires reinforcing nationalecological information potential, withconsideration paid to the EU’s normativelegislative base. Unfortunately, due toa significant decrease in institutionalpotential over the last few years as aresult of continuous changes in the state’senvironmental protection system, enforcingecological informational potential, and thuscomplying with international obligations isproblematic.The methodological basis of ecologicalinformation remains imperfect in developingand approving a system of integralecosystemic indicators, updating a databaseon ecological conditions, improving datacollection and methods of evaluation andanalysis.State ecological monitoring mostlyremains resources-oriented and local, andhas not gained a complex character. Thetask for improving and developing stateecological monitoring, which was definedin the Essential Directions of NationalEcological Policy, was not performed.The system of ecological certification ofenterprises and waste product depositoriespractically does not function in the rangedesignated by the acting legislation andpolicy of European integration.The national system of ecologygovernance should be based on thestructure of third generation informationsystems, which are oriented towardscomplex data analysis and algorithmicmodels of decision-making. Those systemswere called, “Systems of Decision Making.”In this direction, certain steps forwardhave been made in creating the technicalconditions for geographic information

systems implementation – electronicmapping technologies. Organizationalproblems should be resolved by aninterdepartmental Commission forEnvironmental Monitoring Issues withsections for the appropriate orientation.Its activity should be implementedaccording to a long-term state program,which determines common, targetcoordinatedtasks, territories, sites, timedand means for activities to be executed bygovernment and economic players, as wellas enterprises and organizations.In Ukraine, the technical preconditionsfor geographical informational systemsintegration into the systems of ecologicalmanagement have been created. Theproblem lies in a potential increase inputting the brakes to the process because ofthe lack of necessary legal, organizational,personnel and operational changes.Recommendations1. To designate on the governmentallevel a scientific-methodological centeron adapting the national ecologicalinformationalnetwork to Europeanrequirements and developing and givingthis center the necessary authority andresources.2. To activate regional informationcenters developing and implementing thetechnologies of geographical informationalsystems.3. To activate a system and mechanismsof primary ecological informationcollection, which has been provided bythe acting law and state ecological policy:territorial ecological-economic balances,ecological certification of enterprises andwaste materials, ecological monitoring,audit, etc.4. To develop and approve the conceptof a national ecological information networkas a component of the national ecologymanagement system and to create regionaland cross-sectional centers of ecologicalinformation based on the Europeanlegislative-methodological model, aswell as mechanisms of cooperating withthe European Agency for the NaturalEnvironment.43

Chapter 2. HARMONIZATOION OF UKRAINIANAND EUROPEAN UNION LEGISLATION2.1. Constitutional and legal guarantees ofcitizens’ ecological rightsAfter Ukraine declared independenceand began the process of developing asa constitutional state, the society faced adeep ecological crisis, and thus the need tolook for ways to solve this problem arose.For a long time, the government didn’tconsider ecological measures as a factor ofstabilization and economic development, butmerely an obstacle to economic and socialdevelopment. Such an approach offered nopossibility to conduct a balanced policy ofnatural resources use and recovery, to takemeasures to ensure ecological safety andto protect the ecological rights of citizens.In August 1990, the territory of Ukrainewas declared an ecological disaster area.This statement had a declarative characteronly, since it did not influence environmentalprotection and did not determine anyprocedures or priorities. For example, areview of environmental protection efficiencymeasures in Ukraine prepared by theCommittee for Local Policy at the EuropeanEconomic Commission (EEC) indicated thatthe statement was not supported by a wellstructuredplan of action for environmentalprotection.In 1992, Ukraine participated in the UNConference on the Environment (Rio deJaneiro) where, driven by fundamental ideasand principles declared at the Conference, itstated its intention to transfer to sustainabledevelopment.Sustainable development is aharmonious process that ensures balancedeconomic convergence, preservesnatural resource potential and guaranteesbiosphere space and ecological safety inorder to satisfy the necessary, vital needs ofman and society as a whole.During the Conference, the followingcrucial ideas were developed:• the state of the environment directlyinfluences live activity;44• the quality of the environment is a priorityproductive and consuming value;• the new ecological policy foresees practicalrealization of human rights for a dignified lifeand the right of future generations to usenatural resources to maintain their welfare,develop culture and spirituality;• the necessity of using additional indicators:provision levels of certain natural resourcescalculated per person; the territory’spollution per unit, ecological capacity andnature-management quotas; resources useand recovery expenditures; quality of lifeindicators; etc.Based upon decisions made in Riode Janeiro, the Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine approved in August 1996, “TheMain Directions of State Policy in theField of Natural Environmental Protection,Natural Resources Use and EcologicalSafety Insurance,” which were ratified bythe Supreme Council in March 1998. Inconditions of ecological crisis and limitedresources to overcome it, one of the keytasks of ecological policy was the state itselfdetermining its own priorities.In accordance with “The MainDirections of State Policy in the Field ofNatural Environmental Protection, NaturalResources Use and Ecological SafetyInsurance,” the long-term priorities of naturalenvironmental protection and rational use ofnatural resources include:• guaranteeing ecological safety of nuclearsites and the population’s defense againstradiation and the environment; minimizingthe harmful influence of the Chernobyldisaster’s consequences;• improving the ecological state of theDnipro basin and drinking water quality;• stabilizing and improving ecologicalconditions in the cities and industrial centersof the Donetsk-Prydniprovskyi region;• constructing new, and reconstructingacting capacities, of municipal sewagedisposal structures;

• preventing pollution of the Azov and BlackSeas and improving their ecological state;• creating a balanced system of natureutilization and adequate structuralreconstruction of the economy’s productionpotential and creating ecology-friendlytechnologies in industry, the energy sector,construction, agriculture and transportation;• preserving biological and landscapediversity and developing nature-preservingactivity.The experts of the Ecological PolicyCommittee of the European EconomicCommission fairly critically evaluated“The Main Directions of State Policy …,”indicating that “the list of priorities and thecorresponding tasks are very ambitiousand optimistic. The document does notdetermine any deadlines for fulfilling orassigning duties and does not indicatethe measures necessary to accomplishsuch a pretentious program. It contains noreferences to the economic and politicalconditions prevailing in Ukraine, and noattempt is made to explain how its politicalintentions correspond to such conditions.Some of the main measures, aimedat reaching quantitative targets, seemunrealistic. Moreover, those measureshave been formulated exclusively in thetechnological aspect, ignoring aspects ofmarket prospects, need for investment orthe necessity of constitutional reforms.”Nevertheless, in spite of such a criticalevaluation of “The Main Directions of StatePolicy…,” approval of this document wasa very important step towards establishinga new ecological policy and developingecological legislation. The documentdeclared a long-term strategy for solvingecological problems, which is based oncreating incentives and conditions on thenational, regional, local and site levels, andalso combining these issues with economicones.In spite of the complexity of Ukraine’smodern ecological state, the process ofimplementing principles of sustainabledevelopment has begun. To implement newecological policy, it was necessary to createa system of advanced ecological legislation.In this manner began the process ofapproving the main ecological laws, the firstpriority being developing the complex Law,“On natural environmental protection.”One of the main problems of coordinatinglegislation with the state’s new principlesof ecological policy was forming legislationbased on resource criteria, hence such anapproach did not ensure the integrity ofregulating and unifying ecological-economicrelations. This method of legislativelyregulating ecological relationships wasinherent in the Soviet legislative system.Instead, the issue arose of codifyingenvironmental protection legislation in theLaw, “On natural environmental protection,”the goal of which is to represent the state’scommonly-known environmental sitesin government regulation, rational use,environmental protection and determiningresponsibility for violations to environmentalprotectionlaws.On June 25, 1991 the Rada approvedthe Law of Ukraine “On Protecting theNatural Environment,” which set up a legalbasis for the realization of citizens’ rightsin the sphere of environmental protection.This law regulates almost all aspects ofenvironmental protection and ecologicalmanagement, and determines precisegoals and mechanisms for implementinglegal norms. The law’s preamble declaredthat environmental protection, rationaluse of natural resources, and securingenvironmental security so that human lifecan take place are inalienable conditionsfor sustainable development and Ukraine’ssocial development.Thus, Ukraine is implementing on itsterritory an ecological policy aimed atpreserving a safe biotic and abiotic naturalenvironment; protecting the population’slife and health from negative influencesgenerated by environmental pollution;achieving a harmonious interaction betweensociety and nature; and protecting, rationallyusing and recovering natural resources.Article 9 of the law determines that eachcitizen of Ukraine has the right to:45

• an environment that is safe for his life andhealth;• participate in discussions and in makingproposals about normative-legal acts,materials concerning allocation, andconstruction and reconstruction of objectsthat can have a negative impact onenvironmental conditions; make proposalsto the state administrative and localgoverning organs and to legal bodies thattake part in addressing these questions;• take part in the development andimplementation of initiatives forenvironmental protection and rational andcomplex natural resource usage;• the general and specific use of naturalresources;• join public environmental protectiongroups;• free access to information aboutenvironmental conditions (ecologicalinformation) and usage, dissemination, andcollection of such information, within thelimitations determined by the law;• take part in public hearings or openmeetings concerning a planned initiative’senvironmental impact in the allocation,project-making, construction, andreconstruction of object stages; take part inconducting public ecological expertise;• receive ecological education;• sue state organs, enterprises, institutions,organizations, and citizens forcompensation towards the damage done tohealth and property as a result of negativeenvironmental impact;• dispute, in a court order, decisions,actions, or the absence of actions taken bystate organs, local administrative organs,or the people who run them, concerningviolation of the ecological rights of citizensin procedures stipulated by law.Other articles should also be mentionedin this context. Article 10 defines the list ofguarantees of citizens’ ecological rights;Article 11 regulates protection of Ukrainiancitizens’ rights in the environmental46protection sphere; Article 12 lists citizens’responsibilities in this sphere. The Lawof Ukraine “On Protecting the NaturalEnvironment” has catalyzed, anddetermined the direction of developmentwithin the legislative system insofar as itestablishes and protects Ukrainian citizens’ecological rights.At this stage of ecological legislativedevelopment, a number of important legalacts were approved, in particular: the Lawof Ukraine, “On the natural reserve fund”(1992), which provided the first actingmechanism for economic and organizationalsupport for creating and ensuring officialfunctioning of natural reserve fund sites;and the Law of Ukraine “On atmosphericair protection” (1992), which is the legalbasis for a wide complex of measuresaimed at protecting atmospheric air. Anumber of Codes were approved as well– Forest (1991), Water (1995), the GroundResources Code of Ukraine (1994) –which were developed using internationalexperience and which had determinedthe legal basis for state regulation, useand protection of certain kinds of naturalresources.To implement these legal acts, a numberof sub-acts were developed. Within anexceptionally short period of time, legalprinciples were developed and passed,elements of economic mechanisms for usingnature were introduced and work to perfecta national system ensuring ecologicalsafety standards was created in conformitywith international demands and continuestoday. Ukraine joining the Council of Europein 1995 became an outstanding event inthe state’s ecological policy. It is symbolicthat the Council of Europe declared thatparticular year the “European Year onEnvironmental Protection.” Exactly thatyear, the President of Ukraine informed theworld community of the Chernobyl plant’sshutdown through the year 2000. Thisproduced a stimulus to continue creatinglaws and regulations. Thus, the followinglaws were approved: “On using nuclearpower and radiation safety” (1995); “Ontreating radioactive waste materials” (1995);

“On ecological expert evaluation” (1995),which specifically stated that ecologicalexpert evaluations should obligatorilyprecede any legal or economic activity, andArticle 11 of the Law established publicparticipation in implementing ecologicalexpert evaluations; and “On pesticides andagricultural chemicals” (1995), in which thepriority of human health and environmentalprotection was stated regarding theeconomic effect of using pesticides andagricultural chemicals.In June, 1996 Ukraine’s newConstitution was ratified. It contained newprovisions, and became the guarantor ofthe individual’s status as a participant inthe process of solving problems associatedwith environmental protection. The humanbeing, his life and his health, his dignityand honor, his inviolability and his security,were declared high social values in Ukraine.The country’s policy must be based onguaranteed human rights and freedoms,and the state would stand responsiblebefore the individual. Affirming and securinghuman rights and freedoms is the state’schief responsibility (Article 3).Land and its wealth, the atmosphere,water, and other natural resources locatedwithin Ukrainian territory; the naturalresources of Ukraine’s continental shelf;and offshore (marine) economic zones,are the property of the Ukrainian nation.In the name of the Ukrainian people, thestate administration and organs of localgovernance possess ownership rights,within limits determined by the Constitution.Each citizen has the right to use the nation’snatural objects in compliance with the law.Property imposes obligations, and it cannotbe used to harm other people or society asa whole. The state ensures the rights of allsubjects of property rights and economicactivity, and the economy’s social direction.Subjects are all equal before the law (Article13).Article 16 of the Constitution decreedthat providing ecological safety andmaintaining eco-balance on Ukrainianterritory, coping with the Chernobylcatastrophe’s consequences (which wereof planetary scale), and preserving theUkrainian nation’s genofund are stateresponsibilities. Each person has the rightto a secure life and a healthy environmentand to compensation when such rights areviolated.Each individual is guaranteed freeaccess to information about environmentalconditions, quality of food and householdgoods, and the right to disseminate it. Noone can classify this information (Article50). Article 66 states the individual hasan obligation not to damage nature orthe cultural inheritance, and is liable forcompensation in whatever damage he doesimpose.With the Constitution’s acceptance,citizens’ fundamental rights were securedon the highest level. In addition to articlesthat directly regulate people’s ecologicalstatus in Ukraine, the Constitution containsnorms that realize citizens’ ecological rights.The term “ecological safety” was definedat the constitutional level, which is vitallyimportant for securing citizens’ ecologicalrights. It amounts to a basic constitutiveelement of the given legal category. Anatural environment that is safe for humanlife and health is the lens through which allecological citizens’ rights are realized.The following characteristics of thecitizen’s ecological rights can thereforebe highlighted. First, such rights areconstitutional, and are based on universalhuman and natural (that is, inalienable)rights. Second, citizens’ ecological rightsare continuously expanding. Third, relationswith respect to environmental protection,natural resource use, and provision ofecological security are constitutive elementsof citizens’ ecological rights.After the Constitution of Ukraine’sapproval, the process of establishingecological legislation continues. A numberof laws were approved, including theLaws, “On protecting people from ionizingirradiation” (1998); “On waste materials”(1998); “On flora protection” (1998); “Onthe flora world” (1999); “On the zone ofexceptional ecological situation” (2000);47

“On resorts” (2000); “On dangerous sites”(2001); “On the animal kingdom” (2001);“On Ukraine’s Red Book” (2002); “Onstate control of land use and protection”(2003); “On protection of land” (2003); “OnUkraine’s ecological network” (2004). Anoutstanding event proved the 2001 approvalof the new Land Code of Ukraine.Other than that, Ukraine has ratifiedmany international conventions in thefield of natural environmental protection.In particular, the Convention on BlackSea Protection from Pollution (1994);the Convention on Biological Diversity(1994); the U.N. Framework Conventionon Climate Change (1996); the Conventionon Wild Flora, Fauna and Natural LivingEnvironments in Europe (1996); theConvention on Water and Swamps, whichare internationally important as the primaryhabitat of waterfowl (1996); and others.In summary, it should be noted thattoday, a system of ecological legislationis formed, although undoubtedly, it needsfurther improvement. The main principlesof state ecological policy formed andthe course of Ukraine’s sustainabledevelopment was declared based onthe Constitution of Ukraine, the programdocument “The Main Directions of Ukraine’sState Policy in the Field of EnvironmentalProtection, Natural Resource Use andEcological Safety Insurance” and by anumber of legal acts.At the fifth Pan-European conferenceof Ministers of Environmental Protection,“Environment for Europe,” the basis andmain priorities of Ukraine’s ecologicalstrategy was determined for the first tenyears of the XXI century, in particular:• the main goal of national policy at thepresent stage is significantly improvingUkraine’s environmental state;• national ecological strategy is formedand realized in relation to the concept ofUkraine’s national safety, which enablesecological safety as a priority in the processof transitioning to sustainable development;• national strategy has to be coordinatedwith European ecological strategy,according to the geopolitical course ofEuropean integration;• national ecological strategy should beformed while considering the priority ofUkraine’s ecological problems based on therisk of influences on all spheres of society’slife activity, the population’s health and theinterests of future generations.2.2. Review of fundamental EuropeanUnion documents in the environmentalprotection sphereCooperation between the European Unionand Ukraine: general informationRelations between Ukraine and theEU were established on December 1991,when the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofNetherlands – the state which led the EUthen – officially acknowledged Ukraine’sindependence on behalf of the EUEuropean integration is Ukrainianexternal policy’s main priority. ConsolidatingEuropean values and standards in Ukraine’spolitical, economic, and social contextsshould be considered a guarantee for itsstable and sustainable development.Ukraine and the EU actively interact onthe issue of Ukraine’s WTO membership.The EU supports Ukraine in its multilateraland bilateral negotiations in the frameworkof joining the WTO In 2003, the bilateralprotocol on access to goods and servicesmarkets in the WTO framework was signed.The European Union is Ukraine’sbiggest donor. Counting from 1991, thetotal amount of aid provided by the EU toUkraine exceeded 1 billion euro, accordingto the TACIS program.Agreement on partnership and cooperationIn July, 1994, Ukraine and the EUsigned a partnership and cooperationagreement that took effect March 1, 1998.It represents the legal foundation for EU-Ukraine relations, and was initially meantto have a term of 10 years. It definedgoals for cooperation in 28 fields, includingenvironmental protection.48

Seven priority spheres for EU-Ukrainecooperation are active today: 1) energy,trade, and investment; 2) judicial issuesand internal affairs; 3) harmonizingUkrainian and EU legislation; 4)environmental protection; 5) transportation;6) transboundary cooperation; and 7)cooperation in science, technology, andouter space research.Article 51 of the Partnership andCooperation Agreement defines howpresent and future Ukrainian legislationwill be harmonized with EU legislation,stating that this task is an importantcondition for strengthening economicinterconnections between Ukraine andthe EU: “Ukraine obliges itself to providestepwise coordination of its legislation withthe legislation of the Community.” Sincethe end of 2002, Ukraine, supported bythe EU, has tried to strengthen structuresand plan its approach in determiningthe targets and tasks in implementinglegislation convergence programs. For this,a matrix of effectiveness indicators projectwas developed in converging Ukraine’slegislation to EU legislation, aimed atfurthering the establishment of priorities anddesignation of results.According to Partnership andCooperation Agreement, the Council onCooperation between Ukraine and theEU was created to oversee its fulfillment.Negotiations on the highest levels areoccurring in the form of summits. TheCouncil’s meetings are conducted onthe ministerial level at least once a year.To enable the Council on Cooperationbetween Ukraine and the EU inperforming its duties, the Committee onCooperation between Ukraine and theEU provides assistance, which includesrepresentatives of the Council of Europe,the European Commission on Economyand the Government of Ukraine. Includedin the Committee’s structure are four subcommitteesand three working groups.Cooperation in the environmentalsphere takes place within the frameworkof the Subcommittee on Transportation,49Energy, Cooperation in the Sphere of CivicSociety and Nuclear Energy, EnvironmentalProtection, Science, Education, andTechnology. It also takes place in theWorking Group on Climate Change Matters.Currently, the main fields of cooperationare climate change and purifying the waterin the Danube basin and the Black Sea.There is also continuous cooperation incoordinating Ukraine’s ecological legislationwith the EU’s, particularly its legislativebase – the acquis communautaire, accessto information, and multi-party agreementson environmental matters.The basis for the EU legal system isthe so-called rights requirement. The legalbasis is the acquis communautaire, or theaggregate of EU norms and court decisionsthat have developed during the EU’sexistence and should be unconditionallyaccepted by countries that aspire to EUaccession.European neighborhood policyThe aim of the European NeighborhoodPolicy is spreading the advantages of EUenlargement in 2004 towards neighboringcountries to increase stability, safety andwealth of all those involved. It offers toneighboring countries the possibility ofparticipating in various EU activities throughdeepening political, economical andcultural cooperation and also cooperationin the field of national safety. The EuropeanNeighborhood Policy also will help to reachone of the strategic goals designated by theEU in the “The European Safety Strategy”of December 2003, particularly improvingsafety in neighboring countries.The aim of the European NeighborhoodPolicy lies in determining a list of prioritytasks in partnership with neighboringcountries, the implementation of which willdraw them closer to the EU These prioritieswill be included in a mutually agreedaction plans, covering several main areasthat require concrete measures: politicaldialogue and reform; trade and measures toprepare partners to gradually receive their

segment of the internal EU market; justiceand internal affairs; energy; transportation;an information society; environment;scientific research and innovative activity;social policy and contact between people.An official document, “The EuropeanNeighborhood Policy Strategy,” was completedin 2004 which determined: theprinciples and areas in implementing policy;action plans as the process of determiningthe areas of cooperation between the EUand neighboring countries; obligationsregarding those actions and existinginstruments towards implementing policy.In 2004, within the European NeighborhoodPolicy framework, a Ukrainecountry report was issued evaluating thestate of bilateral relations between the EUand Ukraine and the results of implementingthe Partnership and CooperationAgreement, and also to describe the currentstate of selected areas that are of specialinterest to such partnerships, mainly onpolitical, economic and social levels. Thisreport contains the main instructions forpreparing plans of common action, and itenables an evaluation of the prospects ofEU-Ukraine relations.In February, 2005, the Council forCooperation between Ukraine and theEuropean Union approved the Ukraine-EUAction Plan.This plan covers a three-year period, andwill help fulfill the conditions defined by thePartnership and Cooperation Agreement.The Action Plan will stimulate and supportUkraine’s efforts to further integrate intoEuropean economic and social structures,particularly through the mechanism of theEU-Ukraine Free Trade Zone after Ukraineacquires WTO membership. Implementingthe Action Plan will help to significantlyspeed adaptation of Ukraine’s legislation,norms, and standards to the EU’s.The plan’s “Environment” sectioncontains steps for: establishing andimplementing smart management conditionsin the environmental sphere; preventingdegradation of environmental conditions andhealth protection; and establishing rational50resource use in accordance with obligationsincurred during the World Summit onSustainable Development (Johannesburg,2002). It also contains approaches meantto strengthen cooperation on ecologicalmatters.The main milestones in EU-Ukrainerelations are the following:• In 1993, Ukraine joined the “Environmentfor Europe” process and took part in theconference in Luzerne, Switzerland on theministerial level. The “Program of Centraland Eastern European Environment Protection”approved at the conference wasused by Ukraine to approve its national planof measures for the environment;• In 1998, the UNECE decided to call thefifth Pan-European conference of Ministersof Environmental Protection in Kyiv in2003. With the help of PSUNO and otherdonor agencies, the Ukrainian governmentprepared that conference and demonstratedits role in environmental protection. For thatoccasion, the government prepared, “TheNational Report of Ukraine on Harmonizingthe Life of Society with the NaturalEnvironment,” which included a review ofenvironmental conditions in Ukraine, aswell as a framework for ecological policyand a transition strategy to sustainabledevelopment;• In 1999, Ukraine participated in the sixthsession of the Committee of the EuropeanEconomic Commission on EcologicalPolicy, addressing problems related tofurther developing the “Environment forEurope” process through evaluating presentenvironmental conditions in Europe,developing political support for ecologicalgoals support among EU countries,promoting integration of ecological policiesamong CIS countries and granting helpto those countries in resolving ecologicalproblems;• In 1999, the Ukrainian government andthe UNECE Committee on ecologicalpolicy approved recommendations listedin, “A Review of the Effectiveness ofEnvironmental Protection Measures in

Ukraine”. That review contained, “Article 1.Legal instruments and institutional meansfor natural environmental protection,”which explained the legal and politicalprinciples for activity in the ecologicalsphere, demonstrated measures of environmentalprotection management,partnership processes and appropriaterecommendations.Review of EU policy and legal principlesin environmental protection andmanagementEU environmental policyCommunity activity in environmentalprotection started in 1972 with the adoptionof several gradual action programs basedon vertical and branch approaches toresolving ecological problems. The signingof Amsterdam Agreement (1999) becamean important step affirming the principleof sustainable development as one of theEU’s goals, and a high level of ecologicalprotection was determined as one of itsabsolute priorities.The General Directorate onEnvironmental Issues is a subdivisionof the European Economic Commissionthat prepares EU legislation and policiesto resolve ecological problems andensure member-states implement relatedagreements. This General Directorateis one of 36 General Directorates andspecialized institutions that structurally formthe European Economic Commission. It ismainly located in Brussels and consists ofabout 550 staff.Before proposing a law, the GeneralDirectorate on Environmental Issuescarries out various consultations withgovernment representatives, ecologicalnon-governmental organizations, industrialgroups, special-interest groups, andif necessary, technical experts. Whilepreparing its proposals, it considers thefrequently competing interests of thesides involved. The Commission submitslegislative proposals for review by the51Council of Ministers and the EuropeanParliament. Afterwards, these threeinstitutions work together to draft a finalversion.Starting in 1972, the Communityapproved about 300 legal acts whichmainly dealt with decreasing environmentalpollution by implementing emissions limits,particularly in the fields of waste materialstreatment, water resources and atmosphericpollution. But implementing such legalbases could not prevent environmentalpollution. The necessity to take coordinatedactions in this direction on the Europeanand global levels became obvious.Community Action ProgramsThe Community’s fifth environmentalaction program called “On the way tostability” implemented the EuropeanStrategy of Voluntary Measures principlesbetween 1992 and 2000 and initiated theCommunity’s “horizontal” approach, takinginto account all kinds of pollution (industrial,energy, tourist, transportation, agricultural,etc.). This complex approach to ecologicalpolicy was confirmed by the Commissionin its 1998 Announcement on IntegratingEnvironmentally-Related Issues into EUPolicy, and also by decisions of Viennasession of the Council of Europe (December1998). From now on, the Community’sinstitutions are obliged to take into accountaspects of protecting the environment intheir policies.The sixth environmental action program(hereinafter – 6 EAP), “Environment-2010: Our Future – Our Choice”, approvedby European Parliament and Council in2002, determines EU priorities in thisarea from 2001 to 2010. It distinguishesfive main priorities of action: 1) improvingimplementation of acting legislation; 2)integrating ecological factors in otherpolicy areas; 3) closer cooperation withbusiness structures; 4) granting moreauthority to communities and helping themchange attitudes towards the environment;and finally, 5) taking ecological aspectsinto account during land-use planning of

land and making governing decisions.This program is concentrated on fourpriority areas: climate change, natural andbiological diversity, environment and health,and sustainable resource management andwaste materials use.6 EAP is more progressive than previousaction programs. It tries to rationalize andmodernize the process of gradual change innumerous, separate legal acts with generallegal norms and flexible strategies (“betterlegal documents”). This is the most strategicapproach of all those approved by theCommission until now; it calls for the activeinvolvement and accountability of all layers ofsociety in the search for innovative, practicaland sustainable ways to resolve ecologicalproblems which confront Europe. The 6 EAPprogram realistically ensures the ecologicalcomponent of the General Strategy forSustainable Development approved by theCommission.The program requires that theEuropean Economic Commission preparethematic strategies that form the followinggeneration’s ecological policy. They relyon working in total spheres, instead ofindividual polluters or types of economicactivity, as it was in the past. Thesestrategies are planned for long periods (bydetermining clear ecological developmentgoals until almost 2020), thus they ensure amore sustainable political platform. Finally,they are oriented towards determining themost suitable instruments for implementingEuropean political goals through lessdifficult, but more economically efficientways. Seven such directions are designated:“Atmospheric Air Pollution,” “PreventingAccumulated and Secondarily ProcessedWaste Materials,” “Protecting and Saving theNatural Sea Environment,” “Soil Protection,”“Sustainable Pesticide Use,” “SustainableResource Use,” and “Urban EnvironmentDevelopment.”“The Polluter Pays” principleToday polluting the natural environment,which is under protection, particularly thewater environment and soils, is a violationof the law. “The Polluter Pays” principle wassignificantly supported by the 2004 approvalof the 2004/35/EU Directive on CivilResponsibility for Environmental Pollution.This Directive ensures compensation bythe person at fault for causing damage tothe natural environment. The handling ofprinciple violations, in terms of damagecompensation, is laid upon nations – EUmembers. At the same time in September2005, the Court of Justice recognized theCommunity’s right to demand that memberstatesapply stiff penalizing sanctions incases of serious harm inflicted on theenvironment.The principle, in which the polluter has tocompensate for inflicted ecological damage,is determined in the EU creation agreement.This principle is a warning act againstviolations to ecological safety standardsand thus promotes the realization of goalsand introduction of appropriate EU policiesin that field.Prevention principleThe EU creation agreement containsonly one clear reference to the preventionprinciple, namely in the chapter dedicatedto environmental protection. But in practice,the principle’s sphere of action is muchwider; it covers also consumer policy,human health, animals and vegetables.Since the prevention principle is determinedneither in the EU agreement (on creatingthe Community), nor in other basicCommunity documents, the Council in itsApril 13, 1999 decision proposed that theCommission develop clear and effectivebasic recommendations on the principle’suse. The Commission responded to therequest by issuing the Announcement(#52000DC0001) on the preventionprinciple’s application (February 2000).Developing the main recommendationson the prevention principle use is aimed atproviding a high level of protection for theenvironment, human health, animals andflora in those cases when current data frominvestigations are insufficient to evaluaterisk completely.52

The prevention principle is alsoacknowledged by many international agreements,particularly the Agreement onSanitary and Phytosanitary Actions (SPS)approved by the WTOLegal instruments of environmentalprotectionSimultaneous with ecological policydevelopment, the means of environmentalprotection grew more numerous. Togetherwith approving basic legislation to ensure ahigh level of environmental protection, theCommunity implemented a number of legalinstruments to implement it:• LIFE – a financial instrument of ecologydefense aimed at promoting development,implementation, and renewal of ecologicalpolicy and Community legislation;• environmental protection agreements:improving ecological aspects of industrialactivity and introducing methods ofsustainable production with the encouragementof voluntary measures andagreements on environment protection inaccordance with the 6 EAP program;• ecological customs duty and taxes:promoting member-states’ use of fiscalinstruments to increase the effectivenessof ecological policy and ensuring useof ecological customs duty and taxesaccording to Community legislation;• a support program for non-governmentalorganizations, which act in the field ofenvironment protection;• integrated product policy: the Commissionrepresents a strategy of strengthening andchanging the direction of ecological policyrelated to production in order to promotethe development of ecologically safeproducts, and finally, to stimulate communitydiscussions on the corresponding issues;• the European Agency on the Environment:providing authorities responsible formaking political decisions, as well as thecommunity, with solid, reliable informationon the environment’s state;• ecomarketing of products: aimed atadvertising products with a lower negativeinfluence on the environment (compared toother products from the same group);53• a system of ecological management andecological audit of the Community (EMAS):works to ensure constant improvement ofthe effectiveness of European organizations’ecological activity (via SEM), and forproviding the community and interestedparties with the appropriate information;• evaluation of the influence of certain stateand private projects on the environment;• evaluation of ecological consequencesof implementing plans and programs:implemented with the goal of to promotingthe inclusion of ecological aspects at thelevels of developing and approving plansand programs;• ecological examinations – minimumcriteria: ensuring more responsibility andunanimity in administering and applying theCommunity’s legislation to environmentalprotection by setting minimum criteria oforganization through the implementationof post-control and publishing of ecologicalexamination results in all member-states;• the European Registry of Emissions andTransfer of Polluted Substances: improvingsociety’s access to information on theenvironment’s state and thus promotingpollution prevention and decreasing it in thelong term.European Union ecological legislationEU ecological legislation has developedover the last 30 years and currently consistsof about 300 legislative acts, includingdirectives, regulations, decisions, andrecommendations, along with numerousnotifications and other political documents.Full text versions of current EU ecologicallegislative documents are available atthe “Directory to Community Legislation,”which is continuously updated. Access toit can be had through the EU law portal,EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/repert/index.htm. This referencebook contains the legal acts of acting EUlegislation (regulations, decisions anddirectives), agreements, conventions, andalso some important, but not obligatory,legal acts. The whole material is dividedinto 20 articles. Article 15 covers legislationin the field of environment, consumptionand health. Chapter 15.10 is dedicated

to the environment and contains fourparts: “General provisions and programs”;“Pollution and harmful influences”; “Space,environment and natural resources”; and“International cooperation.”The European Economic Commissionactively worked for several years to improveits legislative practices in order to ensurea high quality of developed legislativeinitiatives so that they’re simple, effectiveand correspond to concrete needs. Themain efforts within the framework of theprogram, “The best normative documents,”in the field of the environment will bereflected in the seven thematic strategies,which are being developed now accordingto the 6 EAP program: atmospheric airpollution, marine environment, sustainableuse of natural resources, preventing ofaccumulated and secondarily processedwaste materials, sustainable pesticide use,soil defense and urban environment. Theywill determine the framework system ofaction for the Community and nation-statesfor the next twenty years, which shouldensure more of a legal and regulatorydistinction.One condition of EU membership is theconformity of each country-candidate’snational legislation and administrativepractices to the EU’s ecological legal legacy.This common legal legacy is significantlyless than the total ecological legislation.It contains about 145 legal documents(directives, regulations and decisions),provided in the table :Field Directives Regulations Decisions TotalHorizontal legislation 5 2 7Atmospheric air quality 18 1 10 29Treating of waste17 3 8 28materialsWater resources11 0 1 12protectionNature protection 4 6 1 11Industry-generated6 2 7 15pollution control and itsrisks managementChemical substances 8 5 4 17and geneticallymodified organismsAcoustic pollution 10 10Nuclear safety and5 3 8radiation protectionCivil defense 1 7 8Total 84 23 38 145 Handbook on the implementation of ECenvironment legislation – December 2003Below is a short review of the actingecological legislation based on the maintopics.Horizontal legislationThe horizontal sphere concernsecological legislation on various issues, theactivity of which would be widened to severalspecialized spheres on the environment (incontrary to regulations, which concern justseparate aspects: for example, atmosphericair or water resources). Instead of regulatingspecific fields, these legislative acts aremore procedural. They offer methods andmechanisms aimed at improving decisionmakingand developing and implementinglegislation. The legislation in this fieldcovers:• evaluating proposed projects’ environmentalinfluence;• strategically and ecologically evaluatingproposed plans and programs;• public access to information on the stateof the environment;• accounting requirements;• creating a European Agency on theEnvironment and participating in its work;• a LIFE Program to finance projects ofenvironmental improvement;• developingnon-governmentalorganizations which work in the field ofenvironmental protection.In the horizontal sphere, eight suchlegislative documents are active:• Directive 85/337/EEU (supplementedby Directive 97/11/EU) on evaluatingenvironmental influence. It defines therequirements to evaluate the environmentalinfluence of government and privateprojects that may potentially seriously affectthe environment, and the requirements togrant permission for implementing projects;54• Directive 2003/35/EU on publicparticipation in developing ecologicallyoriented plans and programs, supplementingthe chapter on communityparticipation and access to legal defense

means, Council Directives 85/337/EEU and96/61/EU;• Directive 2001/42/EU on strategicecological evaluation defines the dutiesof state governmental bodies (or privateorganizations that render public services)in determining and evaluating potentiallysignificant ecological consequences ofproposed plans and programs (not policy),particularly in the field of transbordercooperation, with the goal of mitigating oravoiding potentially significant negativeinfluences on the environment prior toapproval of such plans or programs;• Directive 90/313/EEU (supplementedwith Directive 2003/4/EU) on access toinformation on the state of environment.It guarantees the right of access toinformation on the state of the environmentassigned to government bodies andcorresponding organizations such asmunicipal service providers. It requires theabove-mentioned bodies to provide freeaccess to the community and the possibilityto spread available information on thestate of environment in order to reach thefollowing goals: promote better informationon ecological subjects; free discussions;more effective community participation indecision-making processes on ecologicalmatters and obtaining better environmentalconditions;• Directive 91/692/EEU on accountingis aimed at ensuring the coordinationof branch accounting on the state ofimplementing 27 directives on atmosphericair protection, water resources and wastematerials treatment. Member-states shouldsubmit branch reports on implementingthese directives every three years based ona Commission-provided questionnaire;• Regulations 1655/2000 LIFE(supplemented with Regulations 1973/92and 1404/96/EU) on applying the LIFEprogram, which provides co-financing ofecological projects aimed at developing andimplementing the Community’s ecologicalpolicy and legislation;55• Action program on non-governmentalorganization support (Decision 466/2002/EU instead of the Council Decision 97/872/EU) in creating financing mechanisms tosupport environmental protection projectsimplemented by non-governmentalorganizations of a European level.Air qualityMeasures aimed at improving air qualityinclude developing maximum or targetedindices of environmental air quality,developing complex strategies of strugglingagainst transborder pollution (particularlyacid rain, ozone holes and eutrofication)by establishing and approving national airemissions quotas, and also determiningeffective methods of decreasing pollutionon target territories by means of complexprograms, such as Auto-Oil I and II,and implementing special measures tolimit emissions and increase productionstandards.In order to strengthen requirementsto “levels of air quality that don’t produceserious negative consequences and risksto human health and the environment,”6 EAP foresaw developing a thematicstrategy to struggle against air pollutioncalled, “Clean Air for Europe” (hereinafter– CAFÉ). Implementing the CAFÉ strategybegan in March 2001. It includes technicalanalysis and policy development thatset the foundation for thematic strategyin the struggle against air pollution. TheCommission approved the thematic strategyon September 21, 2005.The strategy of struggle against airpollution establishes the internal goals forthe EU and suggests appropriate measuresto reach them. It contains recommendationsconcerning improving acting legislation,especially concerning the most dangerouspollutersб and it became another step onthe way to integrating other principles andprocedures in the field of environmentalprotection. The new directive is still beingdeveloped.The kernel of legislation in the field ofair quality consists of Council Directives

and EU Council decisions. Theseinstruments may be conditionally dividedinto: 1) environmental air quality standards(maximum indicators and governingprinciples); 2) product quality controlrequirements and materials processing and3) monitoring and exchange of information.Environmental air quality standards:• Framework Directive 96/62/EU (andadditional Directives 2004/107/EU,2002/3/EU, 2000/69/EU and 1999/30/EU)establish the basic principles in a generalstrategy of determining and establishingtarget indicators of environmental airquality to avoid, prevent or decreaseharmful influences on the human body andenvironment; also to establish the basicprinciples of evaluating environmental airquality evaluation in EU member countries,informing the population on dangerousmaximum indicators and improving airquality where it’s unsatisfactory. Thedirective is aimed at revising Europeanlegislation regarding polluting substancesthat pose a risk to human health. DaughterDirective 1999/30/EU abolishes Directives80/779/EU, 82/884/EU and 85/203/EU.Supplementary Directive 2002/3/EU cancelsDirective 92/72/EEU.• Directive 2001/81/EU establishes nationalquotas for polluting substance emissions,which lead to acidulation and watereutrofication and are harmful to the ozonelayer, in order to more fully ensure defenseof the environment and human health fromnegative consequences.• Directive 96/61/EU (with acts containingchanges and additions) concern the complexmeasures to prevent and control pollution.This directive is aimed at preventing andminimizing emissions into the air, water andsoil and also the emissions of agriculturaland industrial activity waste materials in EUnations. It provides for measures to achievea high level of environmental protection.This document regulates the kinds ofindustrial and agricultural activity, whichsignificantly pollute the environment, suchas energy, metallurgy, mining, the chemicalindustry, waste materials processing andeliminating, cattle breeding, etc.Production control requirements andmaterials processing quality are ensuredby:• Directive 99/13/EU on emissions oforganic compounds when using organicsolvents;• Directive 98/70/EU (with amendments andsupplements 2000/71/EU) concerning petroland gasoline quality:• Directive 93/12/EU (with changes andsupplements 99/32/EU) concerning sulfurcontents in liquid fuel;• Directive 94/63/EU on emissions resultingfrom petrol and motor fuel storage and use;• Directive 99/94/EU on fuel and carbondioxide emissions produced by modernpassenger transport;• Decision 2002/159/EU on fuel qualityinformation;• Decision 2002/529/EU on implementing asurvey on Directive 99/13/EU;• Decision 88/540/EU on the MontrealProtocol (on the ozone layer thinning);• Directive 70/220/EU (with acts containingamendments and additions) on coordinatingthe legislation of EU member states in thefield of counteracting air pollution caused bytransportation vehicles;• Directive 88/77/EU (with acts containingamendments and additions) on coordinatingthe legislation of EU member states in thefield of counteracting air pollution of gasemissions generated by diesel engines intransportation vehicles;• Directive 97/68/EU (with acts containingamendments and additions) on coordinatingthe legislation of EU member states in thefield of counteracting air pollution of gasemissions and loose polluting substancesgenerated by the internal combustion ofengines in non-transportation means;• Directive 2000/25/EU (with acts containingamendments and additions) of theEuropean Parliament and EU Council from56

May 22, 2000 on measures to prevent andcounteract the emission of gas and loosepolluting substances generated by enginesin agricultural and forestry tractors;• Directive 2001/80/EU on limiting theemission of some polluting substances intothe air by big combustion units.Monitoring and communication areprovided by:• Decision 93/389/EU (amended andsupplemented by Decision 1999/296/EU)on monitoring carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse effect gases emissions;• Decision 86/277/EU on the protocol onlong-term financing of the EMEP.Industrial pollution and riskmanagementThe sixth action program on protectingthe environment recognizes the problemof controlling industrial pollution is stillunresolved and the state of the environmentwould become worse if significant progressin implementing environmental protectionlegislation isn’t achieved within the EUmember states. The action programprovides for a complex approach to solveenvironmental, ecological and socialproblems as well as combined effortsof interested parties and the communitydirected towards environmental protection.It offers a new stimulus to develop andimplement measures to solve a number ofdifficult questions – those already existing,as well as new ones.The directive concerning a complexapproach to preventing and controllingpollution is an integral part of the strategyto control industrial pollution. It guides thebasic changes in a system of permits onseparate installations and is the single EUlegislative act requiring a complex approachto controlling sources of industrial pollution.The general principles of this directiveinclude:• Realization of all corresponding preventiveactions against pollution, includingapplication of the best accessible technologies(Best Available Techniques);• Disallowance of any significant pollution;• Avoidance of manufacturing wasteproducts (the hierarchy of wastemanagement should correspond theFramework Directive 75/442/EEU concerningwaste products, amended andsupplemented with Council Directives91/156/EEU and 91/692/EEU and Decisionof the Commission 96/350/EU);• Effective use of energy resources;• Application of necessary measures onpreventing emergencies and minimizingtheir consequences;• Application of necessary actions onterminating risky types of activity concerningpollution with the goal of avoiding pollutionand bringing proper conditions to theworking area.The basic EU acts that regulate industrialpollution sources are:• Directive ІРРU 96/61/EEU, amended andsupplemented with Directives 2003/35/EUand 2003/87/EU;• Directive 84/360/EEU on air pollutionby industrial sites. This Directive will bereplaced with the Directive concerningthe complex approach to preventing andcontrolling industrial pollution until October30, 2007, which will be active for 11 years;• Directive 2001/81/EU on national quotason emissions;• Directive 2001/80/EU (which abolished88/609/EEU) concerning large combustionunits;• Directive 96/82/EU concerning controllingthe basic dangers of emergency situationsinvolving dangerous substances (Directive« Seveso II »);• Regulations to the EU EcologicalManagement and Audit project (EMAS) №761/2001;• Regulations to the Eco-Label Awardproject EU № 1980/2000.Waste materials management57

The approach to EU waste materialsmanagement is based on three principles:• Decreasing the quantity of waste materials.If we manage to reduce the volumes ofwaste products and their danger, havinglowered the concentration of dangeroussubstances during production, then utilizingwaste products automatically becomessimplified;• Reprocessing and reuse. If producingwaste materials cannot be prevented, evenwhen applying waste-free technologies,as many materials as possible should bereprocessed. The European EconomicCommission has defined some specific,priority directions of waste productmanagement and categories, among themare packed waste materials, groundedwaste product containers, used vehicles,batteries, and waste products from electricdevices and electronics. EU directivesrequire that EU member-states implementacts concerning gathering, processing,reusing and destroying waste products fromthe above-mentioned categories;• Improving technologies of destroying wasteproducts and monitoring. When possible,waste products which are not subject toprocessing and reuse should be burnt insafe conditions, and grounded only in theevent that there is no other alternative. Boththese methods require careful monitoringas much as they can potentially produceserious harm to the environment.Basic EU acts in the field of wastematerials treatment are shown below.However, they are supplemented by theDecision of the Community. The majorityof legal tools in the field of regulatingwaste management can be divided intohierarchical groups. The FrameworkDirective concerning waste products andthe Directive on Dangerous Waste Productsare the legislative base for regulating wasteproduct treatment. Within the framework ofthis base, there are two groups of additionaldirectives: one of them concerns specificwaste products, and another containsrequirements for the licensing and operationof equipment for destroying waste products.The third group of legal tools concernstransporting waste products within andoutside the EU.The legislative basis in the field ofregulating waste management is as follows:• Directive 75/442/EEU (amended andsupplemented with Directives 91/156/EEU,91/692/EEU, 96/350/EU and 96/59/EU)establishes the foundation of the legislativebasis in the field of waste managementon the European level. It provides forthe creation of a system of coordinatedwaste management on the Community’sterritory with the purpose of reducing theirmanufacturing. This directive concerns allsubstances or sites destroyed by the owneror which should be destroyed, accordingto the provisions of the acting nationallegislation of EU member states It does notapply to radioactive, mineral, agriculturalwaste products, sewage, gaseous wasteproducts and processed waters for whichspecial locations of Community aredistributed.• Directive 91/689/EEU77 contains moresevere requirements and tools for treatingand monitoring dangerous waste productsthan Directive 75/442/EEU76, whichestablishes the legislative basis for all wasteproducts. It also replaces Directive 78/319/EEU concerning toxic and dangerous wasteproducts.Specific waste products• Directive 75/439/EEU119 on reducingoil waste products (amended andsupplemented with Directives 87/101/EEUand 91/692/EEU and partially replacedwith Directive 2000/76/EU) developedwith the purpose of creating a coordinatedsystem of collecting, processing, storingand destroying oil waste products, suchas greasing lubricant oils for vehicles andengines. This directive is also aimed atprotecting the environment against theharmful influence of such kinds of activity.• Directives 78/176/EEU, 82/883/EEU and92/112/EEU on the industrial wastes of titandioxide;58

• Directive 91/157/EEU on batteries andaccumulators that contain dangerous,harmful substances;• Directive 94/62/EU144 on packagingmaterials and waste products (directiveon packaging). This directive foreseesmeasures directed, above all, on preventingthe creation of packaging waste productsand on reusing packaging materials,processing and other forms of recycling withthe purpose of reducing the volumes of finaldestruction of such materials;• Directive 96/59/EU on destroyingpolychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinatedterphenils (PCB/PCT);• Directive 86/278/EEC128 onenvironmental protection, particularly soil,from deposits of sewage from agriculturalactivity. This document regulates sewagesettling so as to prevent a harmful influenceto the ground, flora and fauna and onhumans, or to minimize it. It is also directedtowards involving the reuse of sediments inagricultural activity.• Directive 2002/59/EU on waste productsfrom navigation activity and cargo rests;• Directives 2002/95/EU and 2002/96/EUon waste products of electric devices andelectronics;• Directive 2002/53/EU on used vehicles;Processes and equipment• Directive 94/67/EU on burning dangerouswaste products (should be cancelled byDirective 2000/76/EU);• Directive 99/31/EU on grounding wasteproducts;• Directive 2000/76/EU on burning wasteproducts;Transportation, importing and exportingof waste products• Decision of EEC № 259/93 on supervisingand controlling imports and exports of wasteproducts from EU territories;• Decision №1420/1999 and №1547/99on rules and procedures used fortransporting some kinds of waste products59to countries which are not members of theOrganization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment.Protecting water resources and waterresources managementWater resources are one of the mostregulated areas of European rightsconcerning the environment. Based on thenecessity of fundamentally revising thelegislative basis with the goal of developinga new EU policy in the field of waterresources use, and also on the basis ofconsultation with a wide range of experts,the European Economic Commissionproposed a new EU Water DirectiveFramework, which was approved in 2000and has the following goals:• developing a complex Community policyon water resources use and its introductionbased on the subsidiary principle;• widening the spheres of water resourcesdefense to all waters: surface waters, inparticular coastal, as well as underground;• achieving “the proper condition” of allwaters to a certain date and maintaining thestate where it had already been reachedearlier;• water resource management of riverbasins, based on the combined approachof establishing maximum indicators ofemissions and quality standards, withcorresponding positions for coordinatingactions for international river basins locatedin more than one country – an EU memberstateand/or when they occupy territories ofnon-EU member-states;• establishing tariffs for water resources usewith the principle of compensating expensesand penalizing polluters;• expanding citizens involvement inprotecting water resources;• improving legislation.The basic legislative acts in protectingand preserving water resources include thefollowing Directives and Decisions, and alsosome international agreements.

Legislative basis• The Water Directive Framework 2000/60/EU (amended and supplemented withDecisions № 2455/2001/EU) establishesthe legislative basis for the Communitypolicy for using and preserving waterresources, as well as protecting continentalsurface, coastal and underground waters,with the goal of preventing and reducingpollution, ensuring sustainable use of water,protecting the water environment, improvingthe condition of water ecosystems andminimizing the negative consequences offlooding and droughts.Approval of the Water DirectiveFramework in 2000 has made theCommunity’s legislation more rationalbecause it has replaced seven previousdirectives concerning surface water;water habitats of fishes, mollusks andcrustaceans; underground waters; andemissions of dangerous substances.Water quality• Directive 76/160/EEU on water forswimming;• Directive 98/83/EU on water quality forhuman consumption.Emissions control• Directive 91/271/EEU (amended andsupplemented with Directive 98/15/EU andthe corresponding Decision 93/481/EEU) onprocessing city sewage;• Directive 91/676/EEU on protecting waterfrom nitrate and agricultural pollution.Monitoring and reporting• Decision 77/795/EEU (amended andsupplemented with Decisions 84/422/EEU,86/574/EEU and 90/2 /EEU) on generalprocedures of information exchange.International legislation• Convention on access to information,participation in public decision-making andaccess to justice on environmental issues(Orgus, 1998).• Convention on evaluating environmentalinfluences in the transborder context(1991).• the Helsinki Convention on relativetransborder water torrents and internationallakes (1992).• Conventions on the basins of the riversDanube (1987), Elba (1990), Oder (1996),Rhein (1999).• the Barcelona Convention (1976) withamendments, additions and protocols.• Convention OSPAR (1992) withamendments and additions.• the Bonn Agreement to cooperate againstNorthern Sea pollution by oil and otherharmful substances (1983).• the Helsinki Convention on the Baltic Sea(1992).• the Stockholm Convention on sustainableorganic polluters (SOPs), directed onclosing and minimizing the production,use and emissions of sustainable organicpolluters (ratified by the EU in 2004, byDecision on October 14, 2004).Natural and biological diversityprotectionThe purpose of EU policy on natural andbiological diversity protection is defendingthe habitats of wild flora and fauna. Thispolicy is based on four principles:• protecting biological diversity in all EUcountries by ensuring that separate variousand kinds of flora and fauna are supportedaccording to the “status of favorablepreservation”;• protecting rare kinds of flora and faunawhich are under threat of vanishing in eachEU member-state and in all of Europe;• protecting habitats of great importancefor the European Community which areunder threat of destruction at the localand regional levels and are biogeographicreserves of Europe;• contribution to preserving separate kindsof rare plants and animals in countries60

located outside Europe by establishingrestrictions on trading them.The legislation on protecting natural andbiological versatility contains four Directives,four rules and two decisions:• Directive 79/409/EEU on preserving wildbirds;• Directive 92/43/EEU on preservinghabitats, and also wild fauna and flora;• Directive 83/129/EEU on importing to EUmember-states seal skins and productsmade of them;• Directive 1999/22/EU on keeping wildanimals in zoos;• Regulations № 338/97 on protecting somekinds of wild fauna and flora by regulatingtrade;• Regulations № 348/81 on general rules forimporting whales or other representatives ofthe whale family;• Regulations № 3254/91 which forbid theuse of traps in EU countries, as well asimporting skins and goods made from wildanimals from the countries where they arecaught, by using traps or snares that do notmeet international standards of humanetreatment towards animals;• Regulations № 2494/2000 on measureswhich assist in preserving tropical andother forests in developing countriesand implementing their permanentmanagement;• Decision 98/145/EU on approving, onbehalf of the EU, additions to AppendicesI and II of the Bonn Convention on issuesrelated to preserving of some kinds ofmigrating wild animals, according to theDecision reached at the fifth meeting of theConference of Parties of this Convention.• Decision 93/626/EEU on approving theConvention on biological diversity (signedby the Community in July 1992, Rio deJaneiro). This Convention is directed onforeseeing, preventing and strugglingagainst the decline and exhaustion ofbiological diversity because of its value,and also its ecological, genetic, social,economic, scientific, educational, cultural,recreational and aesthetic importance.Soil protectionOne of the goals of 6 EAP is protectingsoil from erosion and pollution. Nowadays,the EU is developing a strategy of protectingsoil on Community territories. The strategywill take into account principles of discretion,harm prevention and environmentalresponsibility. It will also focus attentionon already undertaken environmentalinitiatives to best integrate soil protectioninto other spheres, soil monitoring, as wellas new programs based on the results ofmonitoring. The new legislation shouldsupplement the working one and to takeinto account general policy in the field ofagriculture (Common Agricultural Policy).The Commission intends to give financialsupport to develop agriculture, rural regionsand soil protection.The European Community is alsoparty to the United Nations Convention toCombat Desertification (UNCCD) in nationsthat suffer from strong droughts and/ordesertification. The community signed theConvention in October 1994 and it becameenforced in June 1998.Chemical productsThe overall aim of legislation on chemicalpreparation and genetically modifiedorganisms is minimizing the risk to publichealth and/or the environment. The basicpurpose of directives concerning routinelaboratory practice is ensuring that tests onthe influence on health, the environmentand safety, which are carried out in differentlaboratories of different countries, wouldbe carried out according to authorizedstandards. Introducing into life the ОEUРAgreement on mutual recognition of datawill enable derivative data collection of theentire world’s routine laboratory practices,avoiding duplication of safety tests andachieving within EU limits prohibitionsagainst extra-tariff barriers, which will assistin the trading of chemicals and chemical61

products. On the other hand, one of overallobjectives of Directive 86/609/EEU isminimizing the suffering of animals that areused for experimental purposes.The chemical products and geneticallymodified organisms section is coveredby fourteen legal acts, in particular:seven Directives, four decisions andthree regulations. This legislation can bedivided into three categories: chemicalsand genetically modified organisms,routine laboratory practice and animalexperimentation.Chemicals• Decision 1999/314/EU which applies to thesurvey on Directive 96/82/EU for controllingthe risk of catastrophes involving dangeroussubstances;• Directive 87/217/EEU on asbestos;• Directive 67/548/EEU on classifying,packing and marking dangeroussubstances;• Directive № 793/93 (and relatedDecisions) on evaluating the risks related toexisting substances;• Directive 300/2002/EU on exporting andimporting dangerous substances (addition2455/92/ EEU);• Directive 2037/2000/EU on substancesthat reduce ozone content in the ozonelayer (Directive 3093/94/EC is additional).Genetically modified organisms• Directive 98/81/EC on using cannedgenetically modified organisms;• Directive 2001/18/EC on intentionalemissions of genetically modifiedorganisms;• Decision 2000/608/EU on provisionsevaluating risk according to Directive 98/81/EC.• Decision 2002/812 EU on a format ofshown information on marketing geneticallymodified organisms as products or inproducts.• Decision 2002/813 EU establishing aformat of shown information containing amessage on genetically modified organismswithout the goal of marketing.Experiments on animals and routinelaboratory practice• Directive 86/609/EEU on protectinganimals used for experimental and otherscientific purposes;• Directive 87/18/EEU on applying routinelaboratory practice principles;• Directive 88/320/EEU on checking andconfirming routine laboratory practice.Acoustic pollutionThe sixth action program in the fieldof environment continues measuresaimed at fighting acoustic pollution in thewider context. Its purpose is “significantlydecreasing the amount of people whoconstantly fall under long-term exposure tomiddle noise levels, especially connected totraffic, and preparing the following actionsto work with the directive on noise in theenvironment. With this purpose, two typesof actions are foreseen:• blocking noise sources: additional andfurther measures to improve the situation,including approval procedures that applyto noise emanation related to services andproducts -- from railway transportation,planes and stationary technical equipmentand particularly from automobiles --including measures to reduce noise fromthe interaction of tires with road surfaceswhich do not increase risks to road safety;• reducing noise-related traffic: toolswhich are developed and applied in life toreduce noise-related traffic in those areaswhere it is needed, for example, reducingtransportation, transitioning to less noisyvehicle models, assisting engineeringmeasures and constant traffic planning.Directive 2002/49/EU on environmentalnoise is an important part of efforts toestablish common noise policy. Besides62

that, the Commission has created an EUnetwork of noise assessment and offersfinancial support to different research onnoise pollution and corresponding scientificprojects.The basic directive within EU legislationframework on noise pollution is:• Directive 2002/49/EU on evaluating noiseand its management in the environment.This directive is directed towardscontrolling noise from which people sufferin construction zones; public parks or othersilent areas; silent zones of open spacesnear schools, hospitals and other buildings;and zones sensitive to noise. This directivedoes not apply to noise caused by people,particularly related to domestic activity, ornoise that is created by neighbors, noiseat workplaces or inside vehicles, or noiserelated to military activity in military zones.Other Directives are specific andconcern the following:• automobiles (four basic Directives 70/157/EEU, 97/24/EEU and 2001/43/EU);• home appliances (Directive 86/594/EEU);• non-stationary equipment (Directive2000/14/EU);• aviation (four basic Directives 80/51/EEU,89/629/EEU, 92/14/EEU and 2002/30/EU).Climate changeOn February 4, 1991, the EU Councilauthorized the Commission to take partin negotiations on behalf of the EU on theU.N. Framework Convention ConcerningClimate Change (UNFCCC), which wasaccepted in New York City on May 9, 1992.The community ratified the FrameworkConvention with the Decision 94/69/EU onDecember 23, 1993 and with an effectivedate of March 21, 1994.At the fourth meeting of the Conferenceof Parties (COP) in Berlin on March1995, the Parties decided to agree on theProtocol, which contained measures toreduce emissions in industrial countriesthrough 2000. After hard work, thecorresponding Protocol was agreed to inKyoto on December 10, 1997.The European Community signed theProtocol on April 29, 1998. In December2001, the EU Council in Laekene confirmedits intention to put the Kyoto Protocol intoaction before the Johannesburg Summiton Sustainable Development. That iswhy on behalf of the Community, the EUCouncil with its Decision 2002/358/ECapproved the Kyoto Protocol. Memberstateshad to coordinate their actions andinvolve mechanisms of ratification to ratifythe Protocol simultaneously with the EU,therefore by June 2002.EU legislation in the field of climatechange includes two decisions and onedirective:• Decision 2002/358/EU on approvingon behalf of the EU the Kyoto Protocolof the United Nations FrameworkConvention on climate change andmutual implementation of correspondingobligations;• Decision № 280/2004/EU onmechanisms of monitoring in Communitycountries gases that are capable ofproducing the Greenhouse Effect,related to upholding Kyoto Protocolrequirements;• Directive 2003/87/EU (supplementedwith Directive 2004/101/EU) establishingthe mechanism of selling permission forgas emissions within the Community’sboundaries and fulfilling Directive 96/61/EU.European Union expansion processNew members are accepted to the EUaccording to Article 49 of the Agreement onthe European Union. The EU Council has toagree unanimously to conduct negotiationsafter European Commission consultationsand receiving approval from the EuropeanParliament. Conditions of acceptance,any transition periods and amendments toAgreements creating the EU’s basis, aresubject to agreement between the countrycandidateand member-state. To be putinto action, the agreement needs to beratified by all the member-state signatories,in agreement with their correspondingconstitutional requirements.63

EU admission negotiations are aimed atreviewing the ability of candidates to carryout their requirements to member-state andto apply the Community’s legislative body atthe moment of acceptance. In particular, thisrelates to measures to expand the commonmarket, which should be introducedimmediately. During negotiations, issues ofpre-membership assistance, which the EUcan provide, are also taken into account.Negotiations may be conducted even ifthe legislative base of country - candidatesis not completely ready and if transitionmeasures may be applied only after acandidate’s acceptance.The negotiations have a bilateralIntergovernmental Conference form (the EUmember-state/ the country-candidate), forwhich ministers gather every half-year, andambassadors monthly. The Commissiondefines the common position of negotiatingeach section of issues in the Community’scompetency, and the Council approvesunanimously this position. Negotiationresults will be generalized in a membershipdraft agreement. This agreement shouldbe approved by the Union and ratified bymember-states and country-candidates.During the last EU expansion, theUnion and CEE countries concludeda common associated agreement of aspecial type under the name, “EuropeAgreement.” Its purpose was to preparethe associated states for introduction intothe EU. It was based on respect for humanrights, democracy, norms of the law and amarket economy. The Europe Agreementis concluded for an undefined period (butit will be replaced with any agreementon acceptance) and has several specialfeatures:• political aspects, which foresee bilateraland multilateral consultations;• trade aspects, with the goal of forming afree trade zone;• economic, cultural and financialcooperation;• coordinating legislation, particularlyconcerning intellectual property and normson competitiveness.In the field of institutional measures,the general management by the EuropeanAgreement is placed on the associatedcouncil, which consists of representatives ofthe EU and European Commission on theone hand, and government representativesof the associated countries on the other.The Associated Committee, whichconsists of associated council members,organizes work and prepares matters fordiscussion at associated council meetings.Besides that, the associated council mayreceive recommendations from EuropeanParliament members and the nationalparliament of the associated country.In June 1993, the European Council inCopenhagen recognized the rights of CEEcountries to join the EU if they meet thefollowing criteria:• political: sustainable institutes, which willguarantee democracy, rule of law, humanrights and respect for minority rights;• economic: functioning of marketeconomies;• introducing the Community’s legalexperience: approving various political,economic and monetary goals of the EU.These criteria for joining the EU wereconfirmed on December 1995 by theEuropean Council in Madrid, which alsohas emphasized the importance of adaptingadministrative structures of countrycandidatesfor creating conditions ofharmonious integration.Strategy of including the Community’slegislative legacy into national legislationThe Community’s legislative legacy is acase of rights and duties that belong to allmember-states within the EU boundaries. Itis constantly being developed and covers:• content, principles and political aims of theAgreements (the EU’s primary rights);64

• legislation approved for implementing theAgreements and Justice Court judgments;• declarations and resolutions approved bythe Union;• measures on common foreign and safetypolicy;• measures on justice and internal affairs;• international agreements reached by theCommunity and also by member-statesamong themselves regarding the Union’sactivity.So the Community’s legislative legacycontains not only the Community’slegislation in the direct sense, but alsothe laws approved by the second andthird branches of the EU governmentand common goals mentioned in theAgreements. The Union has taken uponitself the obligation to adhere to thelegislative legacy of the Community in allits completeness and to develop further.The countries-candidates should acceptthe Community’s “rights” before they join it.Partial deviation from these “rights” may beauthorized under exclusive circumstancesand in limited scales. For EU integration,member-states should adopt legal acts thatbelong to the EU’s legislative legacy intotheir national legislation, to implement themfrom the moment of joining the Union and toapply them further.Introduction and implementationof the Community’s legislation are thebasic problems that arise before countrycandidates.They require strengthening themanagement and legal systems, strong Adopt means the process of approving andsupplementing national legislation and proceduresso that it consists of and completely includes EUlegislative requirements. Implement means to ensure the existenceof appropriate budgets to implement the laws andnorms (it is also known as “implementing directivesinto practice”) Application of law means the necessary controland punishment so that legal requirements areimplemented completely and properly.65adaptation of the country-candidate’s infrastructurefor it to meet the Community’sstandards, particularly on the environment,transport, energy and telecommunications.To implement all these changes, the country- candidate is given pre-membershipassistance, including technical help.Environmentally related infrastructureinvestment problemsConforming to the EU’s ecologicalrequirements represents the main problemfor countries preparing for EU membership.Depending on the country-candidate’s lag inthe sphere of environmental protection, thepreparation to entry, in its ecological aspect,may require attracting large investmentsfrom member-states. That is why theCommission emphasizes a realistic, nationallong-term strategy for introducing the EU’slegislative legacy and stimulating countriesto mobilize significant internal and externalfinancial resources, especially private funds,to ensure the meeting of requirements inthis matter.For CEE countries, the Union hasallocated significant financial help (via“Agenda-2000”) for ecological investmentin countries-candidates, particularly withthe pre-membership instrument of structuralpolicy (ISPA), for the updated programPHARE, and SAPARD, the special programon agricultural and village development.ISPA whose work started in 2000, allocatesmore than 500 million euros annually forinvestments into environmental protectionfor 2000-2020.According to the Commission, countrycandidatesshould spend between two andthree percent of annual Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) for several years to executefull introduction of the EU’s legislativebasis on ecological requirements. Thelatest research shows that necessaryexpenditures of Gross Domestic Productfor these purposes should be above twopercent for the Czech Republic and up to 11

percent for Bulgaria . Sources of financinginclude loans from international financialinstitutions, bilateral grants and credits,commercial bank loans, direct foreigninvestment and income from payment foruse, deductions and taxes.Transition periods after joining arenecessary to introduce “investmentrequiring”directives. However, the transitionperiod should be accompanied by theintroduction of programs with intermediatetarget indicators and results which may betraced after the date of approval.The Commission’s technical help wasmade accessible in order to developmentmechanisms to introduce and financeecological strategies through the ecologicalpriorities program for membership (PriorityEnvironmental Program for Accession –PEPA).The program started to work in 1999.Its role consists in maintaining developmentof plans to introduce “investment-requiring”directives and in ensuring that countrieshave a priority list of projects for introductionfor the next several years. During the firstyear, the PEPA program is directed towardplanning investments, and during the nextyears, toward developing long lists of longtermpriority projects.Key “ investment-requiring” directivesSome ecological directives may bedifficult to perform depending on thecountry-candidate’s current infrastructureand on available financial resources.Besides that, member-states’ experiencein introducing these directives is furtherconfirmation of this problem’s dimensions.The “investment-requiring” directives arenot the only directives that need investmentto be implemented, but they create thegreatest problems concerning the necessaryamount of projects and levels of investment.A list of such potential “investmentsrequiring”directives is offered below: Bulgaria: the problem of satisfying EUecological Directives. – World Bank, October, 2000.66Expenditures estimate for conforming directiverequirements to Ukraine’s city sewage purifyingfactories and large garbage incineration factoriesA World Bank-supported investigation resulted in thefollowing:- expenditures to review regulatory norms: $2 to$4 million for basic legislation and $2 to $20 millionfor subsidiary legal acts (implementing the regulatorynorms).- expenditures to reinforce staff abilities(education and purchasing office equipment: $25 to$50 million).Water sector• Directive 98/83/EU on water quality forhuman consumption.• Directive 91/271/EEU on water purificationin cities.• Directive 76/464/EEU on pollution bycertain dangerous substances which aredisposed into the water environment of theCommunity’s countries, supplemented bythe Council Directive of 91/692/EEU andadditional directives.• Directive 91/676/EEU on protectingwater from pollution caused by nitrates ofagricultural origin.• Directive 2000/60/EU establishing thebasis for Community action on water policyissues.• Directive 76/160/EEU on water quality forswimming.Air quality• Directive 96/62/EU on estimating andmanaging air quality.• Directive 99/30/EU on maximum levels ofsulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and nitrogenoxides, particularly firm particles and lead inthe air.• Directive 98/70/EU on petrol and dieselfuel quality, and Directive 93/12/EEU thatsupplements it.

• Directive 1999/32/EU on reducing sulfurcontent in some rare kinds of fuel andDirective 93/12/EEU that supplements it.• Directive 94/63/EU on emissions controlover volatile organic compounds as a resultof gasoline storage and its delivery fromterminals to service stations.Industrial pollution• Directive 96/61/EU on complex pollutionprevention and control.• Directive 88/609/EEU on restrictingemissions of certain polluting substancesinto the air by big incineration factories (tobe supplemented by Directive 94/66/EU).• Directive 1999/13/EU on restricting emissionsof volatile organic compounds due touse of organic solvents in certain processesand equipment.• Directive 96/82/EU on controlling the basicsources of accidents involving dangeroussubstances.Waste management• Directive 1999/31/EU on grounding wasteproducts.• Directive 89/369/EEU on preventing airpollution by new municipal incinerationfactories.• Directive 94/67/EU on incineratingdangerous waste products.• Common position № 7/2000 approved bythe Council with the purpose to approveDirective 2000/... / EU on waste productsincineration.• Directive 75/442/EEU on waste products(supplemented with Directive 91/156/EEU).• Directive 91/689/EEU on dangerous wasteproducts (supplemented with Directive94/31/EU).• Directive 86/278/EEU on environmentalprotection, particularly soils when sewagedeposits are used in agriculture.Example of Environmental Strategy withthe goal of EU membership for Centraland Eastern European countriesBetween EU member-states and CEEcountries, there is a large gap concerningecological legislation. The full satisfactionof the Community’s legislative normsprobably becomes achievable only in faraheadprospects. On the basis of “Agenda-2000,” the Commission will develop aspecial strategy to include priority actionspheres and key tasks that should beexecuted at the moment of membership,as well as a further schedule of achievingset goals to satisfy these requirements.The problems that arise for Central andEastern Europe countries are as follows:• legislative: implementing ecological rulesrequires a preliminary complex analysisof CCE countries’ legislation to define thepriorities;• institutional: country-candidates shouldstrengthen their administrative structures,become more efficient and coordinate thework of departments responsible for thecountry’s ecological policy;• financial: development of financialstrategies is extremely important andshould become the top priority.The basic environmentalproblems:• air pollution: occurs mostly throughstationary sources of pollution (thermalpower stations and regional TPS). Thegovernment’s first step is to definethe zones and areas where EU limitsare exceeded; it is also important tomodernize cleaning structures and havethem conform to European standards;• waste management: measures toconform legislation in some countriesquickened, beginning in 1997 (nationalinvestment programs, modernization ofincineration factories);• water pollution: in the majority ofcountries, basic investment programs arebeing introduced towards improving thequality of water and waste management,67

however a few things have been achievedin introducing and applying the directiveon “nitrates” use;• industrial pollution control and riskmanagement: this field requires specialattention from country-candidates asthey have many industrial enterprisesand power stations which pollute theenvironment with industrial wastes;• nuclear safety and protection againstradiation: all countries recently haveapproved the corresponding laws whichshould be supplemented with additionallegal acts for their complete performance.The commission has put forward anumber of priorities that will help countrycandidatesto develop their nationalprograms of accepting the EU’s legislativelegacy. These priorities should be definedon the basis of a detailed analysis of theecological situation in each country. Thecommission is convinced that all thesecountries have serious problems with:• air pollution;• water pollution;• waste management.The country-candidates should fill inthe gaps in legislation and administrativerules and improve the ecological situationwhile simultaneously strengthening theeconomy and competitiveness. Regardingthis matter, in 1997 Commission’s WorkingReport “Provisions for Conforming tothe European Union’s Legislation onEnvironmental Protection,” the followingbasic problems of country- candidateswere defined and the following actionswere proposed:1. While developing national programs,the country-candidates should take intoaccount:• instruments of integrating their nationaleconomic and branch policies of programsassisting the efficiency of using energy,clean technologies, minimizing water useand processing waste products;• ways of directing to sustainabledevelopment industrial and agriculturalmanufacturing;• mechanisms of achieving of setecological targets during transitionperiods.2. Application of ecological subsidiarylegal acts, which are a component of theEU legislative legacy, will require creatingan expenditure infrastructure for:• drinking water supply;• sewage management;• large incineration factories;• waste management.Since in general it is less expensive toapply actions to decrease pollution usingnew physical investments rather thanmodifying old capacities. In the “Agenda2000,” it’s mentioned that “all newinvestments should meet EU legislationrequirements.” So the financing given bythe Community will depend on observingthis requirement.On their own, the country-candidateshave to mobilize resources that arenecessary for them to observe theEU’s ecological legislative legacy acts.However, the Community and memberstates(bilateral programs) should alsoparticipate. In particular, the Commissionintensified its work in ecological sectorthrough the program PHARE and byencouraging country-candidates toparticipate in the financial instrument ofthe Community’s ecological protection(LIFE).Assistance in environmental protectionto country-candidates considerablyevolved since 2000, particularly thanksto the “pre-membership” instrument ofstructural policy (ISPA) that concerns theenvironment and transportation.To ensure effective use of resources,it is important to coordinate, direct andsingle-mindedly use external assistance.That is why the Commission decided toexpand dialogue and cooperation withmember-states and international financialinstitutions. It will give also legal andadministrative technical help and advice tocountry-candidates on implementing theecological legislative legacy.68

Recommendations1. To analyze and compare EUlegislation of the EU and acting Ukrainianlegislation in the field of environmentalprotection.An important step in harmonizingUkrainian legislation is analyzing andcomparing the EU’s ecological legislativelegacy acts and the acting Ukrainianecological legislation for defining currentagreement conditions and appropriatelyconforming national legislation to EUlegislation. Also, it is important to showgaps in Ukrainian legislation, where it isnecessary to implement investment projectsto achieve conformity with EU obligations.Such a primary evaluation will enablethe discovery of whether the nationallegislation covers each subject and issuerepresented in EU legislation. If nationallegislation corresponds with EU obligations,then the evaluation depends on reviewingthis conformity. The national legislation cancorrespond with EU obligations partially, andthen during evaluation, the gaps in laws andlegal norms should be defined, along withpossible ways to overcome them. If it sohappens that national legislation contradictsEU legislation, then the evaluation shouldinclude a review of various changes to thecorresponding national legislation.Such a step offers the chance totake into account plans, strategies andagreements which already exist and coverthe issue of conforming legislations, suchas the information initiative to converge thelegislations under the PCA, and possiblyother initiatives in related policies. It willenable the creation of the so-called tableof agreement, and thus a comprehensiveaction plan to conform legislations.2. To develop a national program forapproving ecological documents of the EUlegislative legacy.Ukraine already has a year of experiencein planning to harmonize legislation.This process should review the “table ofagreement,” which developed according tothe first recommendations; prioritize actionsthat should be used and develop a nationalprogram for approving the EU’s ecologicallegislative legacy.Implementation plan for the CzechRepublic and SloveniaOn the eve of negotiations on theenvironment chapter, the Czech Ministryof Environmental Protection prepareddetailed plans for introducing each EUecological act. These plans define theinstitutions responsible for introducingeach EU act, act requirements andmeasures to introduce correspondingdeadlines in implementing eachrequirement and main obstacles toimplementation. They also propose howto overcome these obstacles, financialneeds (institutional strengthening, privatesector investment, need for private sectorinvestments), and also a list of concreteprojects on implementation.Before membership negotiations,the Slovenian Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection prepared detailed plans forimplementation, based upon which actionplans and investment expense budgetswere approved to substantiate applicationsfor transition period aid. The EuropeanCouncil accepted these action plans andtheir schedules of introduction. They canbe found on the Slovenian government’sWeb page.This program should include a governmentalauthority at the national level,which should undertake the responsibilityfor harmonizing legislation and becomethe EU’s interlocutor. Such a plan canbe introduced into a national plan forenvironmental protection measures.3. To develop an investment plan.Guided by the “table of agreement,”to define legislation gaps in “investmentrequiring” directives and which require acapital-intensive ecological infrastructure.To define and prioritize investment needs,including alternatives based on the principleof the least cost to reduce emissions, and todevelop an investment plan indicating theirfinancing source.69

4. To construct capable judicial poweraccording to EU ecological legislation.Simultaneous with harmonizing ecologicallegislation, there is a need to developand distribute a program of activating theUkrainian judicial system, including judges,lower-level judges and judicial secretaries.Such a program would enable members ofjudicial systems to learn the EU’s ecologicallegislative legacy and introduce it intothe Ukrainian legislation. It would alsostrengthen awareness in the judicial branchabout trends and problems in environmentalmanagement, would open dialogue amongcolleagues and represent the role of judicialpower in local environmental problems.A similar program should be developedand implemented in educational structuresand mechanisms in training state sectoremployees in Ukraine.5. To implement harmonization forconsolidating ecological legislation.The New Zealand Act on ResourcesManagement (1991)This act is considered the first-evercomplex law on resources management.It has replaced 50 previous politicaldocuments and statutes that regulatednatural resource development and both cityand rural general planning. This law is themain act on natural resources management,excluding minerals and fishing.The act consists of three elements:1. Separating environmental protectionand environmental management fromresource development. Environmentalprotection has been delegated to threenewly created central executive bodies;2. Administrative-territorial reorganizationof local and regionalgovernments;3. Reform of resource management,based on which decision-making concerningresource management is decentralized andpassed to local authorities.http://www.mfe.govt.nz/laws/rma/“Improved norms” are a component of 6EAP, particularly a strategy of rationalizationand modernization, gradual replacementof numerous separate EU legislative actswith a legal basis and flexible strategy.The European Council in Lisbon requestedto create a strategy of simplifying andimproving the regulatory environmentthrough 2001.Not only should the new legislationcorrespond with the current fast-pacedand competitive environment (as well asconform with EU legislative legacy), butalso with the earlier developed normativedecisions. Ukraine should take advantageof this opportunity – the harmonizationprocess and the “improving norms” initiative– for consolidating ecological legislation asmuch as possible.Some principles of improving thelegal basis will include: legislativeaction only where it is necessary, wideconsultations and legislative influenceanalysis before a proposal is submitted,selection of acceptable instruments(particularly self-regulation and mutualregulation), acceleration of the legislativeprocess, insurance of fast and effectiverepresentation, legislative influenceevaluation and accelerated simplificationand codification of available texts.6. To address the EU for technical andfinancial assistance.After the last EU expansion, someinstruments to help country-candidates inthe pre-membership transition process havebeen developed, namely TAIEX (TechnicalAid and Information Exchange), the LIFEprogram, the PEPA program, the premembershipinstrument of structural policy(ISPA), the PHARE program and other EUfinancial instruments.TAIEX is an instrument of theDepartment of Institutional Developmentof the European Commission’s GeneralBoard on Expansion. The services currentlyprovided by TAIEX include involving expertsto offer advice on legal acts and interpreting70

EU legislative legacy acts, educationaltrips, seminars and workshops, trainings,monitoring, databases, information productsand translation services.2.3. Structure and system of Ukraine’secological legislationDuring the years of Ukraine’sindependent law-making, significantlyadvanced and ramified ecologicallegislation (English “Environmentallegislation”) has been created, which byits structure, establishes a hierarchicalsystem of legal acts which regulate diversesocial relations concerning environmentalprotection, rational use of natural resourcesand ensuring ecological safety.The Constitution of Ukraine and how itrepresents ecological issuesThe nucleus of Ukraine’s ecologicallegislation system is the Constitution ofUkraine passed on June 28, 1996. TheConstitution of Ukraine in the chapteron regulating relations in environmentalprotection has a fixed number of importantprovisions. First of all, it raised to theconstitutional level the juridical power ofsome key ecological-legal norms whichwere already legislatively settled by then.This concern, above all, affirming Article50 of the Constitution, which refers tothe citizen’s right to an environment thatis safe for life and health and the right tocompensation for damages resulting fromviolations to this right. For each citizen,the constitutionally guaranteed right of freeaccess to information on environmentalconditions, on food quality and lifestylesubjects is constitutionally guaranteed,as well as the right to distribute suchinformation. “Such information may not berestricted by anyone,” declares Part Twoof Article 50. The wide palette of citizens’constitutional, ecological rights correspondwith their constitutional duty not to harmnature and to compensate for damagecaused (Article 66). Over ten articles ofthe Constitution directly regulate issues ofecological safety and rational use of natural Bulletin of the Supreme Council of Ukraine,1996.-#30.-p.14171resources, which offers a basis to considerthe Constitution of Ukraine ecologicallyoriented. In particular, this is the regulationof natural resource ownership (Article 13),the issue of land as the primary naturalwealth (Article 14), regulation of citizens’ecological safety (Article 16), exclusiveregulation by the fundamental laws ofecological safety and the legal regimeof emergency ecological situation zones(Points 6 and 19 of Article 92), and thecompetency of Ukraine’s Supreme Council(Article 85, Point 31) and the President ofUkraine (Article 196, Point 21) in declaringcertain zones emergency ecologicalsituations, as well as taking into accountthe knowledge of the Autonomous Republicof Crimea in introducing emergencysituation initiations and declaring zonesof emergency ecological situations onits territory (Article 138, Point 10), not tomention others.Citizen participation in makingecologically important decisions also hasa constitutional foundation. Article 38 ofthe Constitution guarantees to everyonethe right to take part in managing stateaffairs in all-Ukrainian and local referendaetc., and Article 40 guarantees the rightto direct collectively written appeals or toaddress personally government bodies,local government institutions, as well asofficials and people of authority. The duty ofofficial and authorized people is to considerthese appeals and to give the justifiedresponse under the terms establishedby law. The right of access to justice if acitizen’s right to an environment safe for lifeand health is violated has a constitutionalbasis. In this case, every person has theright to compensation for damage causedby a corresponding infringement. Besidesthat, Article 55 establishes the generalconstitutional norm on the judicial order ofprotection of rights and freedoms of peopleand citizens. Among the citizens’ primaryconstitutional rights, this part mentions theright to contest in court decisions, actions,as well as the negligence of governmentbodies, local government institutions,officials and people in authority. Article 56of the Constitution declares and ensuresthe right to compensation by state or local

government bodies for material and moraldamage caused by illegal decisions, actionsor negligence of government bodies, localgovernment institutions and their officialswhile implementing their authority. Allnorms of the Constitution of Ukraine thatdeclare citizen rights are norms of directaction and can be applied directly. In casesof violations to these rights, it is possible toinvolve mechanisms of judicial defense.Giving a general evaluation ofconstitutionally regulating ecologicalissues in Ukraine, it is necessary to notethat compared to the constitutions of EUmember-states, the Constitution of Ukraineis distinguished by a significantly highlevel of ecological regulation, especiallyin guaranteeing citizens the right to anenvironment that is safe for life and health,as well as the role of the state in protectingthis right. Such priority attention to thistopic is evidence of the deep ecologicalcrisis into which Ukraine had fallen duringthe early 1990s and comprehension of thenecessity to find ways out of it.Basic legal acts in the field of environmentalprotectionThe main act of Ukraine’s workingecological legislation is the law approvedfive years before the Constitution ofUkraine, “On protecting the naturalenvironment” (1991), which created thebasis for all further regulations in thecorresponding field. This law considersenvironmental protection an essentialcondition of society’s sustainabledevelopment and an integrated conceptthat unites not only its classical andessentially protective understanding, butalso ecological safety and rational use ofnatural resources. By this Law, Ukraine wasthe first among former U.S.S.R. states thatlegislatively fixed a wide range of citizens’ecological rights (Article 9 of the Law).Ground, water, forest legislation, bowelslegislation, atmospheric air protection, floraand fauna protection and use and otherspecial legislation was developed duringthe last 15 years on the basis of this Law,expanding its basic provisions.72Codification of Ukraine’s naturalresource legislation significantly affectedthe further development of ecologicallegislation, namely approving the GroundCode (first in the version dated December18, 1990 , then in the version dated March13, 1992 , and finally, the Ground Codeof 2001 ), the Forest Code (1994) 10 , theWater Code (1995) 11 , the Code of Ukraineon Bowels (1994) 12 , the Laws of Ukraine“On protecting atmospheric air” (in 1992,and in the version dated June 21, 2001) 13 ,“On fauna” (2001) 14 , “On flora” (1999) 15 and“On waste products” (1998) 16 .Each of these codifying acts hassettled: peculiarities involved in using andprotecting separate natural resources, thebasis for state and public managementin the corresponding field, controlimplementation and definitions for legalresponsibility for violations to the law.Besides acts of resource regulation,Ukraine approved a number of otherecologically oriented laws of a generalcharacter (which were called “horizontallegislation” in the EU legislation), as well asthose regulating separate spheres of socialdevelopment, during the 1990s and 2000s.Among the acts of “horizontallegislation,” the laws regulated by the basesof ecological safety differ. These are thelaws: “On ecological examination” (1995) 17 ,“On pesticides and agricultural chemicals”(1995) 18 ; “On use of nuclear energy andradiation safety” (1995) 19 ; “On treatingradioactive waste products” (1995) 20 , BSS of Ukraine, 1991.-#10.- p. 98. BSS of Ukraine, 1992.-#25. – p. 354. BSS of Ukraine, 2002. ##3-4. – p.27.10 BSS of Ukraine, 1994.-#17. – p. 99.11 BSS of Ukraine, 1995.-#24. – p.189.12 BSS of Ukraine, 1994.-#36. – p.340.13 BSS of Ukraine, 1992.-#50. – p.678; 2001. -#48. – p.252.14 BSS of Ukraine, 1993.-#18. – p.191.15 BSS of Ukraine, 1999.-#22-23. – p.198.16 BSS of Ukraine, 1998.-#36-37. – p.242.17 BSS of Ukraine, 1995.-#8. – p.54.18 BSS of Ukraine, 1995.-#14. – p.91.19 BSS of Ukraine, 1995.-#12. – p.81.20 BSS of Ukraine, 1995.-#27. – p.199.

“On sites of higher danger” (2001) 21 , “Onecological audit” (2004) 22 and some others.The other group ecologically oriented“horizontal legislation” establishes specialecological-legal regimens for somecategories of territories. In particular,these are the laws: “On emergencyecological situation zones” (2000) 23 , “Onthe legal status of emergency situations”(2000) 24 , “On the legal status of territorieswhich suffered radioactive pollution afterthe Chernobyl disaster” (1991) 25 , “On amoratorium on conducting clear-cutting onjuniper and beech forest hillsides of theCarpathian region” (2000) 26 , “On resorts”(2000) 27 , and others.One of the priorities of legislativeregulation in Ukraine’s ecological sphereis wildlife protection with the help ofbequeathing and preserving of biologicaldiversity. The first step in this direction wasthe approval of the Law of Ukraine, “OnUkraine’s natural reserves fund” (1992) 28 ,which created the basis for environmentalprotection by means of territorial andtopical protection. And the Law of Ukraine,“On the ecological network of Ukraine”(2004) 29 , marked a new stage in theconceptual development of approaches tonature reserve protection - from preservingseparate territorial units to creating a unifiedstructural network of natural territories andsites which are subject to special stateprotection.The important tendency of thelast decade became the introductionof ecological factors into regulatingdifferent types and sectors of economic,administrative and other activity. In thelegislation, this process was distinguishedas ecologizing other areas of legislation,particularly economic, administrative,21 BSS of Ukraine, 2001.-#15. – p.73.22 BSS of Ukraine, 2004.-#45. – p.500.23 BSS of Ukraine, 2000.-#42. – p.348.24 BSS of Ukraine, 2000.-#23. – p.176.25 BSS of Ukraine, 1991.-#16. – p.198.26 BSS of Ukraine, 2000.-#13. – p.99.27 BSS of Ukraine, 2000.-#50. – p.435.28 BSS of Ukraine, 1992.-#34. – p.502.29 BSS of Ukraine, 2004.-#45. – p.502.73financial, etc. In this context, the mostindicative are the Laws of Ukraine, “Ongame preserves and hunting” (2000), “Ontourism” (1995, new wording 2003), aswell as a number of laws which regulatetown-planning and construction activity,namely: “On the fundamentals of townplanning”(1992), “On planning and buildingterritories” (2000), and “On the generalscheme of planning Ukraine’s territories”(2002).The competency of local governmentinstitutions and local executive authoritiesin the field of environmental protection isrepresented in the laws of Ukraine, “Onlocal self-management in Ukraine” (1997)and “On local state administrations” (1999).Regardless that ecological leversare starting to be gradually introducedinto different sectors of Ukraine’s economy,economic, administrative, financialand other legislative areas are still notcompletely coordinated with the ecologicalsphere. Most importantly, theydon’t always have the mechanisms tointroduce ecological factors. Precisely thisdirection of developing legislative activity– ecologization in regulating the branchesof Ukraine’s economic activity - dominatesnowadays in light of adapting Ukraine’secological legislation to the EU’s legislation.Creating mechanisms that ensureeffective activity of ecological-legal normsis tightly connected to means of legalresponsibility for violations to ecologicallegislation requirements.For violations to Ukraine’s ecologicallaws, four kinds of legal responsibility maybe applied: disciplinary, administrative,criminal, and property (compensation fordamage caused by the violation). Thepeculiarity of Ukraine’s legal system isthat all regulations on legal responsibilityare grouped in special code acts: onadministrative responsibility - in the Codeof Ukraine on administrative offences,on criminal - in the Criminal Code ofUkraine, on disciplinary - in the Code ofUkraine on labour. The fundamentalsof applying property responsibility are

incorporated in the Civil Code of Ukraine.But the dimensions of damage causedas a result of ecological offences arecalculated proceeding from the rates ormethods that are stipulated by specialstatutory acts. At the end of the 1990s, thelegislation on administrative offences wassignificantly renewed. The special Chapter7, “Administrative offences in the field ofprotecting nature, natural resource use,protecting historical places and culture” isnow the biggest in volume and contains65 articles on administrative responsibilityfor ecological offences. The process ofpreparing the new Code of Ukraine onadministrative offences is about to end,which particularly plans to introduceadministrative responsibility of legal entitiesfor violating ecological legislation (today thesubjects for such responsibility may only byphysical entities: citizens and officials). In2001, new Criminal and Civil Codes wereapproved. In the Criminal Code, specialSection VIII of the special Chapter, “Crimesagainst the Environment” (Articles 236-254) was distinguished for the first time.Attributes more clearly distinguished qualifythe separation of grounds for administrativeand criminal liability in their respectivefields. For the criminal acts stipulatedby these articles of the Criminal Code ofUkraine, the following punishments maybe applied to violators: penalty, deprivationof the right to occupy certain position orto carry out certain activity, confiscation ofproperty, arrest, restriction or imprisonmentfor a certain term.Ukraine’s participation in the internationallegislative treaty process in the field ofenvironmental protectionDuring its years of independence,Ukraine has noticeably revived itsparticipation in international agreementsand other forms of international cooperationbetween states in the field of environmentalprotection to ensure sustainabledevelopment.Still as a republic of the USSR, since1945 Ukraine has had the status as aCharter Member of the United Nations,i.e. an independent subject of international74law. Thanks to this, prior to the 1990s,the Ukrainian S.S.R. participated in 18multilateral international agreements in thefield of environmental protection.After declaring independence, theSupreme Council of Ukraine approvedthe Law, “On Ukraine’s legal inheritance”(1991). With this Law, Ukraine hasconfirmed its obligations concerninginternational agreements concluded bythe Ukrainian SSR. Simultaneously, asa constituent part of a Union state, theUkrainian SSR carried out internationalobligations as well, which were stipulatedby the USSR’s multilateral agreements.Concerning such agreements, the Lawparticularly determined that the newstate was the successor of the rights andresponsibilities, which do not contradict theConstitution of Ukraine and the interests ofthe state. This general declaration requiredfurther analytical work with the purposeof defining international agreements, theimplementation of which met Ukraine’sinterests and did not contradict itsConstitution. In further respective decisions,higher bodies of Ukraine’s governmentlegally registered the membership of ourstate in a number of agreements in whichthe U.S.S.R. was a member (particularly theRamsar Convention on water and marshareas, which are internationally importantprimarily as waterfowl habitats, datedFebruary 2, 1971; Ukraine’s succession isrecognized by the Law of Ukraine datedOctober 29, 1996). Besides that, alreadyhaving the status of an independentstate, Ukraine has joined more than 20multilateral conventions of an ecologicalorientation. Among them are the ESPOConvention evaluating the environmentalinfluence in the transboundary context(approved on February 25 1991, ratifiedby Ukraine on March 19, 1999), theUnited Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (approved on May 9,1992, ratified by Ukraine on October 29,1996), the Kyoto Protocol to supplement it(approved on December 11, 1997, ratifiedby Ukraine on February 4, 2004), theUnited Nations Convention on Biological

Diversity (approved on June 5, 1992,ratified by Ukraine on November 29, 1994),the Kartagena Protocol on Biological Safetyto supplement it (approved on January29, 2000, Ukraine joined September 12,2002), the Convention on TransboundaryWater Currents and International Lakes(concluded March 17, 1992, Ukraine joinedon July 1, 1999) and a number of others.Currently our state is party to about 50multilateral international agreements onenvironmental protection. The issue ofparticipation in more is to be decided.Besides United Nations multilateralinternational conventions, a significantlayer of international agreements in whichUkraine is a participant were concludedduring the last decade on a bilateral orregional basis. Thus, during the yearsof independence, about 40 bilateralinternational agreements on cooperation inthe field of environmental protection wereconcluded on an intergovernmental orinteragent level.Among the regional internationalagreements, it is necessary to name severalagreements on the Carpathian region,particularly those developed with Ukraine’sFramework Convention on Protection andSustainable Development of the CarpathianMountains (from May 22, 2003, ratified byUkraine on April 7, 2004). As one of the sixBlack Sea states, Ukraine became Party tothe Convention on Protecting the Black SeaAgainst Pollution (concluded April 21, 1992,ratified by Ukraine on February 4, 1994)and the attached Protocol on Protectingthe Black Sea’s Biological Diversity andLandscape (from June 14, 2000). Amongthe countries of the Danube basin, Ukrainehas signed (on June 29, 1994) and ratified(on January 17, 2002) the Convention onCooperation on Protection and SustainableUse of the Danube River (the Conventionon Protecting the Danube) and a number ofother regional agreements.The European vector is a separateimportant vector of Ukraine’s internationalcooperation. In particular:• in 1993 Ukraine joined the “Environmentfor Europe” process, participating at thelevel of environmental protection ministersat a Lucerne, Switzerland conference.The Environmental Protection for Centraland Eastern Europe Program approvedat the conference was used by Ukraineto approve its national action plan on theenvironment;• in 1998 UNECE ratified a decision onthe convocation of the fifth Pan-EuropeanConference of Environmental ProtectionMinisters in 2003 in Kyiv. With the helpof UNDP and others donor agencies,the Ukrainian government prepared thisconference and demonstrated its role inenvironmental protection. It prepared itsNational Report on Harmonizing the Lifeof Society and the Natural Environment,”which included a survey of the conditionof Ukraine’s environment, the frameworkecological policy and a strategy oftransitioning to sustainable development;• in 1999 Ukraine’s and the UNECECommittee for Ecological Policy approvedthe recommendations mentioned in the“Survey of Effective Nature ProtectionActivity in Ukraine.” This survey contained,“Chapter 1: Legislative Instruments andInstitutional Basis for EnvironmentalProtection,” which included a survey oflegal and political foundations of activityin the field of ecology, environmentprotection management methods and alsopartnership processes and correspondingrecommendations;• in 1999 Ukraine participated in the sixthsession of the European CommissionCommittee on Ecological Policy, dedicateditself to further development of the“Environment for Europe” process throughevaluating the current condition of Europe’senvironment, developing political supportfor ecological purposes among EU nations,assisting in CIS ecological policy integrationand granting help to these countries tosolve environmental problems.International law regulations onenvironmental protection issues are being75

implemented in domestic legislation, whichenables the application of consistentdevelopment principles to Ukraine’snational legal system.Regulating ecological issues on the legalsupplementation levelBesides regulation by law,environmental protection and nature usemanagement is regulated with plenty oflegally supplementing acts of differingvalidity, differing action spheres anddiffering levels of approving institutions. Wewill schematically consider the main ones.Decrees of the President of Ukraine:• a structure of central executive organsis being approved for environmentalprotection, as well as the regulations onthose ministries, particularly those organsof special competency (it is now the Ministryof Natural Environmental Protection);• natural-reserve fund territories and sitesof national importance are being createdor re-organized; land is being reserved forfuture preservation;• separate districts are being announcedas territories of emergency ecologicalsituations, with special legal statusdesignations for these zones.The resolving of most of these issueshave been submitted for review byUkraine’s Cabinet of Ministers. They arerelated to creating mechanisms for realizinglegal norms that are contained in ecologicallaws. In almost each of these laws, it ispossible to find dozens of legal regulationsthat are realized “in an order, as stipulatedby the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.”Cabinet of Ministers decisions make up theoverwhelming majority of environmentalprotection regulation norms, which developlegal norms and create mechanisms,orders and procedures for their practicalrealization.The next ecological legislation regulationlevel consists of acts of ministries and othercentral government organs, which havesupra-departmental authority. Among suchacts, standards and specifications will bepointed out firstly.Ecological specifications are developedand implemented by Ukraine’s Ministryof Natural Environmental Protection andother authorized state bodies, according tonational legislation.Besides ecological specifications,Ukraine’s Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection issues other normative supradepartmentaldocuments: orders andinstructions.Besides the Ministry of NaturalEnvironmental Protection, the right toissue orders and approve instructions ofa supra-departmental nature in the fieldof environmental protection belongs tothe Ministry of Emergency Situations (aswell as protecting the population from theChernobyl disaster’s consequences), theMinistry of Agrarian Policy, the Ministry ofEconomics, Ministry of Health, the StateCommittee on Technical Regulation andConsumer Policy, the State Committee onForestry, the State Committee on GroundResources, the State Committee on WaterManagement, the State Committee onHousing and Municipal Services Issues,the State Committee on Ukraine’s NuclearRegulation and others.At the level of local self-management orlocal state administration, decisions maybe approved on issues that apply to theindependent authority of these regulationlevels, and also on issues on realizinglegislation at the local level and decisions ofcentral executive organs.The following issues are included inthe independent authority of local selfmanagementin the field of environmentalprotection:• territorial accomplishments;• noise control;• pet maintenance,• creating natural-reserve funds of territoriesand sites;76

• renting lands and transferring ownership,according to Ukrainian legislation.Decisions may be reached on theseissues, which will be mandatory for applyingon the corresponding territory.Evaluating the current system of ecologicallegislation and the prospect of itsimprovement in the context of adapting itto European Union legislationDuring fifteen years of developingUkraine’s ecological legislation, a largevolume and ramified hierarchical structureof legal acts was created on variousregulating levels, various legal authoritiesand different fields of application.We believe that during the period ofsubstantial addition to Ukraine’s ecologicallegislation, a phase of its systematizationis supposed to begin, therefore bringingtogether normative acts into a single,ordered combined system.Firstly, it is determined by a largenumber of acts issued by legislative bodieson the appropriate topics, with quickchanges that occur in legislation, provisionsthat duplicate one another and existinggaps simultaneously.Secondly, systemization is necessaryto improve the realization of rights, relatedto the need to quickly find and correctlyinterpret the norms of law, which in turnshould help to increase the effectivenessof legal education and scientific research inthe corresponding sphere.Finally, systemization of ecologicallegislation conforms to the basic tendenciesof the EU’s contemporary law, as stipulatedin the sixth program of action plans onenvironmental protection, namely – thecourse of gradually replacing numerousisolated legal acts with framework rules oflaw and flexible strategies.Legislation can be systematized intofour separate forms: 1) a registry ofnormative-legal acts; 2) their incorporation(issuing various collections andtheme assemblages of legislation); 3)consolidation (development and approvalof generalized laws on the basis ofunification of norms of separate normativelegal acts issued on the same question); 4)codification (development and approval ofprincipally new acts/codex’s).In what form should the processof systematizing Ukraine’s ecologicallegislation take place? Certainly incontemporary conditions, it is not enoughonly to account for issued legal acts thatare published, or publishing this legislationas separate collections. Systematizationneeds to be carried out on a higher level.We believe that in light of the volume andcharacter of ecological legislation and theneed to realize rights and basic conditionsin developing Ukraine’s legislative system,the most suitable form of consolidatingor codifying ecological legislation in thenearest future is the French type, in whichnew legal documents aren’t principallycreated. Rather, dozens and even hundredsof legal acts on a single issue are combinedin one general act. Such an act will besubject to approval by legislative bodiesand will be considered a new independentlegal source, and legal acts that served asthe basis for its creation will be consideredvoid.It is important to mention that a newact created as a result of consolidation (itmay be named the ecological code), willnot nullify previous legal regulation. Itspreparation and approval will assist in thebest structurization of acting ecologicallegislation, granting it a more logical andcomplete form, and eliminate repetitions,disagreements and non-agreements. Animportant requirement of consolidation isthe application of a unified terminology. Andin this area, a new regulation is authorizedwith the purpose of implementing aunified terminological lexical unit usedby modern ecological laws. It contains alot of problems, beginning with the basicterm “natural environmental protection,”its correlation with the constitutional“environmental preservation” and relationto the terms “nature protection,” “rationalnature use,” and “biological diversityprotection,” etc.77

It is necessary to understand that thecomplex work for consolidating ecologicallegislation is important, and one should notexpect it to be finished soon. However, it isnecessary to carry it out urgently, taking intoaccount the urgent needs of the spheres oflaw implementation. At that, the legal basisto begin such work is provided for in thebasic directions of Ukraine’s state policy inenvironmental protection, natural resourceuse and ecological safety maintenanceapproved by the Supreme Council ofUkraine on March 5, 1998 № 188, and alsoby the recommendation of parliamentaryhearings on observing the requirements ofnature preservation legislation in Ukraine,approved by Ukraine’s Supreme Council onFebruary 20, 2003 № 565, which stipulateddeveloping Ukraine’s ecological codeproject.An ecological code should settlethe whole spectrum of issues related toenvironmental protection as a single,integrated unit, ensuring ecological safetyin those areas where environmentalproblems arise.We consider it unreasonable toimplement in the ecological code theregulation of protecting and using separatenatural resources (ground, water, mountain,wood, atmosphere protection, faunaand flora). Natural resource aspects ofenvironmental protection for today are moreor less successfully settled on the level ofspecial legal acts, including codifications(the Land Code of Ukraine, the Water Codeof Ukraine, the Forest Code of Ukraine, theCode of Ukraine on Bowels,” the Laws ofUkraine “On protecting atmospheric air,”“On the animal world,” “On the vegetativeworld”), which, considering the specificityof each natural resource, regulate issues oftheir protection, rational use and recovery.Correlating the ecological code with activenatural resources laws and codes maybe described as combining integratedand differentiated compounds to regulaterelations between humanity and nature.This legislation is recently beingupdated. In particular, new editions ofthe Ground Code, the Laws of Ukraine78“On the animal world” and “On protectingatmospheric air” have been approved, andprojects on a new water code and codeon bowels are being developed. The newedition of the Forest Code of Ukraine isat the stage of approval by the SupremeCouncil. While performing codificationwork in corresponding resource spheres,it is necessary to proceed from the samelegal postulates, as during developing theEcological Code of Ukraine, namely: tocreate general acts on the available base oflaw sources, to which the sixth EU programof actions on environmental protectionorients us. In particular, it is known thatthe Code of Ukraine on bowels includesseveral dozens of already acting legislativeand other legal acts. Their application iscomplicated. The juridical power of somelaw supplementing acts requires them to beincreased to the level of laws. One needs tobe mindful of this when updating mountainand other resource legislation, from thestandpoint of its adaptation to EU’s existingenvironmental laws.In this context, it is necessary to findgaps in Ukraine’s ecological legislation,namely in spheres regulating environmentalprotection which don’t conform to the EU’slegislative acts.So, the system of ecologicalstandardization and normalization inUkraine needs to be reviewed from a formallegal point of view, as well as content.In the system of standards now active inUkraine’s territory, one may point out thefollowing:• GOSTs (former state standards of theUSSR) - uniform normative and technicaldocuments which remained acting sincethe Soviet times. Now they are used asthe interstate standards of the CIS Inthe system of GOSTs, there are Class17 documents: “System of standards inenvironmental protection and improvingnatural resource use,” of them more than60 standards are active on Ukraine’sterritory;• State Standards of Ukraine (DSTU) - thissystem began to develop since 1992. The

standards are approved by Ukraine’s StateCommittee of Technical Regulation andConsumer Policy (Derzhspozhyvstandart).It also supervises them. Until this time,about 20 standards of this kind have beenactive in environmental protection;• since January, 1, 1998, five internationalstandards ISO 14000 have been adopted inUkraine (provided with the status of DSTU)on ecological management and ecologicalaudit issues;• departmental standards.In the corresponding sphere, GOSTscontinue to play the most regulating role,considerably exceeding the role of DSTUand other kinds of standards.Besides standards, Ukraine hasa system of acting ecological andhygienic specifications that set criteriafor environmental quality, and establishnormative requirements for stationary andmobile sources of pollution.Ecological specifications establishemissions limits on chemical substances inthe natural environment, and the levels ofallowable harmful effect on its physical andbiological factors. Ukraine’s legislation canestablish specifications for natural resourceuse and other ecological specifications.Ecological specifications are establishedconsidering sanitary-hygienic requirementsand sanitary-anti-epidemic rules, normsand hygienic specifications.Hygienic specifications for maximumenvironmental concentration limits ofpolluting substances and harmful influencelevels are equal throughout Ukraine’sterritory. For resort, medical, recreationaland other separate areas, more strictspecifications of maximum concentrationlimits of polluting substances andother harmful influences on the naturalenvironment may be implemented.The system of ecological standardizationand normalization concerning theiradaptation to EU standards should beimproved in several directions. First, it isnecessary to unify the basic terminology,79which is used in ecological standards andspecifications. So the name of the systemGOST 17 needs to be changed (insteadof “Standards system in nature protectionand improving natural resource use”– “Standards system in environmentalprotection”), as well as the text of themajority of standards (especially groups“0”, “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5”, “9”).Secondly, until this time, in theclassification system of environmentalstandards categories (GOST 17...),standards for dangerous waste productmanagement were not allocated.To coordinate Ukraine’s standardswith European ones in the field of wastemanagement, it is necessary to take thefollowing measures:• to enter a special group of standards ofcategory GOST 17... - GOST 17.10 “Wastemanagement”;• to perform precise delimitation betweenfirm waste products in general, anddangerous ones in particular; to standardizeclassification of waste products dependingon groups of danger;• to re-evaluate the list of dangerouswaste products which are forbidden to beimported or transited via Ukraine’s territory.When adapting Ukraine’s ecologicalstandards system to EU requirements,supervision and measurement parametersand quality environmental monitoringmethods should be unified, or at leastcoordinated. It is also important touse uniform, European-conformingmeasurement units, and certifiedmeasurement and control means, basedon uniform methodologies. To ensure themaximum comparativeness of resultsб itis very important that control points areplaced according to uniform criteria, andcontrolled environment samples are takenwith identical periodicity.If corresponding domestic standards areanalyzed from these positions, it becomesclear that they have certain features thatfrom time to time complicate our state’s

participation in international programs, andother forms of cooperation.Firstly, a large number of stateenvironmental parameters attract attention(in Ukrainian legislation, they are called“maximum allowable concentrations”(MACs), or harmful substances in the air,water, ground and agricultural products),which according to Ukrainian specifications,are subject to monitoring and control.Besides, a significant part of Ukraine’scorresponding specifications are stricterthan those recommended by internationalorganizations and adopted by foreigncountries.Such “avante garde” positions of ourgovernment, however, cannot be regardedas positive in the context of unrealisticallyexecuting specifications in modernconditions, limited resources in providingfor necessary supervision and control, aswell as the technical and technologicalimpossibility of adhering to specifications.As a result of many strict specifications,for which conformity is poorly supervised(dozens of violations are sometimesallowed), MAC specifications on the wholeare not considered necessary to adhere to,but merely an ideal that is worth striving for(possibly as a remote prospect).This in turn results in a leveling ofdifferences between the attitude towardstypical polluting substances and towardsespecially dangerous ones, the excessivecontents of which in water, air, and theland can cause enormous damage topublic health and to the environment. Inpresent conditions, it would be expedientto reduce the list of environmental qualityelements subject to control, to make themmore realistically adhered to, and by usingalready available European standardssystems. At the same time, it is necessaryto provide more strict supervision of theiradherence.The domestic system of ecologicalstandards is remarkable by the factthat characteristics of environmentalcontamination in Ukraine are basedmostly on one-time exposures (20-3080min) and less on daily average, monthlyaverage and annual average exposures,whereas EU instructions mostly offer dailyand annual concentrations of pollutingsubstances as criteria of environmentalquality. The difference in approachescomplicates specifications comparisons,and environmental conditions, calculatedalong various methods.The system of financing natureprotection activity requires improvement, aswell as more consistent implementation ofUkrainian legislation and legal application ofnature use economic methods, particularlythe “He who pollutes, pays” principle.The law, “On protecting the naturalenvironment” (1991) for the first timeintroduced the economic mechanism ofnature use and environmental preservation,which in particular provided for financingnature protection activity; establishing asystem of fines (payments) for naturalresource use and pollution; limitingnatural resource use, polluting substanceemissions and waste product storage; aswell as some other levers. Basic sources offinancing of nature protection activity weredetermined: the State Budget of Ukraine;the Republican Budget of the AutonomousRepublic of Crime; local budgets; fundsfrom enterprises, establishments andorganizations; natural environmentalprotection funds; voluntary paymentsand other means (ecological insurancefunds, bank credits). An important legalrequirement was introducing the principle oftarget use of funds derived from ecologicalfines and payments.After fifteen years, the correspondingeconomic mechanism demonstrated itsineffectiveness. The principle of targetuse of funds derived from ecological finesand payments is not adhered to. Theaccumulated funds have a complicatedstructure of distribution between localand state budgets, and also betweennatural environmental protection funds.Fines for using natural resources go toa common fund within Ukraine’s state

udget, the republican budget of theAutonomous Republic of Crimea and localbudgets. Instead, they are spent for urgenteconomic and social needs. The systemof financing nature protection activity fromspecial funds, and from the state budget’scommon fund, is complicated. Insufficientstate budget financing of ecologicalprograms at all levels, and also of otherenvironmental protection departmentalprograms, became the norm. Some ofthem are not financed completely orinsufficiently financed (between 25 and 50percent). Unsatisfactory is the financing oforganizing and maintaining nature-reservefund territories and sites and other naturalterritories of special state protection.Unfortunately, many enterprises evadepaying fines for polluting the naturalenvironment or pay them partially, whichdoes not help in consistently applying the“he who pollutes, pays” principle. Sucha situation has several reasons. Not allpayment specifications are preciselydetermined by legislation. The mechanismfor calculating payments for environmentalcontamination is complicated (a directrelationship between non-payment volumesand calculations system complexity hasbeen observed). The system to monitorthe accounting data of nature users isinsufficiently effective. Nature users areinterested neither in making paymentsto ecological funds, nor realizing thatnature protection actions as the economicmechanism of nature protection has mainlya fiscal orientation. And the elements of thismechanism, which provide credit privileges(granting interest-free or soft loans) andtaxation (reduction in taxes or clearingthem), have not been consistently legallydeveloped. The system requires correction,and simplification in particular, for moreeffective implementation by economicactors, as well as decreases in expensesto ensure its functioning.Realizing innovative ecologicaleconomicpolicies that are simultaneouslyoriented towards creating jobs andenvironmental protection, particularlyselling emissions quotas and “eco-labor tax81reform” of economic and legal institutions,is significant in adapting to the EU’senvironmental laws. This type of fiscallyneutral tax reform, which partially transfersthe taxing base from work (wage tax fund)towards consumption of natural resourcesand harmful waste creation, shouldbecome the key moment of structuralreconstruction, which has already begun inthe EU’s industrially developed countries,above all Germany, Denmark, Sweden andthe Netherlands.An increase in effectiveness requiresthe institutional provision of governmentadministration in environmental protection. Itis known that creating optimum legislation isnot even half the matter. The main and themost difficult task is to make it work, havinggenerated for this purpose institutional,organizational, financial, economic andother mechanisms of introduction. This ishow the European Community formulatesits requirements to states that prepare tojoin the EU: adapting legislation providesfor not only approving adequate laws, butalso ensuring their realization in practice.This was always a weak place in Ukraine’secological-legal system. Since 1991,the state system of managing Ukraine’senvironment was reformed four times. Thenames of central executive organs of specialauthority, which during different periodshad to implement administrative functions,were changed, as well as their structuresand functions. Many times authority was redistributedbetween different governmentdepartments. Personnel, material, financialand other maintenance of administrativeactivity changed.This sphere was mostly reformed withouta precise conceptual basis, supported withsubjective factors. A specially authorizedbody in the field of environmental protectioneither concentrated in its hands significantlylarge authority in managing protection, aswell as natural resource use, or gave thesepowers to other bodies, performing for acertain time almost exclusively control-andsupervisionand coordinating functions.Unfortunately, even now it is impossibleto recognize the system of state

environmental protection as optimal. Aspecially authorized body in this field is theMinistry of Natural Environmental Protectionof Ukraine. It’s particularly this ministry thatrealizes state policy not only in the field ofnatural environmental protection, directingreserves and ensuring nuclear safety, butalso regarding natural resource use. Atthe same time, significant administrativeauthority in nature use is delegated tothe State Committee on Land, the StateCommittee on Water, the State Committeeon Forests, and also the State Committeeon Nuclear Regulation of Ukraine, aswell as other central executive organs.The Ministry of Environmental Protectionlacks administrative authority and ability toinfluence the key sectors of mutual relationsbetween the economy and environment.This ministry is politically weaker than manyother political institutions, and it lacks thenecessary political power and influence toprevent departmental distortions in formingand executing state ecological policy.Reforming the state managementsystem in the corresponding sphere willmean working together on internal factorsand on what is required by the institutionalcompetence represented by a majority ofEU ecological directives. EU ecologicalpolicy demands an extremely competentgovernment that is able to implementcomplicated specific and technical/procedural directives. Realizing normativelegalrequirements, moreover, will meanhaving an administrative apparatus ableto identify, plan, finance, and controlthe fulfillment of necessary investmentprograms.The management system shouldbe improved on the basis of scientificvalidity, process consistency, stability,distribution of functions between differentparts of government, and natural resourcemanagement on the one hand, and theirprotection on the other. Uniting the naturesphere with the interrelation of naturalprocesses makes the concentration ofwildlife management authority withinthe framework of a single administrativestructure (with resources departments)82expedient. It would increase effectivenessand offer a uniform methodical orientationto execute such administrative functionsas ecological monitoring (now thesefunctions are simultaneously carried outby the Ministry of Natural EnvironmentalProtection, the Ministry of EmergencySituations, the Ministry of Health,the Ministry of Agricultural Policy, theState Committee on Forests, the StateCommittee of Land, the State Committeeof Municipal Services. Each organ inits own departmental network uses itsown metrological facilities under themanagement of the Ministry of NaturalEnvironmental Protection), organizingnatural resource accounts and preparingnatural resource cadastres (today thisfunction is distributed between more thanten organs), organizing control activity, etc.Developing democratic processesand ensuring public participation in environmentalprotectionCountries traditionally associate EUintegration with promoting increasedopenness and transparency in society.These require the involvement of a widerange of sectors approving decisions,and enhanced citizen activity. In Ukraine,protecting the environment is a contextin which civil activity is high. The numberof civic organizations with an ecologicalmandate is constantly rising.Ukraine was the second country toratify the Aurhus Convention on accessto information, citizen participationin decision-making, and access tojustice on environmental issues (July,1999). Ukraine’s legislation has a list ofamendments making adaptation to theconvention’s requirements possible. As awhole, Ukraine’s contemporary legislationensures practical application of theAurhus Convention’s norms, guaranteesrealization of the citizen’s ecological rights,and protects against possible violations ofthese rights. At the same time, step by stepdevelopment of democratic principles in thisfield requires further legislative advances

that will guarantee that the public plays arole in ecologically important activity, andhas access to information and justice.It is worth mentioning that governmentalstructures tend to react in a restrained,and often negative, manner to publicparticipation in decision making andrealization of ecological policy. They seepublic participation as at best an obstacleand at worst a threat. There is insufficientperception that the “democracy deficit”makes mobilizing civic support for financiallyburdensome ecological policy so muchharder.In this context, civic inspection inthe environmental context needs tobe advanced. This legal institution hastraditionally been a developed onein Ukraine. Starting in the Soviet era,public inspectors were prepared by theNature People’s University, which workedunder the supervision of the UkrainianAssociation for Nature Protection. Startingin the 1990s, other civil organizations alsostarted to prepare inspectors, among themthe Ukrainian “Green Light” EcologicalAssociation. Public environmentalprotection inspectors who worked underthe supervision of public nature-protectiveassociations performed thousands of gooddeeds, such as detecting a significantnumber of environmental violations andpassing protocols about them over to organsof administrative jurisdiction. This amountedto significant support for environmentalprotection in Ukraine.In recent years, however, the conceptof public control of the environmenthas been conceptually narrowed down.This is a result of the entire conception,methodological administration, coordination,and organization of public ecologicalinspectorships activity is how subordinatedto the state ecological control organs. Publicenvironmental inspectors are currentlyappointed by state ecological inspectors.They work in association with stateecological inspectors, or according to thoseinspectors’ directives. They report to themabout their work, and can be dismissed.This situation cannot be considered a legallysound interpretation of the civic governancetheory.The general public should maintaincivic control, acting as a counterweightto state activity in the ecological sphere,complementing and to a certain extentcontrolling it. It is worth renewing theInstitute of Public Inspectorships under theauspices of the most powerful environmentalorganizations. Given the current conditions,this would represent a significant reserve ofqualified public support for environmentallyprotective activity. Such an approach willnot prevent the state ecological inspectionorgans from maintaining their own citizenassets – assistants who contribute to thework of state environmental inspectors.The relation between environmentalprotection problems and sustainablesocietal developmentImplementing the concept of sustainabledevelopment as the integration of economic,social and ecological goals in civic activitywill be a reliable basis for Ukraine’sEuropean integration process.Until now, sustainable developmentfactors weren’t completely accounted forin Ukraine’s legislation. In May 2003, theNational Council on Ukraine’s SustainableDevelopment created an advisory body tothe President of Ukraine: the Department ofSustainable Development Strategy functionsin Ukraine’s Council of National Safetyand Defense. A decision of the SupremeCouncil of Ukraine on December, 24, 1999approved the sustainable development ofsettlements concept, which is designedfor the long term (15 to 20 years). Manydeclarative positions were established onmaintaining sustainable development inlegal acts, particularly those ecologicallyoriented. Comprehension of the necessityto consider environmental problems inthe context of sustainable developmentis already displayed “in the letter,” butnot “in the spirit” of Ukraine’s laws. Suchreferences, but mainly the mechanisms thatprovides for them, still aren’t enough in theeconomic, civil, administrative, financial and83

other areas of legislation that also shouldregulate relations on ensuring sustainabledevelopment.Unfortunately, the indecision and forcedpriority of economic growth pushes to thebackground adherence to sustainabledevelopment principles in departmentalpolicy and Ukraine’s legislation. Anational strategy of Ukraine’s sustainabledevelopment still isn’t approved, thoughcompleting its development and approvalof the Law of Ukraine. “On a strategy ofsustainable development,” as well as takingmeasures to ensure its implementation andfulfillment, was stipulated by the Cabinet ofMinisters of Ukraine Resolution № 117-p onApril 22, 2005, “On approving measures forexecution of Ukraine – EU Action Plan for2005” in May 2005.Unfortunately, the experience ofmany other states which have ratifiedsimilar strategies, among which areCEE states (new EU members), testifiesthat the majority of such strategiesexist only on paper and their long-termpractical realization is problematic. It ishard for Ukraine to adapt a path that istraditional for the European Community– from environmental protection priorities toensuring sustainable development, as thepriorities of quick economic growth pressmore strongly than they did with EuropeanCommunity countries. However, there is nowise, rational alternative to this way. That iswhy Ukraine should ratify such a strategyurgently, certainly taking into account itsown national features and priorities.Organizational-institutional mechanismfor adapting Ukrainian legislationto European Union ecological legislationAdapting national legislation so that itcorresponds with EU legislation is a prioritycomponent of the process of integrating withthe European community. In recent years,Ukraine has established the necessarypolitical, legal, and organizational premisesfor adapting its legislation, includingecological legislation, to EU requirements.On November 21, 2002 the Concept ofa State Program for Adapting Ukrainian84Legislation to EU Legislation wasapproved. On March 18, 2004, the programwas approved. The goal was to fostercorrespondence between the Ukrainianlegal system and the EU’s legal inheritance,with consideration paid to those criteria thatthe EU demands from countries who aspireto become EU members.Ukrainian state policy on adaptinglegislation is a component of its legal reformprocess. It uses the same approachesregarding: creating laws, training qualifiedprofessionals, and creating the necessaryconditions for institutional, scientificeducational,norm-created, technical, andfinancial maintenance of Ukraine’s legaladaptation process.The process of adapting Ukrainian lawto EU legal achievements is systematicand comprises several stages, each ofwhich require a certain level of achievedcompliance. The first stage was plannedfor 2004-2007. The timing of further stageswill be determined on the basis of theresults achieved during prior stages; of theeconomic, political, and social situation thatexists in Ukraine’ and on how cooperationbetween Ukraine and the EU develops.Each stage of adaptation has its ownpriorities. The priorities of the first stagewere determined on the basis of Article 51of the Partnership and Cooperation betweenUkraine and the European Union on June14, 1994. Among 16 priorities, there are two(protection of the health and life of people,flora, and fauna; and of the environment)that are directly associated with ecology,and another two (protection of consumerrights; and energy, including nuclear) thathave an indirect connection with it.At the program’s first stage, it isstipulated:• to provide for developing a dictionaryof terms on the EU legal experience foradequate understanding and unifiedapplication during adaptation; to developand implement uniform requirements fortranslating these legislative acts into

Ukrainian, to create a centralized system oftranslations;• to perform comparative legal research intothe conformity of Ukraine’s legislation withthe EU legal experience in priority areas;• to translate into Ukrainian the legislativeacts of the EU legal experience in thesespheres;• on the basis of generalizing the experienceof Central and Eastern European states, tocreate an effective mechanism of adaptinglegislation, which would include amongother things a review of Ukraine’s laws andother legal acts on their conformity to theacts of the EU’s legal experience;• to create a national information network onEuropean legal issues, having provided freeaccess to those participating in adaptinglegislation;• to create a system of training andimproving the professional skills of civilemployees on European law issues,including developing and approvingeducational programs;• to take measures jointly with the EU onprocessing and adopting mechanismsfor preparing adaptation schedules andmonitoring their performance.The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraineannually develops and approves a plan toharmonize legislation, providing in the StateBudget of Ukraine for the correspondingyear expenses for financing its execution.Unfortunately, such plans are approved withdelay, which influences the terms of theirperformance. So the Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine Resolution № 201-p “On approvinga plan of measures for executing in 2005 ofa national program of adapting Ukraine’slegislation to European Union legislation”was approved only on June 16, 2005. Item10 of the corresponding plan stipulatedfor implementing some positions of theEU’s legal experience (included in boththe biological diversity convention andprotocol) in preparing a national programof biological diversity protection for 2006-2025. Unfortunately, this project is still notapproved.In general, attention is drawn byplenty of plans and programs related toadapting Ukraine’s legislation to EU law.For example, the Cabinet of Ministersresolution on June 28, 2003 № 382-p approved a plan of primary action onexecuting an agreement on partnershipand cooperation between Ukraine and theEU, and improving institutional support forthe activity of executive authorities in thefield of European integration. Measures oncoordinating the two legislative systems arealso included also in the Ukraine - the EUaction plan. So for 2005, the correspondingplan stipulates for developing two bills,“On a strategy for Ukraine’s sustainabledevelopment” and “On ecologicalinsurance.” None are approved to this day.There is also a government program oninforming the public on Ukraine’s Europeanintegration issues for 2004-2007, which isalso supplemented annually by a plan ofmeasures (for example, by the Cabinet ofMinisters of Ukraine Resolution № 959-p,a similar plan of measures for 2005 wasapproved on December 23, 2004).In providing for the execution of thenational program of adapting Ukraine’slegislation to the EU’s legislation, a largeamount of government organs are involved,and also institutions of another legal nature.For executing the Decree of thePresident of Ukraine № 148 on February24, 1998, “On ensuring the execution of theagreement on partnership and cooperationbetween Ukraine and the EuropeanCommunities (the European Union) andimproving the mechanism of cooperationwith the European Communities (theEuropean Union),” they formed:• the Ukrainian part of the Council onCooperation Issues between Ukraine andthe EU;• the Ukrainian part of the Committee onCooperation Issues between Ukraine andthe E.U. as a permanent supporting body ofthe Ukrainian part of the Council;85

• within the legislative body - the VerhovnaRada of Ukraine - the Committee onEuropean Integration Issues was created.With the purpose of coordinatingactivities between government bodies onissues of Ukraine’s joining the Europeanlegal sphere, an advisory body called theNational Council on Issues of AdaptingUkraine’s Legislation to European UnionLegislation was formed at the PresidentialSecretariat (the Decree of the President ofUkraine on August 30, 2000 № 1033/2000with the following changes “On the NationalCouncil on Issues of Adapting Ukraine’sLegislation to European Legislation.”)The State Council on Issues of Europeanand Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukrainewas created by the Decree of the Presidentof Ukraine on August 30, 2002 № 791with the purpose of realizing the strategicpurposes of government policy on ensuringUkraine’s entrance into European political,economic, safety and legal realms; creatingpreconditions for gaining EU membership;and increasing the effectiveness ofcoordinating and controlling the activityof authorities in the field of Europeanintegration.In adapting the legislation of Ukraineto the legislation of the EU, the functionsof the authorized central authority are laidupon the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine(the Decree of the President of Ukraineon August, 21, 2004 № 965/2004 “Issueson organizing the execution of the Lawof Ukraine, “On the national program ofadapting Ukraine’s legislation to E.U.legislation.”)By the Decision of the Cabinet of Ukraineon March 31, 2004 № 417, the Ministryof Justice created an interdepartmentalcoordinating council for adapting Ukraine’slegislation to EU legislation. However,soon the coordinating body’s status wasincreased, and a new coordinating councilfor adapting Ukraine’s legislation to EUlegislation emerged headed by the PrimeMinister of Ukraine, thus replacing theinterdepartmental council and whosepurpose was to ensure the interaction of86government bodies and non-governmentalinstitutions in executing the state programof adapting Ukraine’s legislation with EUlegislation. This body was created by thedecision of the Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine on October, 15, 2004 № 1365. Thisdecision also approved the position of thecorresponding coordinating council, andalso the order of preparing and realizingan annual plan of measures on executing astate program to adapt Ukraine’s legislationwith EU legislation.Work on preparing an annual plan ofmeasures on executing the state programof adapting Ukraine’s legislation with EUlegislation is organized by the Ministry ofJustice of Ukraine.Organizational and expert work onevaluating laws and other legislative actsof Ukraine in priority spheres of adaptinglegislation to conform with acts of theEU legal experience initially had to beexecuted by the Center of European andComparative Law, and after its liquidation– by the specially created State Departmenton Issues of Adapting Legislation – agovernmental body of state management(the Decision of the Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine № 1742 on December 24, 2004,“On creating a state department on issuesof adapting legislation ...”). Correspondingactivity is precisely regulated by the orderof the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine onApril 28, 2005 № 42/5, “On ordering theprocess of examining Ukraine’s laws andother legislative acts for their conformity to“acquis communautaire”.” The Departmentis also obliged to organize translation of actsof the E.U. legal experience into Ukrainian.The mechanism of translating these actsinto Ukrainian and granting them the statusof official documents is regulated by theorder of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine№ 56/5 on June 08, 2005, “On approvingof the order of translation of the “acquiscommunautaire” acts into Ukrainian”.The large amount of institutionswhose purpose is organizing, planning,coordinating, monitoring, and examiningthe activity on adapting Ukraine’s legislationto the requirements of EU legislation,

unfortunately, is not a guarantee ofeffectiveness since it disperses financial,organizational-technical, methodical,personnel, and also responsibility. Wethink that the system should be morecompact and one-dimensional, whichwould be guided from a single center - theState Department on Issues of LegislationAdaptation at the Ministry of Justice ofUkraine. This particular body should haveall the administrative authority in organizingactivity in adapting legislation. It shouldbe charged with complete responsibilityfor realizing state policy in the field ofadaptation.RecommendationsGiven that the timing of Ukraine’sEU accession is not yet determined, theprocess of adapting Ukraine’s ecologicallegislation to the EU environmental law is amatter of extreme expenditures, and to hopefor large-scale external help in this matteris groundless (for example, EuropeanCommunity aid for these purposes to CEEstates was estimated at about 5 percentof total predicted expenditures and wasgiven for separate high priority projects),we consider it necessary, firstly, to applya selective approach to coordinatingcorresponding legislation, taking intoaccount the contemporary national interestsof Ukraine, its conditions and opportunities.Secondly, we consider it necessary “tomove leading,” i.e. to be oriented towardsnew, prospective ecological and legalmechanisms that are now being formed inEU countries, instead of those traditional,doubtful or under replacement by newapproaches.Ukraine will have bigger advantages andprospects if it applies the initiative approachin developing a sustainable developmentstrategy and adapts innovative ecologicaland EU economic policies, proceeding fromnational conditions and tasks.87

Chapter 3. ECONOMIC MECHANISMS OF NATURE USAGEAND RESTORATION: identification, coordinationand strengthening effectiveness3.1. Reforming the economic system ofnature use and recoveryThe process of European integrationfor Ukraine includes forming a commonframework with EU ecological, economic,social, political and legal standards.Ukraine, being a component of theEuropean geopolitical space and user ofits natural resources, certainly influencesEurope’s environment. Since the EU hasstringent environmental standards, Ukrainemust adapt a national ecological policy thatserves its interests, but also falls in linewith EU policy. Thus, solving Ukraine’s ownenvironmental problems is both a nationaland regional issue. A solution is dependanton whether existing political-economic andorganizational mechanisms of Europeanecological integration can be used to cratean effective Ukrainian ecological policy.One priority in international ecologicalparticipation is the process, “Environmentfor Europe”. Its main point is that countriesmust integrate ecological policiesthat coincide with the policy of statemanagement (inclusive economic policy)in EEK regions of the United Nations.This idea expands on the decision of thesummit of the Council of Europe in Cardiff,or the so-called Cardiff Process. Thisprocess called for implementing a commonEU strategy that estimates the influencecountries have on the environment.Within the New Independent States(NIS), political and economic reforms arenecessary to implement the standards ofthe “Environment for Europe” process.Ukraine has joined this process, which hashelped the Ukrainian public acknowledgethe importance an effective domesticsystem that helps protect the environment.European measures for state ecologicalpolicies are oriented toward introducing EUstandards, which should help neutralizeUkraine’s ecological threats. The EU wantsto ensure that Ukraine is ready and willing88to create a program that is in line with thepurposes, requirements, rules, principles,and standards of EU ecological policy.It is necessary to note that the basis ofUkraine’s national ecological policy in itsessence does not differ from that of the EUHowever, Ukraine is still apart in terms of“European likeness,” which means that itsenvironmental laws and principles are notsimilar enough to Europe’s. An analysisof past ecological decisions in Ukraine inthe context of EU principles shows thatthe country still needs reform to reachEuropeans standards.Preventing ecological harm principle.For the most part, the price of an ecologicaldisaster is higher than taking measuresto prevent one. Thus, seeking to preventenvironmental catastrophes is a moreeffective and logical tool. It is possibleto adhere to this principle by extensiveecological examination and monitoring,which helps forecast environmental risk.However, Ukraine’s present ecologicalpolicy does not take these procedures intoaccount.The “Polluter pays” principle. Thisrequirement in Ukraine was introduced in1999. However, polluters only partially coversocial and economic costs, which haverisen mainly due to inefficient energy use.Companies and businesses are not chargeddirectly for pollution nor compensatedby the government for introducing moreenergy efficient and environmentally-safeproduction methods.Effective natural resource use principle.The use of natural resources is not toviolate the balance between ecological andeconomic development. This approach,which includes rules of economiceffectiveness in time, is rather new forUkraine. That is why this principle is still notimplemented properly.

Principle of using the best ecologicallysafe, accessible technologies. Due to a lackof funding, this principle remains mostlydeclarative and unlikely to be actuallyfollowed through. In Ukraine, for the mostpart the best ecologically safe technologiesare not used, whereas EU countries useecological-technological standards – theso-called standards of the best availabletechnology.Principle of free access to ecologicalinformation. This should provide for thedevelopment of mechanisms to allow thepubic to take part in the decision-makingprocess. It also should make citizens moreenvironmentally aware and involve them informing an environmental protection policy.Obligation of this requirement is fixed in theLaw of Ukraine, “On ecological examination”(1995).The ecological responsibility principle.This requires that the government orappropriate agency enforce legislation andtake responsibility for laws being broken,which is reflected in Ukraine’s ecologicallegislation. However, these laws are alsomainly declarative and are not enforced.In fact, the corresponding legal acts, whichwould introduce ecological legislation thatwould enforce international agreements,have not been fully developed.The strategic goal of joining the EUinevitably creates more questions forUkraine concerning further economic andecological reforms that would adhere tothe European community’s principles. Animportant means to this goal should be tocreate an effective national system of natureuse and recovery. Environmental regulationshelp stimulate people to economically andrationally use natural resources and helppreserve the environment.The basic elements of the economicregulation system for nature-use andnature-protective activity are fees/paymentsfor special consumption of resources(mineral, water, soil, forest, biological),fees for polluting, taxation mechanisms,and fines for violating ecological legislation.These elements are both instruments thatmotivate companies, businesses, and thepublic to act in accordance to ecologicalstandards, and a source of funds for natureprotection programs.Domestic ecological managementoperates mainly with a group of regulatorsthat force producers to limit pollution andother environmentally hazardous activities,according to the requirements of statutoryacts, decisions and laws. The realities ofdomestic ecological management showthat economic instruments mainly serveas fiscal payments; they help generaterevenue for the government. This exists atall levels of the economy. The effectivenessof ecological-economic instruments, and ofthe ecological system, is mainly judged bywhether there is an increase in expenditurewithin all levels of the budget..Current ecological legislation establishesa direct connection between implementationof nature-protective mechanisms and theirfinancial sources. Money paid for resourceuse should be directed toward financingresource restoration and preservation work.A mechanism for using those payments insuch a targeted way was established asfar back as 1997, is currently ineffective.Money collected for polluting should bedirected toward minimizing and preventingthe further emission of pollutants into theenvironment.The mechanism that directs thosepayments was established in 1992, formingthe basis for Ukrainian ecological funds.Currently it is the most reliable sourceof financing for various environmentallyprotectivemeasures. Unfortunately thereare instances when these costs are notused toward financing anti-pollutionmeasures, but for other goals – maintainingthe communal infrastructure, for example, oreven for resolving general social problems.Sometimes they are not used at all.After the March 18, 2004 passage ofthe Law of Ukraine, “On the state targetprograms” (№ 1621-IV), financial goalsbecame more specific. For example, the lawcalls for specific targets for environmentalprotection, preventing ecological crises,89

and reducing pollution in specific locations.Dozens of state target programs have beenimplemented but without sufficient fundingfrom the state budget. Thus, they areunderfinanced and are not effective.It is obvious that there are manyproducers who work in difficult economicand social conditions whose interests arenot served by observing stricter ecologicalnorms and putting less pressure on theenvironment. In the present system ofecological regulation, mechanisms ofgranting tax credits to help spark thedevelopment of environmentally effectiveand safe production are weak.Other mechanisms such as subsidizingecological infrastructure, “green” industry,a national market of ecological services,as well as using ecological audits andinsurance, are underdeveloped. Overall,Ukraine’s system of economic regulationand funding of environmentally friendlyactivities are only beginning to bedeveloped, and its separate subsystemsand elements have different degrees ofdevelopment and practical realization.In recent years, certain steps weretaken to strengthen the economic system ofecological regulation, which were limited tochanges in the amount of fines for pollutionaccording to the level of the consumerprice index (the index of inflation), andorganizational efforts to create a systemof ecological audit. Yet many ecologicaleconomicinstruments are only at the levelof legislative guidelines. They are notactually implemented into practice.The main disadvantages of Ukraine’seconomic ecological managementmechanism are, that it has not undergonethe necessary development. Second, it isnot capable of getting economic subjectsinterested in sponsoring environmentallyprotective initiatives. Third, it does notcomply with other indicators of economicactivity. Fourth, it is not prompt or effectivewhen reacting to the dynamics of theeconomic and ecological processes in thecountry. Ukraine’s use of resources andenvironmentally-protective mechanisms donot favor progressive structural stages, ineither the technological social productionbase or in the national economy.Society suffers when there is no effectivemechanism for protecting the environmentand using natural resources efficiently.Thus, it is time to introduce a domesticsystem that regulates economic behaviorthat threatens the environment.In order to define a set of conditionsfavorable for the creation of an ecologicallysafe European space as was emphasizedin the decisions of the fifth Pan-Europeanconference of environmental ministers“Environment for Europe”, it appears that aconcentration of scientific and state effortsto improve the methods of environmentalprotection mechanisms should be thepriority. These instruments of ecologicalregulation will allow an ecologicallybalanced method for economic growth anddevelopment, but also fall in line with EUenvironmental policy.The experiences of country-membersof the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD)and the European Union show that a soundenvironmental policy requires an effectiveeconomic mechanism that limits pollutionand the inefficient use of natural resources.This is based on a balanced combinationof compulsory-restrictive regulators withmethods that compensate economic losses.It is possible to provide more suitableconditions for ecological protection, and alsofor applying ecologically safe technologies.Therefore, an economic mechanism ofecological regulation for Ukraine must beformed, which would become a part of thenational economy and correspond to EUprinciples.Recommendations1. To reconsider specifications foran economic mechanism of ecologicalregulation.2. To introduce a mechanism ofpayments/fees for environmental useaccording to changes in the inflation rateand prices of commodity producers.90

3. To reform the system of payments forwaste product disposal by implementinga more effective payment and fee schemeand using them for revenue4. To ensure that there is nationallegislation that prevents ecological damageand punishes those who infringe on suchlaws.5. To reform the system of fundingenvironmental protection techniques andprograms. To hasten the passage of theLaw of Ukraine, “On the national ecologicalfund”.6. To enact legislation that allows stateand local governments and budgets tocounter environmental destruction.7. To quickly implement a system thatgives economic incentives to enhanceenvironmental protection, which stimulatescompanies and businesses to be moreecologically safe and friendly.8. To improve the available economictools (pollution fines/payments, anecological tax, ecological funds, penalsanctions) and also to introduce newregulations such as: different kinds of taxprivileges, easy loans, soft loans, flexibleecological taxes for production, materialstimulation of ecologizing industrial activity,price differentiation based on ecologicalcriteria.9. To prepare a bill of financial support forenvironmental protection through crediting,preferential taxation, and encouragingecologically constructive activities. Todevelop and approve proper amendmentsfor the Budgetary and Tax Codes.3.2. Reforming the licensing-permittingand taxation systemsUkraine’s natural resources are usedin both a general and a specific way.In compliance with the order on thespecial use of natural resources, citizens,enterprises, institutions, and organizationsare allowed to own, use, or rent resourceson a special paid permission basis, in theform of registered licenses for conductingproduction activity. In cases stipulated bythe law, the licenses can be granted underbeneficial conditions. Such licenses definethe permitted use or exploitation volumesfor certain resources. Aggregate usage ismanaged by the general licensing policy.The state licensing system is organizedand maintained by specially authorized stateorgans and their local subdivisions withinthe environmental protection and naturalresource sphere. The license and permitsystem regulates the relationship betweenthe state, and consumers of nature.Ukraine’s licensing and permit systemis set up to cover use of the environmentin all areas. The largest number ofpermits, however, is issued to companies,institutions, and organizations for handlingwastes and hazardous materials.That fact that the bodies responsible forpayment collection often have the right tochange permissible volumes of emissionsand to cancel and change paymentsreduces the effectiveness of a licensing andsanctioning system. This creates corruptionand encourages enterprises not to decreaselevels of pollution, but rather to bribe for, orillegally obtain, emission licenses.Among OECD country-members, thelicensing system enhances the ecologicalinterests of the society and state, observesnature protection norms and ecologicalrequirements, and adapts to industrial andinvestment changes that alter the economy.This system significantly differs fromUkraine’s domestic licensing system.The foreign licensing system belongs tothe administrative-control mechanism ofecological management and gives licensesto specific economic activities that usenatural resources. This helps to improve thepopulation’s environment and health, andsecondly, provides ecological monitoringand control.The licensing system in OECD countrymembersunderwent a certain evolution, thepeculiarities of stages of which are usefulto be taken into account because of thenecessity to improve the domestic licensingsystem.91

The first instrument of a licensingsystem, which appeared in the 1970s(stage one), was special sanctions forpollution levels, which set emissionstandards that were determined from aboveby ecological management institutions.However, this did not take into account theecological-economic interests of companiesand businesses that were using naturalresources. In the 1980s, (stage two)emission standards and limits were setand aimed to curb pollution, and well asto identify pollution sources, which weresubject to standardization (waste products,transport).In the 1990s (stage three), emissionsstandards were the main element ofecological regulation. A new administrativestyle was directed towards improvingthe ecological effectiveness of specificenterprises by allowing enterprises andauthorities to create ecological agreements(so-called trade in emissions). Due tothese actions, about 90 percent of the totalamount of industrial pollution, includingproduced and recycled waste products, wasincluded in the process.Another important aspect of reformingUkraine’s licensing system is allowingthe resale of emission licenses from onemanufacturer to another. Application ofthis instrument is based on the principlethat any increase in emissions volumesby one manufacturer, located in a certainterritory, should be compensated by a moresignificant reduction in emissions volumesfrom another (neighboring) manufacturer.In the resale system, manufacturerswork within the limits of their emissionlicenses, and the trading of emissionslicenses is allowed. If a manufacturerproduces emissions in volumes smallerthan the limit of its license, then it maysell the right of producing emissions toanother enterprise, which then has theright to produce emissions in the greatervolume than what its original license limits.Such sale of sanctions is possible betweendifferent firms of one industrial sector orcertain territory.Since 2000 (stage four), the evolutionof the licensing system in OECD countrymembersis characterized by a search foreffective instruments to enhance ecological,economic and social interests; and byhaving an inter-sector approach to decisionmaking.Relying on separate enterprisesworking alone is not enough for a cardinalmovement to protect the environment.An integrated approach that includesmanufacturers from difference sectors andgovernment branches is necessary to helpcurb ecological damage and achieve highlevels of social, economic, and ecologicalwell-being.This EU-based licensing system helpscreate an economy that is ecologicallyfriendly, but currently will probably not beimplemented in Ukraine, since there arenot high enough levels of relations betweensectors and government agencies.The peculiarity of the Europeanecological management system’s developmentduring the 1990s is raising to the rankof priority among nature use regulatorstaxes related to solving environmentalproblems, as well as expansion andstrengthening the base of ecologicaltaxation. Now (as of 2005) twenty OECDcountry-members widely apply about 370taxes of this kind, the majority of whichare approved by national parliaments, aswell as their structure and rates. Basedon goal orientation, they are dividedinto: 1) taxes that mainly serve to coverecological expenses; 2) taxes that stimulateecologically relevant behavior of economicagents (manufacturers and consumers); 3)taxes that mainly perform a fiscal functionof further financing nature protectionmeasures.This “greening” of the budgetarytaxsystem is an effective means tosimultaneously achieve two importantnational priorities – increasing state budgetsand helping to protect the environment. Forexample, in EU countries, revenue fromecological taxes for 1980-2001 increasedby more than fourfold. In 2001, revenueswere 238 billion Euros, or 2.7 percent of92

overall EU GDP and 6.5 percent of total taxrevenue.However, the total amount of taxrevenue is not the most important aspectof environmental protection. These taxesare catalysts that influence manufacturersto change their behavior and cut down onemissions – if they limit pollution and findmore efficient ways to manufacture, thentaxes on them will decrease.Today already eight OECD countrymembersimplemented radical reforms intheir environmental protection and tax laws,consisting of a reduction or cancellation ofcertain taxes (for example, a decrease inthe population’s surtax or social securitypayments) with the simultaneous creationof new taxes related to environmentalprotection. This expanded ecologicaltaxation, but did not increase the overall taxburden.The actions of manufacturers, companies,and people that cause environmentaldeterioration are subject to this ecologicaltax. Current activities subject to ecologicaltaxation are energy transit, transportequipment and transport services, whichincrease water and air pollution, createozone-destroying substances and arewasteful and noisy.In many European countries,ecological taxes on production have beenimplemented, which helps restrict pollutionand energy-intensive production from coal,oil, and other polluting energy sources. Theecological tax is imposed upon producersduring a specific period when productionpollutes the environment.Foreign practice of this ecologicaltaxation shows its effectiveness. Ecologicaltaxes are a component of the price ofproduction that causes ecological damage,and consumers seem to pay an indirect taxfor the use of ecologically “dirty” production.Implementing an ecological tax on suchproduction with time will force it out of themarket.The taxes on production are meant toincrease financial resources necessary forthe reduction of ecological harm, causedby the producer who is taxed. The taxeshelp address further financial support forprograms that help reduce pollution andimprove the environment.It is necessary to emphasize that theoverall objective of widely applying thesystem of ecological taxation in the EU isto stimulate activity to decrease the level ofenvironmental pollution. The main thoughthere is about the potential efficacy of aparticular tax – determined by its influenceon the manufacturer and consumer pricesfor goods, combined with the flexibility ofthose prices – to protect the environment.EU member countries intensively useecological taxes not only as (1) an effectivetool to economically stimulate commoditiesproducers toward investment and innovationin environmental protection and resourceconservationactivity, but also as (2) ameans of redistributing financial assets tobenefit ecological programs, and as (3)a method of solving current problems ofmaintaining the quality of the environmentand preventing ecological damage causedby the national economy.The “ecological” component of thedomestic tax budget consists of: 1)rental fees, 2) payment for land, 3) feesfor geological survey, 4) payments forspecial use of natural resources, and 5)the ecological tax (fines for polluting thesurrounding natural environment). Theseare nationwide mandatory payments.It is important to note that in Ukraine,almost all forms of payment – whether directpayment, fines or reckoning – connected tonature use and environmental protectionhave the character of tax revenue andessentially provide a means for increasingrevenue within the national budget’s income,despite their basic difference in economicstatus and status as financing sources forenvironmental protection measures.The idea of a profitable “payment” fromnature use is supported by such figures:almost 7 percent of Ukraine’s state budgetcomes from payments (taxes) for natureuse. For example, in 2005, ecological93

esource payments made up 6.4 percentof budget revenue. According to ourcalculations, in 2006, ecological resourcepayments should make up 7.6 percentof budget revenue. Supporting our caseare data from the OECD showing thatincome from just one group of payments –environmental contamination – formed 0.1percent of Ukraine’s gross domestic productin 2001.So, revenue from nature use paymentsto Ukraine’s budget is comparable toecological taxes in EU member states.However, the revenue differs significantlynot only in its total sum, but otherparameters as well: first, in the contentsand qualitative structure of ecological taxesand, most importantly, in the economicmechanism of its influence in solvingenvironmental problems.Ukraine does not have particular groupsof ecological taxes inherent in the taxationsystems of EU countries. To elaborate:1) the so-called postponed payments,which help cover ecological expenses(earmarked charges - taxes on noisepollution, batteries, cattle-breeding income,and others); 2) so-called goods-related orproduct taxes, which stimulate the limitationor economic consumption of goods whichcould potentially pollute the environment(incentive charges - taxes on pesticides,detergents, plastics, certain kinds of fuel,transport).It is necessary to note that Ukraine’sMinistry of Environmental Protectionprepared the bill “On Amending the Lawof Ukraine ‘On environmental protection’,”which stipulates for expanding the taxationbase, especially regarding the harmfulinfluence of physical and biologicalagents on the environment, the selling ofecologically dangerous products and motorfuel, an ecological extra charge on fuelfor mobile vehicles, and some varietiesof potentially dangerous production. TheMinistry of Environmental Protection alsoprepared material for Ukraine’s Cabinet ofMinisters resolution, “On amending the orderestablishing norms for fines for pollutingthe surrounding natural environment94and collection of fines,” which stipulatesintroducing payments for environmentalpollution caused by air transportation. Theimplementation of the above-mentionedstandards will provide the opportunity tointroduce the necessary legislative basis forexpanding the taxation base of nature usersand nature polluters, stimulating them tointroduce ecologically safe measures, andto simultaneously expand the income-baseto create funds to protect the surroundingnatural environment.The domestic system of ecologicaltaxation is different from the Europeansystem in that the mechanismsthrough which it will be realized remainunderdeveloped in regards to solvingenvironmental problems. These mechanismsdo not create powerful stimuli towardnature-preserving actions in economicagents. It is clear that an exclusively fiscalapproach toward collecting funds fromnature use – while ignoring regulatory,restrictive and stimulating functions – doesnot promote the effective use of naturalresources.Ukraine’s budgetary code establishesthat taxes, fees, and other tax paymentsare included in the total budget, regardlessof their specific designation. This resultsin a situation where from year to year,environmental contamination fee incomeisn’t directed into the budget speciallydesignated for environmental protection,as stipulated in Article 46 of the Ukrainianlaw, “On protecting the natural environment.Rather, it is “dissolved” in its income section,and doesn’t at all activate environmentalprotection activity from ecological finepayers.As research shows, the strictsubordination of Ukrainian articles of law onnature use to related articles of taxation law– and also the discordance, disagreement,inadequacy, and inconsistency of thecontents of related articles in differentlaws – lead to the ineffectiveness of theseimportant legislative requirements. Forexample, beneficial ecological taxationor economic mechanisms to stimulate

environmental protection measures containedin the Ukrainian laws on nature usehave a declarative nature.The research results on the presentstate of the Ukrainian ecological taxationsystem made it possible to point outcertain discrepancies and to makegeneral statements about problems in itsfunctioning. They are as follows:• the leveling of all the basic tools of thedomestic financial system of nature use andenvironmental protection activity into taxrevenues;• the presence of a significant gap betweenthe declared principle “he who pollutespays” and the specifics of pollution paymentcalculation on the one hand, and the volumeof damage caused and the real expense forreparation on the other;• the decreased absolute indicators ofpayment standards for special use ofnatural resources and fees for polluting thesurrounding natural environment;• the devaluation of payments for specialuse of natural resources and feesfor polluting the surrounding naturalenvironment;• deep discrepancies between the range oftax rates and pollution standards;• the complexity and unwieldinessof ecological and resource paymentcalculations, instability of the statisticalreporting system, controlling accountingdata of nature users, bookkeeping,payments registration;• neglect of financial-legal discipline.So the present ecological tax systemof Ukraine requires further reform anddevelopment directed toward decreasingthe negative influence of the country’seconomic system on the surroundingnatural environment, nature-capacity unitsof gross national product, and stimulatingthe transition to principles of sustainabledevelopment.Recommendations1. To develop a theoreticalmethodologicalbasis for transitioning to asystem of “integrated sanctions” (based onthe concept of best available methods ortechnologies).2. To expand the base of ecologicaltaxation by introducing various flexibleecological taxes on a product to stimulatethe restriction of manufacturing of andconsumption of ecologically dangerous,resource-intensive products, and alsoproduction which uses limited (rare)natural resources, taking into account theexperience of EU member countries andthe O.E.C.D.3. To change the ecological taxcollection system by making the tax ratescale more flexible and proportional topolluters’ emission volumes. In conjunction,to establish the principle of dependingon commodity producers’ average rangeof expenses for reducing pollution as thebasis for calculating ecological tax, andto implement coefficients to correct theecological tax amount in relation to growthor decrease in concentrations of toxicsubstances in the taxable production, i.e.to establish progressive or regressiveecological taxation. Additionally, the feerates for pollution must be annually indexedand adjusted to inflation.4. To legislatively determine andmodify who will pay the ecological tax, i.e.to implement target return financing of thecollective expense of supporting specificecological programs.5. To implement various kinds of taxprivileges within the boundaries of taxand credit-financial policy – to stimulatecommodity producers toward innovationand investment in modern scientificengineeringadvances to innovativelymodernize old, ecologically destructiveways and form a new, effective materialbase for manufacturing that protects natureand conserves resources.6. To carry out appropriate reformsof the existing practice of financingenvironmental protection measures inUkraine while simultaneously reforming thedomestic ecological taxation system.95

7. To make appropriate amendmentsto the Tax Code, which is still in formation,and according to the intentions of thenew Tax Code, to register a flexibleand straightforward, updated system ofecological taxes and ecology-orientedtax privileges, concretized and correctedin relation to the provisions of Ukraine’sacting laws on questions of nature useand the European system of ecologicaltaxation. During the development of suchamendments and improvement of the legalstandardsbase which regulates ecologicaltaxation, it is necessary to take intoaccount the rules accepted by internationalorganizations such as the OECD, Eurostat,and the European Environment Agency,especially with respect to Ukraine’sdeclaration to join the EU8. To develop the foundational principlesof “eco-socio-economic tax reform” as aprospective economic-legal institution directedsimultaneously toward environmentalprotection, workplace creation, andincreasing the budget.3.3. Ecological audit and ecologization ofproductionWithin the system of economicmechanisms governing nature use andrestoration, ecological audit is a mechanismthat increases the ecological groundingand effectiveness of economic subjects’activity, as stated in the Law of Ukraine “OnEcological Audit.”The crucial condition for effectiveecological audit is its integrity with ecologicalmanagement on the enterprise, corporate,and industrial level. The systemic integrityof ecological management and audit is asustainable development principle, andone realized by the EU’s EMAS regulationsystem... This system is based on the“polluter and user pays” principle, meaningthe guilty party bears the expense ofcompensating for the economic damagedone to the environment.Corporations and enterprises voluntarilytake responsibility for protection andrecovery of the natural environment andmake an effort to continuously improvesuch activities. The membership ofcorporations and enterprises in EMAS is,in effect, the beginning of the process ofmaking manufacturing more ecological,i.e. transitioning from unsustainablemodels of manufacturing and consumptionto ecologically balanced and nonpollutingmodels. Thus, the ecologicalaudit determines the level of equilibrium,ecological cleanliness and technologicaleffectiveness, manufacturing, anddistribution of responsibility for damage tothe natural environment.Currently, Ukrainian ecologicalaudit legislation consists of the Law ofUkraine “On Ecological Audit”; the statestandard ISO 19011:2003; the Directivefor Conducting Audits of Quality and/orEcological Management Systems; andthe state standards ISO 14001-97 andISO 14004-97 “Systems of EnvironmentalManagement.” National and state standardsare similar to relevant internationalstandards in terms of the systemic integrityof ecological management and audit,but the Law of Ukraine “On EcologicalAudit” does not foresee such integrity.In addition, some inconsistencies andcontradictions exist that violate the principleof independence in ecological audit, alongwith the principle of independence in thetraining and certification of auditors. Thelaw considerably narrows the scope andorientation of the ecological audit, especiallyin ecosystem strategy and policy.The effectiveness and efficiency ofecological audit largely depends on theprofessionalism and competence of certifiedecological auditors. Training, evaluating, andcertifying them is a complex process that isdetermined by Ukraine’s national standardDSTU ISO 19011:2003. Unfortunately, theMinistry of Environmental Protection took aneasier path, by establishing a procedure forcertifying ecological auditors that contradictsthe national standard and doesn’t requireauditors to have prior experience. As aresult, ecological auditors are being certified96

without having the competence that thenational standard mandates.Ukraine has gathered experience inecologically modernizing manufacturingwith economic benefits based onrecommendations from the ecologicalaudit in light industry, the food industry,and other branches. This experience wasobtained by performing goal-orientedprojects as part of the Ukrainian-Canadianecosystem program, “Development ofnatural environmental management inUkraine (Dnipro basin area).” Experiencewas supposed to be gained by developingand introducing branch and corporateprograms for making manufacturing moreecological on the basis of ecological auditrecommendations.They developed a methodology andgave appropriate recommendations for thecreation of an efficient citywide system todeal with solid waste products using theecological audit (based on the example ofNizhyn, Chernihiv oblast), for the creationof an efficient citywide system of ecologicalmanagement and auditing of Kyiv’stransportation network, and for the creationof an efficient ecological managementsystem and audit of processing plants(based on the example of the Borshchivdistillery, Ternopil oblast).With the support of the Europeancommission, the program TACIS wasimplemented, introducing internationalstandards ISO 14000 into six leadingnational companies on a voluntary basis– “Lakma”, “Zhytomyr creamery”, “Hostomelglassworks”, the Kharkiv machine-buildingfactory “FED”, the sea-trade port “Southern,”and the state international airport “Boryspil.”The “Concern Stirol” received the firstcorresponding certificate. According toalmost all the participants of the pilot anddemonstration programs, the most difficultthing was to break the psychological barrierof the enterprises’ directors and functionalpersonnel.So the methodology for performingan ecological audit and modernizationof manufacturing, and the introduction ofecological management systems and audit,have been tested widely at the regional,branch, and local levels.Unfortunately, the absence of statesupport in this endeavor did not promote itsdissemination. It led to the fact that almostall industrial privatization occurred withoutecological modernization, since investorswere not faced with those stipulations inprivatization plans and contracts.Presently, the urgent needs are:• improving and developing the legalstandardsbase, performing the ecologicalaudit, and making manufacturing moreecological (transitioning to non-pollutingmodels of manufacturing);• creating a national system for training,competence evaluation, and certificationof ecological auditors on the basis of theMinistry of Education and Science and theMinistry of Environmental Protection ofUkraine;• creating a national infrastructure forecological auditing and non-pollutingmanufacturing; developing and implementingstate mechanisms that stimulate andsupport ecological audit developmentand non-polluting manufacturing in theframework of the Kyoto Protocol;• creating a national potential for evaluation,development, effective use, and applicationof non-polluting technologies, includingtraining personnel at all levels.Recommendations1. To create an independent nationaltraining and certification system forecological auditors on the basis ofaccredited, profiled leading highereducational institutions of Ukraine thatperform quality checks and comply withecology auditing activity. The departmentalorders of the Ukrainian Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection concerningcertification of ecological auditors, whichdo not correspond to current legislation,97

national standards, and Europeanrequirements, shall be cancelled as such.2. To create regional and corporatecenters for ecological auditing and nonpollutingmanufacturing with the goal ofdeveloping and realizing programs toecologize manufacturing within the range ofrequirements for executing Kyoto Protocolconditions.3. To develop national regulations,on the basis of the Ukrainian law “Onthe ecological audit,” an ecologicalmanagement and audit system that meetsthe European regulations of the E.M.A.S.,taking into consideration coordination withEuropean requirements, and national andstate standards of series ISO 19011 and14000. Through voluntary agreements, toimplement national regulations at corporateand local levels, with correspondingcertification of corporate ecologicalmanagement and audit systems as evidenceof the process of making manufacturingmore ecological in actual enterprises.4. To develop and introduce the systemof branch and corporate standards of nonpollutingmanufacturing.5. To inventory the available industrialinfrastructure of non-polluting technologies,evaluate requirements for its development,and identify investment opportunities tosupport such development.6. To perform complex evaluation ofbranch (sectored) and local appraisal oftechnological needs for transitioning to nonpollutingmanufacturing models.7. To consider the possibility of revisingthe investment obligations of privatizedenterprise with the aim of bringing abouttheir ecological modernization throughcontemporary methods.3.4. Insuring ecological responsibility andecological risksThe European system of economicmechanisms of ecological management,nature use, and protection of thesurrounding natural environment includes asystem for insuring the right to responsibilityand ecological risks.Ecological responsibility can be realizedby applying normative legislation (as is donein Ukraine), or by insuring ecological risks(as is done in Europe and internationally).It is also possible to combine methods.In Europe and internationally, ecologicalinsurance represents an effectivemarket mechanism that guarantees thatownership interests of citizens, companies,and the state will be protected.. Due toaccumulation of insurance costs, thismechanism reduces pressure on thebudget to compensate damage caused byincidents covered by insurance. Ecologicalinsurance guarantees investment in highriskforms of manufacturing. Insurance is atool of additional extra-budgetary financingmeasures for preserving the quality of thenatural environment and natural resources.The sphere of ecological insurance includesinsuring the risks of emissions that exceedthe norm and hazardous element dumps,ecological losses that result from ecologicaldisasters, and ecological insuring of newtechnologies (including biotechnologies).Many years of covering the lossesof emergency situations occurred at theexpense of exhausting state insurance andreserve funds. Under conditions of changingownership rights, the state cannot assumeresponsibility before the citizenry for therisky behavior of private nature consumersand polluters. At the same time, the conceptof the private sector’s responsibility for faultand dangerous activity has not developedwithin Ukraine to an extent adequate tochanges in forms of ownership. The Lawof Ukraine “On Protecting the NaturalEnvironment” includes material aboutvoluntary and obligatory environmentalinsurance – material that is not realized incorresponding insurance legislation.The majority of objects involved inindustrial and economic activity wereprivatized without ecological risks beingtaken in account, and without ensuringthat responsibility for ecological outcomesare shared by the state and private sector.This created a judicial precedent for legal98

and ecological irresponsibility on the partof the private sector, which can only beameliorated by implementing obligatory andvolunteer ecological insurance.A normative-methodological base forevaluating ecological risks and sharingresponsibility is lacking, especially forhigh-hazard objects, which are plentifuldue to deteriorated capital assets. Ukrainelacks an all-state regulation for creating anecological insurance market, which maylead to a situation where certain insurancecompanies monopolize this field.Recommendations1. To prepare and approve the Cabinetof Ministers’ decision “On mandatoryecological insurance of the responsibility ofhazardous sites that were privatized withoutconsidering ecological requirements.”2. To develop and ratify the conceptfor developing ecological insurance inUkraine, which should outline the structure,priorities, and order of implementing theappropriate legislative, legal-standard, andmethodological documents; the regulatoryscheme for creating the insurance market,taking into account European requirementsand reference points.3.5. Ecological entrepreneurship:development, support, and encouragementEcological business is a multi-facetedfield of business activity that can providenot only ecological, but significant economicbenefits on a nationwide scale. In the EU, apowerful market of ecological labor, goods,and services has been created, coveringalmost all strategic directions of sustainabledevelopment:• changing unsustainable models ofmanufacturing and consumption (resourceconservationtechnologies and technicalequipment, environmental protection equipment);• promoting ecologically cleanermanufacturing;• promoting effective and safe treatment ofwaste products, decreasing their volume toa minimum;99• improving the quality of the surroundingnatural environment, recovering damagedecosystems and landscapes;• promoting development of ecologicalevaluation systems, ecological auditing,engineering, marketing;• insuring ecological responsibility andecological risks.A significant volume of environmentalprotection and nature conservationinvestment is drawn by the ecologicalbusiness. The volume of the ecologicalmarket is measured by the volume ofgeneral consumer waste: 80 percent ofgoods are considered needless and thrownout after one-time use, and a significantpart of other products does not functionfor the entire period promised. Most powerand water is spent before reaching theconsumer: we pay for them, but theyprovide no benefits.Developing ecological entrepreneurshipdepends on creating a public demand forecological jobs, services, goods, equipment,technologies, and a healthy, high-qualityenvironment. This is a task for state,civic, and entrepreneurial environmentalmanagement systems working incombination. More “transparent” and explicitecological policy, systematic analysisand evaluation of the scale and structureof regional ecological markets facilitateincreasing the demand for ecological goodsand services.Ecological entrepreneurship is, ingeneral, the province of small and mediumbusiness, which need special support. Suchbusinesses should have the same rights asbig businesses when it comes to obtainingloans and financing. A high interestrate does not help develop ecologicalentrepreneurship.Most environmental entrepreneurshipis local. There exists a certain lack ofunderstanding, and coordinating actions,between local government and theentrepreneurial community.The legal base for developing ecologicalentrepreneurship is not very advanced. It

needs well-developed maintenance andstimulatory mechanisms.Ukraine does have a legal basis forsupporting entrepreneurship. It is made upby the Law of Ukraine “On EntrepreneurialActivity” and the President’s Directiveon State Support for Development ofEntrepreneurial Activity. Existing publicassociations of small and mediumentrepreneurs with advanced infrastructuresin the regions should encourage ecologicalentrepreneurship. Many small and mediumenterprises are working in environmentrelatedfields, requiring support andempowerment.Recommendations1. To create coordinating councilsor committees on ecological businessdevelopment among state and localauthorities, which shall prepare and submitlegislative and administrative proposalsconcerning the support and stimulation ofecological business.2. To prepare and conduct thematicgoal-oriented seminars, with state supportbased on community groups, concerningthe tasks and opportunities of ecologicalbusiness in the context of the national policyof European integration and sustainabledevelopment.3. To develop and enact goal-orientedstate programs (action plans) for thedevelopment of ecological markets andbusinesses with financing mechanismsin conjunction with administrative, public,and business structures for the jointimplementation of national and regionalecological programs and projects, fulfillinginternational ecological obligationsregarding climate change, preservingbiological diversity, etc.4. To develop and introduce thefollowing training courses in engineering,agricultural, and commercial highereducational institutions: “Business andnon-polluting technologies”, “Business andwaste-product treatment.”100

Chapter 4. National natural resources potential:preservation, recovery, loss reduction and expenses4.1. Soil resources• ensuring appropriate phytosanitary soilconditions;In countries with a market economy, thepolicy and system of management on thebasis of sustainable development recentlyhas improved. Sustainable developmentforesees two determining ideas:• satisfaction of needs, particularly theprimary ones necessary for the population’spoorest levels to survive;• necessity of restrictions, which is causedby the environment’s ability to satisfy currentand future needs.In realizing the mentioned ideas,the leading role belongs to ecologicallysustainable use of land. Ukraine’s landfund is one of the largest in Europe. If forexample, arable lands occupy between30 and 32 percent of the total area indeveloped European countries, in Ukrainethis indicator rises to 56.1 percent. As aresult of reduced forest lands, meadows andpastures, changes occur in the microclimateand soil water deposit levels. Additionally,land aridity and desertification occurs, andwater and wind erosion develops, whichcauses soil fertility to decline, agriculturalecosystems productivity degradation anddecline and makes sustainable developmentimpossible, which is related to not just thecountry’s ecology, but also food safety.On the international arena, quite anumber of institutions and internationalorganizations function, such as the UnitedNations, the OESR, the EEC and theEuropean Agency on the Environment,which have placed much effort towardsdeveloping corresponding criteria andindicators for inexhaustible land use, fertilityrecovery, and protecting the integrity anddiversity of the planet’s soil.Generalizing international criteria andindicators of inexhaustible land use, fertilityrecovery and protecting the integrity anddiversity of soil are the following:• preventing water erosion development anddeflation;101• preserving the ecological stability of soils;• recovering soil fertility in agriculturalecosystems;• optimizing the environment’s biosystemduring agricultural use;• maintaining the social and economicfunctions of lands;• applying effective legal, economic andorganizational mechanisms of ecologicallysustainable land use.The land fund’s general territory amountsto 60.4 million hectares. The structure of thecountry’s land fund is as follows: agriculturallands cover 71.3% of Ukraine’s territory, withagricultural production land covering 69.3%. The country’s agricultural productionresources are as follows: 77.7% arableland; 13.3% pastures; 5.8% hayfields; 2.2%multi-annual plantings; 1% fallow. Forestsand other territories covered with forestationcomprise 17.3% of the country’s territory;lands that have been built on represent4.1%; areas with water 4%; swamps 1.6%;others 3.7%.The structure of agricultural lands, justlike the structure of Ukraine’s land fund,is characterized by a very high index ofagricultural development (0.72 units).Ukraine has a very high level of cultivatedland, significantly exceeding the ecologicallyjustified limit.According to Ukrainian scientists’evaluations, Ukrainian arable lands (32million hectares) are located mostly infavorable natural climate conditionsfor growing major agricultural crops.Around 1/10 of all arable land territory isconcentrated in Polissia, around 2/5 in theforest and steppe, and ½ in the steppezone. Arable lands in mountainous Crimeaand the brown soil forest region of theCarpathians cover an insignificant partof the soil fund, but have value because

tobacco, grapes, aromatic oil plants,vegetable, and feed cultures can be grownon them.Ukraine’s land is quite mixed and diverse(about 650 types of soil), predominatedby regular chornozem (about 9 millionhectares); typical chornozem (more than7.2 million hectares); southern chornozem(3.2 million hectares); podzol chornozemand dark-gray forest (3.2 million hectares);turf-podzol (1.4 million hectares); and darkchestnut(1.2 million hectares) soils.A meaningful percentage of Ukraine’sland resources have unprecedentedeconomical-ecological parameters. Amongthese is black soil, which accounts for 60%of cultivated soil. However, these are highlysusceptible to erosion, and their fertilityconditions require tight control.In general, Ukraine’s land fund ischaracterized by high bio-productivequalities. According to scientific opinion, inconditions of optimal land use and with acorresponding level of agricultural culture,the country would be able to feed up to 300-320 million people.The ecological-agrochemical stateof arable lands is regularly worsenedas a result of deep ecological balancediscrepancy in the ratio of the basicnutritious elements, which in 2003 onaverage for Ukraine was minus 78 kg/hectare; particularly nitrogen was minus22 kg/hectare, phosphorus was minus 9kg/hectare, potassium was minus 46 kg/hectare, and the indicators of balanceintensity were about 48 percent, 41 percentand 16 percent respectively. Based onzones, plant nutrient supplies in thesteppe and forest-steppe zones, wherethe largest harvests are gathered, aremost intensively used. Here, only 25 to40 percent of nutrients lost harvest wereaccordingly returned. In such areas asPoltava, Kirovohrad, Kyiv and Mykolayiv,each hectare of arable land lost on average100 kg/hectare of NPK. Therefore, actualindicators are several times lower thanthose ecologically recommended, whichhas led to acceleration in agrochemicaldegradation and decline in soil fertility.Therefore in the country’s farming duringthe last decade, flagrantly violated was thelaw of return, which is the natural-scientificbasis of soil fertility recovery theory and apartial revelation of the general scientificlaw on preserving substances and energy.Lack of compliance with this law has,in practice, led to oxidation of the soilenvironment and the impoverishment of thearable soil layer’s fund of organic elements.It has also intensified the fast-progressingexhaustion of arable lands’ main nutritiouselements.The significant deterioration of arablelands’ ecological-agrochemical conditionwas confirmed by a quality evaluation ofUkraine’s soil using the agro-ecologicalmethod according to the materials of thesixth (1991-1995) and seventh (1996-2000) rounds of ecological-agrochemicalcertification of fields and ground areas, andstatistical and scientific data from differentestablishments and institutions of Ukraine.The land of Polissia zone received 43points based on a 100-point scale, theforest steppe 53 points and the steppe 60points. On average for Ukraine, the soil’scurrent agrochemical condition is estimatedat 55 points, therefore during the five yearsbetween the VI and VII cycles of ecologicalagrochemicalmonitoring, the estimatedecreased by two points. The worstsituation was observed in Polissia, wherea significant decrease in points (from twoto seven) was observed in all areas withoutexception. Relatively better ecologicalagrochemicalconditions as a whole wereshown by forest-steppes and steppe areas,though quality estimates of soils in theChernivtsi, Vinnytsia, Sumy and Luhanskareas, and the Autonomous Republic ofCrimea, did not exceed 45 points. The landsin the Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Poltava andCherkasy areas are in the best ecologicalagrochemicalcondition (rated between 53up to 63).The received data testify about the welldefinedtendency of decreasing land fertilityowing to catastrophic reductions in fertilizer102

application amounts and activation ofvarious soil degradation processes.Today’s land-use situation in Ukraine isclose to critical. The most comprehensivedegradation processes, are associated withagricultural activity. Erosion impacts 57.5%of the country’s lands (19360.4 thousandhectares of agricultural lands in the countryare subject to deflation hazard; 13284.2thousand hectares are damaged by watererosion, which means they were washedaway; in particular, the arable fund theyamount to 10582.6 thousand hectares.)Every year, due to erosion, around 11million tons of humus, 0.5 million tons ofnitrogen, 0.4 million tons of phosphorus,and 0.7 million tons of potassium are lost;the land erosion level is increasing by 80-90thousand hectares. Acidification, salificationand alkalinization of soil (lands with acidicsoils make up 25% of plowed lands; landswith salinated soils make up 2.8%; landssubject to the solonetzic process make up5.3% of the country’s total arable lands).According to experts of the National Centerof Science of the Sokolovsky Institute ofSoil Science and Agrochemistry, the soilsof 38% of the country’s arable soils areover packed (37% of soils can potentiallyhave a hard crust appear on the surface).There is wide-scale contamination ofsoils with radionuclides, heavy metals,and pesticides. Such exogenic geologicalprocesses as landslides are possible on0.3% of the country’s territory; flooding oflands is possible on 12%; and cave creationis possible on 37.6%.Humus consistency is traditionallyconsidered an integral soil fertility indicator.According to a recent soil-agrochemicalmonitoring cycle (1996-2000), the averagehumus content in Ukrainian soil amountedto 3.20%. In Polissia it was 2.18%; in forestand steppe, 3.27%; in the steppe, 3.45%.These numbers are significantly lower thanoptimal humus content parameters, whichare, respectively, 2.6%, 4.3%, and 4.3%.Compared to a prior monitoring cycle, theaverage weighted humus content indicatordecreased in Ukraine by an average of .007%. In Polissia it decreased by .04%, and inthe forest and steppe by .09%. Taking intoaccount the significant decline in areas ofcultivated crops where humus is activelymineralized, and also excluding low-humus,low-productive areas of land, the actualstocks of humus in Ukraine’s soils havedecreased even more.The main reason for the deterioratinghumus conditions in processed Ukrainiansoils is a sharp decline in organic fertilizeruse.If in 1990 the zones brought in8.6 t/hectare of organic fertilizer for allagricultural crops, then in 2003 they appliedone ton of organics per hectare. Harvestingof agricultural cultures has significantlydecreased, and therefore the input ofpost-harvest and root leftovers that createhumus has decreased as well. As a result,there is an acute deficit balance of organicelements in all of Ukraine’s natural zones,with losses exceeding newly created humusby an average of 800 kilograms per hectare.In Polissia the losses are of 320 kilograms,in the forest and steppe of 600, and in thesteppe of 990. In such steppe areas asDnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kirovohrad,Mykolayiv and Kherson, the negativebalance of humus reached more than 1000kg per hectare.Recommendations1. First of all, it is necessary to optimizethe ratio of ploughed and ecology-stabilizinglands, having withdrawn from intensivecultivation degraded and unproductivegrounds for their next conservation(rehabilitation) and transformation into forestand natural fodder lands. At the first stageof optimization, the ratio should correspondto a 50:50 percent proportion. At that, thearea of ploughed land will decrease by 8 to10 million hectares, and correspondingly,forest territories and land areas for naturalfodder crops will increase.1. Besides high levels of agriculturalcultivation and tillage of lands, the natural,agricultural conditions of zones and geneticfeatures of soil are of great value in formingthe agro-ecological state of arable lands.103

2. With the purpose of improvinggovernment policy on rational andecologically safe use of land resources,including those with an agriculturalpurpose, it is necessary to integrate workon land management, soil-agrochemicalinspection, ecology-ameliorative monitoringand to create a single state landinformation system, which should consistof a database on the state land fund’sspatial characteristics in all its aspects. Itshould also be based on a single systemof determining their coordinates andon complex use of modern informationsystems, distanced and traditional methodsof supervision. Control over land conditionsis necessary in all of the national economy’sbranches.3. In Ukraine, besides agro-ecologicalproduction monitoring, it is necessaryto form an independent fixed network ofsupervision on the ecological conditionof soils. Databases on these matters andgeo-informational systems should becoordinated with European counterparts.4. In improving the land monitoringsystem, it is necessary to coordinate withEuropean criteria the indicators, supervisionmethods, organization, structure, collectionand processing of information receivedby various departments. Other than that,it is necessary to coordinate the forms ofdescribing indicators or indices that willenable achieving certain compromisesof interdepartmental value. Due to suchmethods, it is possible to draw closer to anautomation of information exchange and thecreation of corresponding search systems,important for distant users, which can berealized through the Internet.5. It is necessary to continue improvinglegal and normative maintenance of theprinciples for creating sustainable systemsof land tenure, as well as protectionand reproduction of soil fertility, with thepurpose of preserving land integrity, itsecological functions and soil diversity duringagricultural activity under conditions ofprivate property.In a conceptual plan, an increase inUkrainian soil fertility (especially chornozem),depending on specific conditions,may be based on:• use of chornozem natural resourcepotential;• regulating the balance of humus andbiogenic elements in the field system andspecialized crop rotations;• increasing biological and fermentationactivity of chornozem involving theprocesses of synthesis and decomposingadditional amount of organic substances;• use of crushed straw, manure, siderates,nitrate-binding and sulfur-mobilizingbiological products; more complete use oflocal deposits of chalk, phosphorites andother agricultural ores;• eliminating the adverse properties of soils-- overcompression, acidification, structuredeterioration, salination, erosion, drainage,irrigation, etc. -- having implemented asystem of ameliorative projects;• implementing a constant monitoring ofchange in soil quality according to thesystem of indicators stipulated in thepassport of soils.Ecology determining factors suchas agrophysical and agrochemical landdegradation are taken into account duringsoil quality evaluation and land certification,implemented based on techniques,recommendations and supervisingnormative documents.The mentioned scientific-methodicaltechnologies are used in the practicalactivity of the State Design-and-EngineeringCenter of Soil Fertility Protection and itsregional departments while carrying outecological-agrochemical monitoring andland certification, developing practicalrecommendations in optimizing modernregional systems of land tenure andagrochemical use, and substantiatingparameters in creating special raw zonesfor manufacturing children’s food, etc.4.2. Water resourcesWater is a scarce and incredibly valuableresource, necessary for maintaining life and104

agricultural and industrial development.Protection and the ecological rehabilitationof water resources is a priority in Europeanecological policy. During the second part ofthe last century and the beginning of thisone, the number of unresolved problemsrelated to water resources continuouslygrew. Every year, water consumptionincreases, and its declining qualitysignificantly influences human health.Water resource protection is a prioritydirection of European ecological policy.However, the authorized legislativedocuments are implemented ineffectively.The condition of water resources in EUcountries testifies to that. Taking thisinto account, the common session of theEuropean Parliament and the EuropeanCouncil in Luxembourg approved on Oct.23, 2000 the Framework Water Directive2000/GO/EU. The power of this Directiveinfluences European Community countriesand country-candidates. The purpose of theFramework Water Directive is protecting andimproving water resource conditions andpromoting their sustainable and balanceduse. The Framework Water Directive set asits main goal the “good ecological condition”of all water resources without exceptionthrough 2015.Available water resourcesUkraine’s average multi-year waterresources amount to 87.1 km3 (without theflow of the Danube on the Kiliyskiy branch,they amount to 123 km3/year in volume).Local water resources - those that areformed within Ukraine - amount to 52.4km3 in an average water-volume year. Insmall-water volume years of 75% and 95%supply (repetition happens, on average, inone in four and 20 years, respectively) thelocal flow amounts to 41.4 and 29.7 km3/per year, respectively. Water resources aredistributed in a very unequal way within thecountry’s territory. Resources are higher inthe north and less in the south, where thebigger water-consumers are located.Ukraine also has underground waterreserves. The general amount of forecastedexploitable subterranean water resourceson the country’s territory comes to 57.2million cubic meters per day, of which 15.7cubic meters per day are confirmed. Theterritorial division of subterranean water isuneven.Judging by the amount of water perUkrainian citizen, Ukraine, according tointernational standards, is among thosecountries insufficiently supplied with waterresources. As a result of limited waterresources and the way they are distributed,river flow is widely regulated. Reservoirs andponds, in aggregate, hold close to 58 billioncubic meters, which exceeds the local riverflow of all the country’s rivers. Regulatingthe flow of the majority of rivers hasreached, and even exceeded, the top-endeconomic- and ecology-based permissiblelimits. Such regulation has drasticallydecreased and often completely destroyedrivers’ capacity to purify themselves. Inaddition, many reservoirs (over 1100) andponds (around 28 thousand) have causedincreases in underground water levels inlarge areas, and changes in undergroundwater systems.Water useUkraine has multi-plan approachto water resource use. The consumerproperties of water resources predeterminethe possibilities for their complex andmultipurpose use by many economicbranches. The basic priorities of water usein Ukraine are the population, agricultureand industry. The structure of waterconsumption in Ukraine (the basic economicbranches) is shown in Table 1, and the basicparameters of water supply and drainage inTable 2.Structure of water consumptionin Ukraine, %Table 1Branch 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000Total water consumptionIndustry 74,2 65,0 52,5 46,1 43,1 49,6Municipal services 6,3 7,5 9,8 10,7 15,0 25,8Rural and fish industry 19,5 27,5 37,7 43,2 41,9 24,6Irrevocable water consumptionIndustry 38,2 33,3 25,6 16,4 18,3 12,2Municipal services 10,9 10,2 11,0 13,7 15,0 29,9Rural and fish industry 50,9 56,5 63,4 69,9 66,7 57,9105

Changes in the basic parameters ofUkraine’s water supply and drainagesystem, billion of m 3Table 2Parameters 1985 1990 1995 2000Ratio2000/1990Fresh water use 30,6 30,2 20,3 12,2 0,40Including:for manufacturing16,5 16,2 9,6 16,1 0,37for utility and4,3 4,6 4,4 3,3 0,72drinking needsSewage removed 19,7 20,3 15,0 10,5 0,52Including: polluted (1,3) 3,2 4,6 3,3 1,03not cleansed (0,2) 0,5 0,9 0,8 1,60Normatively cleansed 4,5 3,3 1,9 2,1 0,64Volume of waterin returned andrepeated watersupplyCapacity of cleaningstructures (for theend of year)59,0 67,7 51,1 41,5 0,617,1 8,1 8,4 8,0 0,99The water consumption structure dataanalysis and the water supply and drainagesystem basic parameters dynamics, aswell as the data on water quality dynamics,have shown that water use structure doesnot address the peculiarities of formingand territorial-time dividing the country’swater resources and causes the creationof catastrophic situations within thepopulation’s water supply and economicentities for quantitative and qualitativeindicators. The water use situation is anintense one, and further developing it will beimpossible if new stresses are added.Surface waters are very polluted, with thechief pollutants being poisonous chemicals,oil products, heavy metallic salts, phenols,and biogenic elements. The connectionof surface water pollution with economicactivity in the past 10-12 years breaks downas follows: 60-65% is due to industry; 16-20% to agriculture; 18-20% to communalactivity; and around 1% to various spreadoutcontamination sources. Low forestationand a high degree of tilled landscapes insmall and medium rivers’ sub-watershedsystems provide ideal conditions for a stablesurface water resource pollution level. Withan average 70 percent of Ukraine’s territorytilled, the indicators concerning reservoirsof some rivers vary between 58 and 78percent, and the level of their agricultural106cultivation reaches between 72 and 84percent and more.As a result of rapid anthropogenicelement changes, pollution of surfacewater resources varies drastically, withina large range – from “mildly polluted” to“very polluted” (that is, from class II to VI,according to the current Ukrainian waterqualityclassification system). Calculationsbased on this classification show that 88%of tested rivers in Ukraine (and their basins)have ecological conditions ranging from“bad” to “catastrophic.”In the current structure of the processesof underground water pollution of Ukraine’sterritories, two levels are distinguished:• almost complete pollution of subsoilwaters (first from the day’s surface waterhorizon), by remnants of mineral fertilizers,pesticides, heavy metals, oils, etc.;• local pollution of the first urgent anddeeper horizons of the active water cyclezone as a result of accelerated pollutionmigration under the influence of operatingwater offtakes, mines, etc.The water usage crisis and thecatastrophic ecological condition of waterresources is exacerbated by the presenceof a water-intensive production sector,and by water-intensive technologies thatrequire two to six times more water thantechnologies in the developed countries ofEU and America.So many factors led to the level ofecological disaster in Ukraine, which areprimarily:• high resource and energy consumption ofold technologies;• highly concentrated industrial sites;• absence or insufficient capacity ofcleansing facilities;• imperfection of cleaning technologiesand poor operation of available cleansingstructures;• extremely high tillage and agriculturaldevelopment of the country’s territories;• low percentage of forest lands;

• exceeding the top ecological limit of riverdrainage regulation;• low (often anti-ecological) level oftechniques and technologies that are usedfor land cultivation and manufacturingagricultural production;• non-observance of scientifically provedsystems of agriculture;• disrespect of nature preservation,reclamation, anti-erosion, environmentformingrules and methods;• absence of legal and economicmechanisms which would stimulatedevelopment of ecologically safetechnologies and water preservation (and ingeneral, nature preservation) systems;• lack of ecological knowledge and lowecological erudition among the country’spopulation;• radiation pollution of the surroundingnatural environment as a result of theChornobyl accident and production relatedto atomic engineering (uranium oreextraction, its enrichment, waste productsof enrichment, etc.).Recommendations1. Changes in the ecological conditionof the majority of rivers and their basins dueto anthropogenic load influence has led todeterioration of natural water ecosystems(including watersheds), and creation of anew natural and economic “ecosystem” thatis much simpler, and therefore unstable.Rejuvenating Ukrainian rivers is impossiblewithout improving the ecological conditionof their basins and the country’s territory asa whole.2. Measures on improving the ecologicalconditions of water sites, as well as othercomponents of the natural environment,must be implemented according to basinprinciples at the state, regional, oblast ordistrict levels, depending on the size of thewater site (river, lake).3. Rational nature use providesfor protection and recovery of naturalresources, and it is impossible withoutspecific ecological requirements for the ratiobetween unchanged and human-affectednature.The following organizational-legalactions are necessary:• to speed up formation of a modern systemof legal and juridical maintenance of watersafety activity;• to improve the systems of economic,administrative and technical regulation ofwater supply;• to implement such paid water usagethat infringements to its rules would beeconomically unprofitable;• to continue work on developing andimproving quality monitoring and evaluationof the condition of water sites andanthropogenic pressures;• to determine nature-reserve territoriesas soon as possible, and also to putinto agricultural and forestry practice theformation of “islands of safety” within forestsand rivers, where hunting, fishing, herbgatheringand any other economic activitywould be strictly forbidden;• to intensify research on finding of newways of cleansing industrial and commonsewage and on developing technologiesto collect certain polluting substances andtheir recycling; to implement the results ofsuch work.4. To remove Ukraine’s watermanagement from crisis condition on thenational level, it is necessary:• to develop the concept of rational use,protection and recovery of water resourcesand water economy development duringthe period through 2015 (or 2020) whiledefining priority directions and urgent stepsin resolving these problems;• to orient the strategy of the country’sfurther economic development forecologically proven ways while consideringthe state of its natural resource potential;to implement and steadfastly adhere to thescientifically proven ratio between extractingnatural resources and their use for nationaleconomic needs;107

• to reconsider the acting normative andlegal basis for ensuring rational use,protection and recovery of water resources,taking into account the Constitution ofUkraine and its other Laws;• to implement certification of all thecountry’s enterprises, and on this basis, toratify a decision on their further functioning,reorientation, termination or purchase offoreign non-polluting, resource-savingtechnologies;• to analyze the results of certifying theseenterprises, being guided by the best worldachievements with obligatory determiningof expenses of natural resources perunit of production (quantity of initial rawmaterial, water, energy per unit of finishedgoods), and also the ecologic natureof manufacturing and consumption ofproduction;• to perform water-ecological zoning ofUkraine’s territory and to determine on itsbasis the sequence of investments andimprovements of these or other indicatorsof water resource use (factors of theirpollution, offtake and dumping volumes,land resource use) with the help of thoseinvestments;• to develop and implement a program ofdrinking water supply in Ukraine with itsgradual transfer for underground waters;• to implement control of water use for directpurposes (drinking water - for drinking;technical - for technical needs);• to build up systems of centralized watersupply in villages in order to provide all ruralsettlements with quality water by 2015;• to construct sewer networks and cleaningstructures in villages simultaneously withsystems of centralized water supply;• to introduce ecological-economic methodsof managing the water economy with thepurpose of reducing water consumption andpollution of rivers and lakes;• to involve local communities (villages,districts, regions, cities) in water utilitymanagement and water preservation(nature preservation) measures bydiscussing projects and allowing community108representatives to participate in the activityof basin councils;• to develop ecological specifications ofwater consumption and water use for thecountry’s natural zones;• to conclude international and interstateagreements on use and protection ofcommon water resources with bordernations; to reactivate the BucharestDeclaration on the Danube River.4.3. Mineral resourcesUkraine is among the world’s leadingmineral and raw material countries. Around8 thousand sources of over 90 kinds ofminerals, and around 20 thousand oresources containing 200 kinds of minerals,have been discovered in Ukraine’s depths.Until recently, Ukraine held a leading placeamong the world’s countries in termsof deposits and development of iron,magnesium, titanium-zirconium ores andmany types of non-metal materials. Ukrainewas until recently providing 5% of theworld’s exploitation of the earth’s treasures,as well as of the products that result fromtheir processing, for a sum that amounted toover $20 billion. Ukraine has generated overa third of its export income through sellingits mineral and raw material products.At the same time, the rapid developmentof this exploitative industry has led to arange of problems connected with thenegative environmental impact that thesedeveloping and processing facilities have.The main issues are:• extremely high concentrations of miningenterprises within the Donetsk coal mines,the Kryvyi Rih iron ore fields and Nikopolmanganese fields, which have resultedin serious negative consequences for theenvironment• high levels of use and even exhaustionof mineral fields, which will deepenenvironmental problems in case of furtherexploitation;• insufficient funding of efforts directedtowards reducing environmental problems

elated to mineral extraction during Sovietand post-Soviet times, which has led to anaccumulation of environmental problemsin the mentioned regions and throughoutUkraine;• extremely complicated mining andgeological conditions in the majority of coaldeposits, as well as the low output of coallayers which leads to low profit levels andpredetermines the necessity of significantstate subsidies for coal mining support;• low quality of certain minerals, particularlyKryvbas iron ores and manganese ores.This causes higher processing expensescompared to the world’s best examples andsignificantly lower economic effectivenessaccordingly;• absence of legislation ensuring marketeconomy conditions that finance theliquidation of mining enterprise sitesand elimination of negative ecologicalconsequences. It’s worth noting that untilnow, the mentioned problems were decidedon the state budget’s account. In currentmarket conditions however, incentives andmechanisms should be in place to help curbecological damage;• insufficient levels of research on thenegative effects on mining and mineralextraction on the environment.European countries are currently cuttingdown on the use of their own mineralresources, for both economic and ecologicalreasons. The number of mining companiesin Europe is continuously falling, and themining complex’s share of the GDPs ofFrance, Germany, and Austria accounts foronly 1-5%. European geological servicesare oriented not as much toward studyingthe mineral and raw material base astoward conducting projects in the fieldsof hydrogeology, engineering geology,ecology, natural resource monitoring, andinformation.In general, the strategy for mining sectordevelopment in the UNECE countries isbased on a comprehensive analysis of howdeveloping new mining deposits will impactthe environment, taking into account the fullextraction of useful elements. In the UNECEcountries, fulfilling ecological requirementsis a component of the technical-economicmission that drives development of a certaindeposit. For example, the recent approvalof air dust restrictions in Germany led toa sharp reduction in open air deposits ofconstruction materials and the purchase ofnecessary raw materials abroad.Contemporary European trends mightserve Ukraine as an example of how primaryattention can be paid to hydrogeology andecology, which are directly connected withpreserving life. Regarding the developmentof Ukraine’s mineral and raw material base,the specifics of the country’s productionpotential must be taken into account, alongwith its level of economic developmentand its current industrial structure, whichat one point was designed for prioritizeddevelopment of heavy industry. Europeanexperience can serve as a guideline for thefuture.In Ukraine, it is necessary to:• approve stricter mining and ecologicallegislation and unbending state control in itsexecution;• plan research studies on theenvironmental consequences of mineraluse and extraction, considering the societyand economy’s interests;• estimate what the environmentalconditions of mining regions should be;• constantly control the ecological conditionsof mining regions and mineral extraction;control the realization of environmentalprotection measures.Recommendations1. To plan geological research work,taking into account the current andprospective needs of Ukrainian economy forraw materials and demand for minerals.2. To orient geological research worktowards investigating and searching formineral deposits with high contents of usefulcomponents employing highly technologicalores, which will ensure their extraction andprocessing while minimally affecting theenvironment.109

3. To study and register the wasteproducts of mining enterprises, with thepurpose of granting them the status of manmadedeposits.4. To implement forecasting estimatesof the drinking quality of undergroundwater in order to supply the population withecologically sustainable and pure water.5. To develop a program of ecologicaland geological research in Ukraine.6. To produce ecological and geologicalstudies of Ukraine’s territory and createcorresponding cartographical materials(scale 1:500,000) providing information onthe negative influence of mineral depositsand their processing on the environment,particularly in polluting soil and naturalwaters.7. To create a map of Ukraine’s hydromineralresources (scale 1:500,000) toestimate the negative effects of mineraldeposits on hydro-mineral resources, whichare an important source of sanitation forUkraine’s people.8. To prepare a program creatinga system of observation test sites forecological-geographic research inconditions of fierce man-made pressure, inorder to provide a proven estimate of manmadeinfluence, to develop measures toimprove the environment’s ecological stateand to approve objective administrativedecisions taking into account the rationaluse of government finds and resources.9. To develop and implement newtechnologies for mineral processing withthe purpose of reducing toxic substancesduring enrichment that are harmful to theenvironment10. To expand the mineral-resourcebase by involving new ores, deepeningmineral processing, and using a moreintegrated and effective approach to mineralextraction.4.4. BiodiversityAt the current stage of civilization, not asingle global problem was not addressed bydecisions reached by the United Nations,international conventions, summits of theworld’s heads of states, higher government110organs and the overall world community inensuring biodiversity and its sustainable(balanced, non-exhaustive) use.A particular decision is the “UnitedNations Conference on the Environment andDevelopment” (1992), and the nineteenthspecial session of the United NationsGeneral Assembly (1997). It addressed theglobal destruction of biological diversity,specifically regarding six global ecologicalcrises (global warming; ozone layerdestruction; the pollution of continentsand oceans with heavy metals, chemicalcompounds, and mineral oils; droughts; acidrain; and the destruction and deteriorationof biological diversity) that have significantlyworsened the world’s environment andeconomy during the last 30 years.V. I. Vernadsky proved more than ahundred years ago that the biosphere is aglobal ecosystem, the leading role of whichis played by the autotroph block, that is tosay vegetation and biological diversity onthe whole, which executes the planetaryroles of energy accumulation, geochemistry,stabilization, anti-entropy andinformation.The condition of the biosphere directlyor indirectly determines all of social life’smain areas – spiritual, material, andpolitical. Currently, around 65% of theworld’s ecosystems have been destroyedor drastically changed as a result ofeconomic activity. In a liberal marketeconomy, biodiversity resources havea consumer value, and their social andbiological importance is not taken intoaccount. (In fact, it is twice as important asconsumer value.) This economy enableswealthy countries of the so-called “goldpool” to extract natural resources from thecountries of the third world. Other reasonsfor sharp declines in biological diversityinclude ideological, political, psychological,legislative, spiritual, and ethnic motives.In Ukraine, social, economic, andtechnogenic rationales have dominated.Collectivization,industrialization,urbanization, and chemicalization; andthe transformation of nature through

draining, irrigation, flooding, salification,and through the destruction of forests,meadows, marshes, and steppes; hascreated catastrophic consequences for theenvironment and the human population.This has led to terrible ecological conditions,among the worst in Europe.Currently Ukraine is the most ploughednation (arable land occupies 55 percent ofthe territory). Much of this land (30 percent)has eroded, which has resulted in negativeecological consequences. This appliesto individuals’ vegetative land, whichusually consists of only 0.35 hectares.The amount of protected land is 2.5 timesless than in Central Europe. Furthermore,the pollution of the atmosphere is two tofour times higher, and the amount of cleanwater per inhabitant is 10 times lower. Thisnegatively affects the population’s healthand social conditions, as well as averagelife expectancy, which is between ten andtwelve years shorter than in Italy, Greeceand other advanced countries.The experience of Western and CentralEuropean countries (England, France,Switzerland, Germany, the Czech Republic,Poland, etc) testifies to the necessity ofobligatory adherence to at least threerequirements. These requirements pertainto the level of plowed lands, which shouldnot exceed 20-30% of the country’s territory(which is the case in the above-mentionedcountries), to protected territories, and toappropriate legislation. In Switzerland, forexample, the protected area amounts to18.5% of total land; in Austria, to 25%; inGermany, to 24%.In Switzerland, biological diversitywas preserved during the 1970’s dueto legislative (three articles in theConfederative Constitution), economic andscientific mechanisms. These mechanismswork as a single system directed towardsthe population’s interest at all levels toprotect the environment. The ecologicalprotection policy is an integral componentof all private and government plans fordevelopment. The government forms thepurpose and the basis for protection, as wellas legislative acts to protect and maintain111these measures. In case of legislativeinfringement, the parties at fault havegovernment funding withdrawn.Therefore, the ecological state of theworld and Ukraine require a review ofavailable concepts of relating to nature anda transition to multifunctional, ecologicallybalanced concepts, which conforms to lawson unity, integrity and interdependencebetween the biosphere and society. Forthis purpose, it is necessary to determinethe amount of natural resources on theplanet and in each individual state. Thenemploying the provisions approved in Riode Janeiro in 1992 at the “Agenda for theXXI Century” Conference (which focused oneliminating global inequalities in the socialand ecological spheres), quotas can bedetermined for natural resource and mineralextraction and use, having considered theirenvironmental and social costs. Thesequotas will specifically include carbondioxide emissions. This policy also shouldhelp preserve and strengthen forests, whichare vital parts of the ecosystem and provideecological balance.The above-mentioned information demonstratesthe inability to resolve thisimportant problem on the basis of territorialand rare species preservation concepts(nature reserve funds), which neverthelessremain dominant.In the world, as well as in Ukraine,ensuring biodiversity and environmentalprotection is difficult since international andnational governments often do not ensureor enforce many approved agreements,contracts, and decisions. This wasunderlined at the nineteenth special sessionof the United Nations General Assembly in1997. Solving this problem is very complex,and is especially complicated in Ukraineand in neighbouring countries, which havehad changes in their state systems.Recommendations1. To perform in 2006 and 2007 aninventory of the current state of Ukraine’sbiodiversity, with the participation of ministryofficial, scientists, and civic organizations.2. On the basis of data obtained duringthe execution of many IBRD and UNEP

international programs, to calculate theecological-functional balance of the stateland fund’s various targeted designationsand uses.3. To develop and approve the law, “Onbalancing Ukraine’s land fund for differentpurposes and uses,” which will provide for:preventing the use of strongly eroded land,which is now between four and five millionhectares; an increase in natural vegetationby up to 28 million hectares by means ofrestoring moderately and severely erodedlands; eliminating the use of unproductivearable land; and increasing forest areasup to 13 million hectares, meadows up to14 million hectares and steppes up to onemillion hectares.4. To develop long-term regionalbalanced development programs, directedtowards achieving conditions in whicheconomic growth and development isbalanced with ensuring that the environmentis protected and biodiversity does not suffer.5. To provide protection for another2.5 million hectares of land with naturalvegetation.6. To form a national ecologicalnetwork of Ukraine, provided for by thecorresponding law for 2000-2015, most ofwhich remains unimplemented.7. To revise legislation in Ukraine topreserve biological diversity and to eliminatenon-conforming legislation in other spheresof natural resources, particularly the LandCode.8. To develop and ratify the meadowprotection code and provisions.9. To create an interdepartmentalcommittee on biological diversity.10. To create a code on administrativeoffenses, a separate article which wouldapply economic and administrativepenalties, and in some cases imprisonment,against officials if they are negligent inperforming their duties stipulated by thecurrent legislation on preserving biologicaldiversity.4.5. Preservation fundDuring the last decade, the number ofprotected natural territories and their areasin the world have increased by more thandouble. More than 12 percent of the world’sland surface is currently under protection(except for Antarctica, where a strictprotection regime of protection is appliedto 10 percent of its territory). Developing anational network of protected territories andsites during this period was similar to globaltendencies.Since independence, Ukraine’s naturalprotected land fund has increased morethan twice in area, or by 1303.1 thousandhectares. It currently includes more than 7thousand territories and objects, and hasa total area of 2,757,427 hectares, whichcomprises 4.6 % of the country’s territory.The Ukrainian protective fund’s areais insufficient, and remains significantlysmaller than similar funds in the majorityof European countries, where the averagepercentage of protected lands amounts to15.3%. The area of protected land in Europeamounts to about 2220 m3, with 570 m3 inUkraine.In addition, the last three yearshave seen negative tendencies in thedevelopment of environmental initiatives.The growth of the protective fund’s areaamounts on average to 20,000 hectares.By 2006, 7% of the country’s territory wassupposed to be protected, but that goal wasnot achieved.The possibility exists that alreadyprotected and preserved lands could beremoved from the protective fund. Theconditions for regulating and monitoringwhich lands are degrading and needprotection do not meet modern andinternational requirements.The main reasons for this problem are:• an inconsistency in state policy in realizingapproved decisions on forming a naturereserve fund network and its impropermaintenance;112

• the imperfect nature of the reserve fundadministrative system in using natural andinnovative approaches at the national andregional levels;• a low level of financial and materialprovision;• an insufficient level of staff;• an imperfect legislative basis on regulatingissues of preserving, recovering andinsuring a balanced and non-exhaustiveuse of natural resources within reserve fundlimits.In decisions of the Fifth World ParksCongress (Durban, the Republic ofSouth Africa, September 8-17, 2003),the exceptionally important role ofenvironmentally protected territorynetworks in ensuring society’s sustainabledevelopment and preserving biotic diversitywas stressed.The role of environmentally protectedterritories in preserving biotic diversity inthe transition to sustainable developmentshould be fundamental and key.That is why at the present stage ofUkraine’s development, there is an absolutenecessity to ratify a series of measureson maintaining appropriate conditions forrealizing a uniform state policy in developingreserves in Ukraine; creating a scientificallyproven network of territories and sitesof nature reserve funds as an organiccomponent of the state’s sustainabledevelopment, increasing its area to up to 10percent of Ukraine’s territory; and formingon its basis an ecological network as acomponent of the Pan-European ecologicalnetwork. At that, it is necessary to ensuredevelopment and realization of scientificresearch and ecosystem monitoring. On thebasis of systems of nature reserve funds,it is also necessary to create a system ofbalanced nature use, as well as ecologicaleducationaland recreational use of theirresources.Among 36 current institutions of naturereserve funds of national value (biosphericand natural reserves, national naturalparks), 15 are subordinate to Ukraine’sMinistry of Nature, while the remaining21 are subordinate to executive bodies,higher educational institutions and statescientific organizations (Ukraine’s Ministryof Education and Science, the StateCommittee of Forestry of Ukraine, the stateadministration of the President’s affairs,the National Academy of Sciences ofUkraine, the Ukrainian Academy of AgrarianSciences, the Taras Shevchenko NationalUniversity of Kyiv).Among the majority, land preservationis not a priority direction of activity. That iswhy it is reasonable to create an integratedstate nature reserve fund administrationsystem, subordinating all institutions to asingle executive organ, Ukraine’s Ministryof Natural Environmental Protection.Such an administration system has beencreated in the US, the majority of Europeancountries (Poland, Slovakia, Germany, theBaltic states), and partly in the RussianFederation. Poland’s model of managing,preserving and financing its reserve funddeserves the greatest attention.Recommendations1. To develop and approve the Law ofUkraine, “On a national program to developa reserve fund issues through 2020.”The main tasks of the program are:• defining the basic directions of state policy,as well as optimizing and prospectivelydeveloping reserves issues as the basicsphere of activity in the field of protectingthe natural environment in modernconditions;• completing the creation of a scientificallyproven national ecological network andincreasing natural reserve fund territoriesand sites within it to 10 percent;• creating an effective mechanism for thedirect participation of nature reserve fundinstitutions in maintaining the sustainabledevelopment of regions and the state;expanding the system of recreationalactivity, ecotourism, and ecological businesswith the purpose of promoting the localpopulation’s employment;113

• solving other problems of developingecological-educational and scientific activity.2. At the first stage (five years), to solvethe following priority tasks:On the basis of performed evaluations,to develop a plan of sustainable financingof nature reserve fund territories and sites,taking into account new multi-facetedmechanisms of attracting additionalresources.Besides traditional sources to increasefinancing (budgetary receipts, paid services,ecotourism), a system of economic tools isnecessary to prevent the type of activity thatnegatively influences the nature reservefund, such as taxes, long-term ecologicalobligations, paid licenses for land use, etc.,with the purpose of increasing income to thereserve fund.Using partnership relations betweenthe state and private sector to diversify thesources and volumes of nature reserve fundfinancing.Important is the use of economic,financial and ecological mechanismsto improve the local population’s wellbeing, and to create new jobs (work inthe ecotourism business, visitors centers,servicing natural reserve fund visitors, etc.).3. To develop and ratify a singlesystem of nature reserve fund qualitativemanagement, introducing into practice itsmulti-faceted models, taking into accountincreasing the professionalism of naturalreserve fund institutions’ directors andpersonnel; organizing training to improvethe qualifications of specialist-managerson issues of nature use; and creating theproper conditions to involve local organsof governments and self-administrationin nature preservation initiatives to solveproblems in reserve fund territories.4. To create a scientific-research instituteof reserve fund issues and preservingbiological diversity in Ukraine.5. In the near future (2005-2007), toprovide for the establishing of boundariesfor Ukraine’s nature reserve fund sites andterritories, marking them with appropriatesigns; to mark boundaries on correspondingcartographical documents; to distribute tonature reserve fund institutions documentswhich certify their property rights; to transferall nature reserve fund territories and sitesto a nature-reserve fund lands category.6. To reconsider the classification ofUkraine’s reserve fund categories andsites, maximally bringing them to Europeanstandards. As a basis, it is possible torecommend the classification of reservesites in Poland, England, France, Slovakia,and other European countries.4.6. Forest fundThe forests of Ukraine fulfill importantecological functions: water-protective,protective, and recreational, with a limitedexploitation value. The forest fund’s area is10.8 million hectares, of which 9.4 millionhectares are covered with forest vegetation.There are more than 1.7 billion cubic metersof forest resources. The annual increase inthe State Forestry’s forests is 4 cubic metersper hectare, deviating from 5 cubic metersin the Carpathians to 2.5 cubic meters in thesteppe zone. Ukraine’s forestation amountsto 15.6% of total land area.The country’s forests are unevenlysituated, varying significantly from onenatural zone to another, making it far fromoptimal. It is optimal when forests impactclimate, soil, and erosion processes inthe most efficient way, and provide thecountry’s economy with sufficient suppliesof quality lumber. The largest forest massesare concentrated in Polissia and theUkrainian Carpathians, comprising 26.1%and 40.5%, respectively, of each region’sgeneral territory. In the forest and steppethe percentage is 12.2%, and in the steppeit is 3.8 percent.The State “Ukraine’s Forests for 2002-15” Program defines optimal forestation forUkraine as 19-20%. To reach this, forestarea must be increased by at least by 2-2.5 million hectares. Some researchers,meanwhile, believe optimal forestationshould be around 25%.114

The age structure of forest massesprevents them from being effectively used.According to this indicator, forest plantingshave the following age structure: 32% areyoung, 44% are middle-aged, 13% are nearready for use, and 11% are ready.Usage of forest resources is configuredas follows: care and permanent usage bythe State Forestry (68.3%); agriculturalcomplex enterprises (24%); the Ministryof Defense (2.2%); the Ministry ofEmergency Situations (1.6%); the Ministryof Environmental Protection (0.8%); andothers (3.1%).More than 30 kinds of trees formUkraine’s forests. among which theArchangel pine (Pinus silvestris L.), oak(Quercus robur), European beech (Fagussylvatica L.), whitewood (Picea abies),birch (Betula pendula), black alder (Alnusglutinosa), European ash (Fraxinusexcelsior), European hornbeam (Carpinusbetulus prevails) and fir white (Abies alba).Coniferous plantings cover 42 percent ofthe forest fund’s total area, of which pinetress make up 33 percent. Deciduous plantsmake up 43 percent of forests, of which oakand beech trees make up 32 percent.Coniferous forests are the mostproductive. Their average growth is 4.66m 3 / hectare, while hard- and soft-leavedtrees have average growth of 3.26 and3.49 m 3 / hectare, respectively. Forests ofhigh productivity (of the type ІІ growth classand higher) make up 73.6 percent of thecountry’s vegetation area covered by forest;average productivity forests (of the type ІІІgrowth class) make up 18.45 percent.The annual average volume of forestpurveyance from primary use cuts andoversight cuts during the last decadecorresponded to 10.6 million m 3 of liquidatedwood, of which half of the 88.3 percent ofprimary use cuts are from the estimatedfelling area. Up to 30 percent of forestplantings were excluded from exploitation.115Almost all Ukraine’s forest massessuffer from intensive technogenic andanthropogenic impact. The greatestman-made pressures affect theforests in the areas of Dnipropetrovsk-Zaporizhia, Lysychansk-Rubizhansk-Severodonetsk, Cherkasy and otherindustrial agglomerations. As a result ofthe influence of industrial emissions, thesanitary-hygienic and protective functions offorests are declining. The Chornobyl atomicpower station disaster caused immenseharm to Ukraine’s forests. Radionuclidespolluted the forests across an area of 3.5million hectares. About 200,000 hectareshave been completely excluded from forestexploitation. As a result, Polissia alone losesabout 11 million m 3 of forest annually. Thereason for weakening forest phytocenosisis also excessive cutting of middle age andgrowing trees.Ukraine’s forestry differs from similarbranches in other European countries,particularly with regard to the followingpeculiarities:• Ukraine’s forests are located in differentnatural-climatic zones and differentvegetative conditions. These are Polissia,forest-steppe, steppe, Carpathian Mountainsand Crimean Mountains;• a relatively low level of forest landpercentage;• the division of forests into groups and anaccordingly high percent (more than 50percent) of forests have limited exploitation(primary use cutting is forbidden);• forests are primarily of ecologicalimportance;• a high percentage of forest reserves (13),which has a steady tendency to increase.The insurance of forest usage observingprinciples of continuous, non-exhaustingand rational use of forest resources; therenewal of highly productive and sustainableplanting; and the widening of planting areasmay be achieved with the following basicmeasures:• gradual refusal of the continuously cuttingform of management and transition to aselective form;• ensuring technical re-equipment of forestryand forest purveying and transportationwork; use of modern technical equipment

logging technologies (introducing naturepreserving technologies of logging);• expanding protective forest planting workand agro-forest amelioration;• increasing the forest percentage ofterritories to the optimal level;• developing forest road networks;• improving the reference and legal base inthe field of forestry to ensure its conductionon the basis of sustainable development.Performing the above-mentionedmeasures will promote the improvement ofecological-economic indicators and offer thepossibility:• to save and (expand) increase protectiveand other useful forest functions;• to strengthen the nature-preservingpotential of forests and biological diversitypreservation of forest ecosystems;• to increase the biological durability offorests;• to increase the area and to optimize theforest fund’s age and the type structures;• to expand opportunities to increasevolumes of logging and non-wood forestresources;• to save up significant funds for artificialforest recovery.Recommendations1. To complete and ratify a new forestrycode with the active involvement of forestryscientists.2. To ratify a concept of Ukraine’s forestpolicy as a low forest and forest-deficientstate, taking into account global tendencies.3. To ratify the long-term nationalprogram, “Forest,” through 2050 and toensure its financing (having provided forstage-by-stage exclusion from agriculturaluse between five and eight million hectaresof lowly productive and eroded lands forfurther reforestation) with the purpose ofincreasing the percentage of Ukraine’sforests to between 25 and 30 percent (theCentral European indicator).1164.7. AtmosphereHigh-quality air, along with water, isa crucial element for human life and allcomponents of the biosphere.The highspeed of mass movement within theatmospheric strata leads to air pollutionmigration across significant distances,within the ozone layer as well, and negativeconsequences, namely acid rain oracceleration of karstic processes.Ukraine is a participant of someinternational conventions directed towardsprotecting the quality of atmospheric air,among which – the Montreal Protocol, theUnited Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change and others. Ukraine’sinternational cooperation leads toimplementing a corresponding nationalpolicy and concrete actions in this direction.Not so long ago, Ukraine was amongthose countries with high absolute andweighted air pollution levels. The tendencytoward reduced pollution emissionswitnessed during 1992-2000, has ended.Today, pollution is again rising.In 2000, fuel and energy complexenterprises released 35 percent of pollutionemissions into the atmospheric air,particularly 55.6 percent of the atmosphere’smechanical pollution, 75 percent of sulfurdioxide emissions, 58 percent of nitrogenoxide pollution and 5.4 percent of carbonoxide pollution. Dust content exceededspecifications in 23 Ukrainian cities,particularly increasing in Dniprodzerzhinsk(50 percent), Kremenchug (33 percent),Krasnoperekopsk (36 percent), Poltavaand Yalta (25 percent). The atmosphericair of Ukraine’s industrial regions containssuch harmful substances as formaldehyde,benzapyrene, hydrogen fluoride, carbonoxide, and from time to time, they exceedtheir maximum allowed concentrations.If data are compared with WHOrecommendations on air quality in Europe,air quality improves regarding typicalpolluting substances, except for nitrogenoxide. But when the question is aboutspecific and toxic substances, even WHOstandards are exceeded in almost all of

Ukraine’s large cities. The worst air pollutionis in Kiev, Kharkov, Dnipropetrovsk,Donetsk, Kryvyi Rih, Lviv, Mariupol,Odessa, and Zaporizhzhia. Industrialregions produce greater ecological hazards,with emissions densities exceeding averagecountry indicators. In general, emissionvolumes per person exceed indicatorsfor developed countries by several times.Close to 20% of elements that enter theatmosphere from stationary sources,meanwhile, are mutagenic.The growing number of automobiles hasresulted in an increase of atmospheric airpollution, in the nation’s big cities primarily.The quantity of automobile transportationwill probably grow, and accordingly, thevolume of air pollution from automobilesources will grow as well.Ukraine’s lag in significantly improvingatmospheric air quality and significantlyreducing pollution emissions is caused bythe application of out-of-date productiontechnologies, as well as the use of cleaningequipment that does not meet modernrequirements or does not work at all, aswell as an unwillingness to invest in new,highly effective equipment. At the sametime, appropriate pressure from the stateis not felt. Approved government lawsand decisions are not supported by thenecessary methods, instructions, normativematerials, etc. National ecological statisticshave no list of polluting substances as theydo in EU countries. Basic specificationsof atmospheric air emissions, recentlyreconsidered for increasing, do not stimulatemanufacturers and are comparativelylower than the corresponding norms of EUcountries. Numerous plans of improvingatmospheric air in big cities remain notimplemented, and mostly declarative.The situation can be significantlyimproved by applying modern cleansingequipment for stationary emissions sources,most importantly at metallurgical enterprisesand in the energy sector. World practicein developed countries demonstratesthat these approaches are effective. Thethermoelectric sector should also implementnew coal-burning technologies that bring117significant cuts in nitrate acid and hardparticle emissions. The mining and coalindustry must apply ecologically acceptabledeposit-exploiting technologies, such ascollecting and using shaft methane.In cities where auto transport accountsfor the bulk of pollution, heavy-load andcommunal transport must be refitted torun on natural gas and so-called biofuels– benzine-alcohol mixtures – as well ason diesel fuel made from vegetable oils. Asignificant effect can be obtained by usingcatalysts for neutralizing car emissions, butthis can be required only of new cars. Dieselfuel’s sulfur content must also be reduced,to reduce sulfur oxide emissions into urbanair.Industry is located almost everywherein Ukrainian cities. To minimize urbanair pollution, there must be conducted acomprehensive inventory of stationarypollution sources, of their volumes, and ofthe quality of facilities that are neutralizingthose sources. Independent monitoringsystems to monitor pollution levels shouldbe installed at every powerful emissionssource, and at hazardous or toxic sources.It is necessary to pay special attentionto those areas in cities where enterprisesthat use dangerous substances are situated- refrigerators and those using ammonia,water-processing systems using chlorine,etc. Such enterprises should have actionplans in emergencies, the purpose of whichto protect the population and surroundingnatural environment. It is recommended tobegin licensing the work of such enterprisesunder the condition of submitting safetyreports, which should be developed forthree to five years, and obligatory insuranceof responsibility for the caused harm.Big-city household waste dumps aresources of continuous methane emissions.To prevent this phenomenon, new dumps, atleast, should have systems for compostingand collecting bio-gas. In selected regionsof Ukraine, particularly in village andmining areas, continuous control overradon concentrations in basements andhouse foundations should be established.Active steps for controlling and improving

air quality are significantly restricted bya lack of the required monitoring and thenecessary automatic recording equipment.Recommendations1. To implement a system of atmosphericair pollution indicators, similar to those ofEU countries2. To designate pollution emissions intothe atmospheric air from stationary sourcesas “waste product manufacturing.”3. To perform a full inventory ofstationary emissions sources and installedcleaning equipment in 2006 and 2007.4. Between 2006 and 2010, to demandthat fuel and energy and metallurgicalenterprises employ modern cleaningequipment, ensuring a high degree offiltering sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions,as well as dust and aerosol particles, usingindicators that conform to modern Europeannorms.5. To establish new norms of sulfurcontent in diesel fuel.6. To stimulate application of neutralizingcatalysts on automobile emissions (tointroduce catalyst use requirements on thecombustion units of all new automobiles)and use of high-quality gasoline andoxygen-containing additives.7. To develop the use of natural gas asthe fuel for municipal and cargo automobiletransportation in big cities.8. To develop a system of monitoringatmospheric air quality in cities andareas where dangerous and emergencyenterprises are situated; to renew a systemof monitoring air in big cities.9. To stimulate development andmanufacturing of air quality monitoringsystems, necessary devices of automaticcontrol and networks of transferring andcollecting information.10. To develop a system of stimulatingthe manufacture and use of biofuel (fuelfrom vegetable oils and spirits) using theexperience of European countries and theUS.11. To establish for harmful anddangerous enterprises the practice oflicensing to continue activity based on“safety reports,” similar to what is used fornuclear power engineering sites, and todevelop the requirements for such reports.12. To place requirements on equippingdomestic waste product dumps withcomposting systems and biogas collection.4.8. Waste managementUkraine’s waste creation and wastemanagement problems are extremelyacute. On the one hand, natural resourcesare used in accordance with the principleof expansion, which does not complywith principles of sustainable (balanced)development, and further leads toexhaustion of mineral and raw materialdeposits. On the other hand, irrationalresource use, old technology, and theabsence of a secondary processing spherelead to large volumes of secondary waste,storing of which requires large areas ofland. Storage and accumulation of waste,of toxic waste in particular, is continuouslyimpacting human health and the naturalenvironment in a negative way.Environmental problems begin fromthe unacceptably low effectiveness ofusing natural resources. So based on anature capacity index of 8.7 (an integratedindicator of energy and water consumption,atmospheric emissions damage, etc.),Ukraine outstrips such countries as theRussian Federation, Moldova and Poland,let alone EU nations (for the world this,index is acceptable at 1.0). Ukraine belongsto those countries with the world’s highestobjective and relative indicators of wasteproduct formation.By the current methodology, hard wasteproducts of manufacturing and consumptionare the only ones referred to, forgetting thatsubstances that pollute atmospheric airand water sites are the waste products ofmanufacturing also.By 1991, 17 billion tons of waste hadaccumulated in Ukraine, on a territory 53118

thousand hectares in size. In 2000, thatvolume had exceeded 25 billion tons, andthe load per one square kilometer wasapproximately 40 thousand tons. By 2005,the country amassed 30 billion tons on anarea covering 160 thousand hectares. Itis possible to claim that, in the last fiveyears, an old model of economic activitywas reestablished, with waste volumesincreasing by one billion tons per year.The main producers of waste are miningand processing enterprises, which accountfor 88% of all waste. The mass of secondaryproducts they produce, when we calculatefor one square kilometer of Ukrainianterritory, exceeds the analogous indicatorfor the United States by six times and thatfor the EU countries by three times.In 2002 organized depositoriescontained 2.9 billion tons of toxic waste,or 4.5 thousand tons per square kilometer.Their volume was artificially decreased to1.6 billion tons by January 1, 2005.In 2004, a tendency of increasingatmospheric emissions renewed itselfagain. Total emissions reached six milliontons, and emissions from stationary sourcesreached four million tons, or 2.4 million tonsmore than in 2003. The economy’s miningmetallurgicalsector “threw out” more thantwo million tons of substances, almost halfof all emissions from stationary sources.Despite the high growth rate in industrialwaste deposits, the use of secondarymaterials remains on the same level,around 40%. In general, it is hard to analyzestatistics on waste product and secondaryresource use, because they mainly involve“primary” waste products, which areproduced at enterprises in the technologicalcycle. Even for such statistics, the wasteproducts of coal output and coal enrichmentare used at an eight percent rate, and thewaste products of woodworking industry ata fifty percent rate. Ukraine has hundredsof large, medium, and small technogenicsources of various minerals that canbe used in industrial development. Thepotential value of technogenic sources,119according to preliminary calculations,amounts to tens of billions of dollars.The insignificant payments for producingwaste, the absence of attention to theproblem and the low technological cultureconstrain an active resolving of the existingand accumulated problems. Unfortunately,few enterprises try to work according toISO ecological standard. Thermal energystations and industrial enterprises have nocleaning equipment on a modern level that,for example, neutralize or use nitrogen orsulfur oxides from gas emissions. There arenumerous cases of illegal waste productoperations in cross-border transport andimport of toxic waste products to Ukraine’sterritory.Stimulation of activity, as stipulated bylaw, to process waste products and to solveenvironmental problems virtually doesn’twork. Neither state nor private industrialspheres of waste products treatment arebeing developed. At the attempts of otherenterprises to use them, waste products,the cost of which are already includedin finished goods prices, fetch higherprices, making such “raw materials” tooexpensive and not competitive. It is clearthat using waste products requires that theirmanufacturer develop and apply additionaltechnology, appropriate investments, etc.The motivation for such steps in Ukraine isvirtually missing.The utterly low payments for depositingwaste products do not stimulate theirprocessing, or introduction of recycling.Much is discussed on the problem ofneutralizing old pesticides, but no realsteps are taken. The absence of a qualityinventory, neutralizing technologies andtemporary storage conditions under theappropriate control results from time to timein the population’s poisoning and numerouscomplaints. The means and infrastructurefor neutralizing such chemicals are alsoabsent. The majority of old chemicalwarehouses are in emergency conditionand are unsuitable for this purpose, ordestroyed buildings have no identifiedowner on whom it is possible to place

esponsibility. There are about 109 centralstorage units for unsuitable pesticides andagricultural chemicals and about 5,000units among agricultural enterprises.Between 20,000 and 22,000 tons of suchpesticide remains are collected, accordingto experts, but a more exact figure is hardto determine. Added to the problemsassociated with pesticide remains arethe tasks of taking inventory, treating anddestroying sustainable organic pollutingsubstances, particularly polychlorinateddiphenyls (transformer lubricant oils and theheat-carrier).Annually, Ukrainian cities and townscreate about 40 million cubic meters of trash(hard household wastes), which accumulateat 770 city dumps. Most of these dumpshave reached 90% of their capacity, and donot comply with requirements for ecologicalsafety or preventing underground water andair contamination. Not one of these dumpsis specially equipped to protect water. Theylack dams or walls, outstreaming channels,and drainage pipe systems. Due to theabsence of a waste-collecting system,the private sector annually creates 3.3thousand unsanctioned dumps. Only 2% ofhousehold waste is neutralized in two trashburningplants. These were built many yearsago, and do not comply with contemporarytechnical requirements.The majority of dump facilities (95%)contain both household and industrialwaste. Partial separation or prior distributionof waste is performed only at some facilities.The specialization level in waste allocationis low. Wastes remain unsorted at almostall dump facilities, even through separatingwaste is a necessary part of processing.Besides regular components – paper,packing materials, plastic, glass, etc - theamount of used-up electrical equipment,batteries, and sources of energy containingtoxic metals is increasing.Medical sector waste poses a separateproblem. They represent a growing hazardfor the environment and for human beings.They are not that significant in volume,but they need to be completely extractedand destroyed. Adequate management120for veterinary, livestock-keeping, andpoultry-keeping wastes is a crucial issue,in particular preventing infections fromspreading or carrying to people.The current major principle of naturalresource use among EU countries is theso-called dematerializing of the economy,directed on saving nature capital. Toevaluate natural resource use conditions,they use physical indicators of “industrialmetabolism,” and implement “accounts ofmaterial streams,” using correspondingindexes to estimate their adjustments. Theycompare “physical indicators” to “monetaryindicators,” which at last reflect “ecologicaleffectiveness” indicators of materialuse and resource productivity. Naturalresource use needs to be considered asa single metabolic chain: raw materialsextraction - transformation into economicproducts - waste product disposal into theenvironment.Issues of waste product treatmentand regulation policies directed towardsignificantly reducing their production,and use as secondary resources, becamethe norm for EU countries. The state’sdirecting role is realized through a numberof economic stimulation levers (penalsanctions and fines, as well as privileges),as well as severe norms and standardson technologies and finished products.Maximum support from governmentsand the public is given to manufacturersthat implement ecologically acceptabletechnologies that prevent production ofemissions and waste products, and initiate“ecological” production. In these countries,separate collection (preliminary sorting) ofdomestic waste products was introducedas a ramified private business sphere ofwaste products processing and their useas secondary raw materials. It is possibleto point out the following main directions inwaste products treatment: secondary rawmaterial use, as well as fuel substitutesfor energy production and composting. Acommon application of such approachesenables a significant reduction in thevolume of waste products, most importantlydomestic ones, which have to be hauled todumps.

Ukraine has a legal base for wastemanagement.It has joined a number ofinternational conventions concerning thisproblem, and in general complies withworld approaches. The state declares it willprovide for: complete collection and timelyneutralization and removal of waste, whileobserving rules of ecological safety duringtreatment; minimizing waste productsproduction and reducing their danger;ensuring complex use of raw materialresources; assistance in creating wasteproduct treatment sites; and a mandatoryregister of waste products based onclassification and certification.The state and its territorial communitiesare the owners of waste products which areformed on government-owned sites or arelocated on Ukraine’s territory and have noowner, or for which the owner is unknown.Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers implementsthe government’s management of wasteproducts that are owned by the state,according to the law. Local executive organsand local self-governing organs should keepan account of “nightly” waste products.They are responsible for the complexuse of such waste products, observingconditions of their treatment and preventingtheir negative influence on the surroundingnatural environment and public health.Article 22 of the Law “On wasteproducts” provides for creating an instituteof “specially authorized executive organs inthe sphere of waste products management,”particularly a central executive body in thesphere of waste products management andits local organs. The law assigns adequatelywide authority and responsibility on thisbody, but such a structure hasn’t beencreated yet. That is why in Ukraine, thereis no proper coordination of activity in thesphere of waste products management,and duties concerning such activity aredispersed among various authoritiesfor which it is not a priority. The marketmechanism of treating waste products assecondary resources has not been created,and support for using both Ukrainianand global scientific developments andtechnologies in waste products processingis absent.Efficient mechanisms of definingpayment specifications for creatingwaste products, which should stimulatemanufacturers, have not been created. Astipulated national information-analyticalsystem and database on the volumes ofwaste products creation and treatment, andthe corresponding certification, are at thestage of development. During inspectionsof some waste products storage sites, asignificant divergence between the expectedand real volume of waste products or toxicsubstances is revealed.A proper assessment of documentationon the construction and reconstruction ofenterprises and institutions with regardto observing legislative requirementsand specifications in the sphere of wasteproduct treatment, and minimizing theircreation, has not been established. The lawforbids “activating new and reconstructedenterprises and other sites which are notoutfitted with equipment and technologies tosafely handle waste products,” which is notcarried out practically in real life.The law announces “organizationaleconomicmeasures in providing wasteproduct recycling and reducing theirvolume,” particularly “granting tax, creditand other privileges to entrepreneurs whoutilize and reduce waste and introduceinto manufacturing low-waste technologiesaccording to legislation; granting tax, creditand other privileges to entrepreneurs whocompress waste products as secondary rawmaterials and collect and store such wasteproducts; granting the opportunity to keep apart of payments for accommodating wasteproducts so as to finance waste recyclingmeasures and to reduce their volumes,based on proven investment projects andprograms.” All these practical levers haven’tbeen implemented.Analysis on how the Law of Ukraine“On Waste” – the country’s only such law– has been implemented allows us tomake a general conclusion regarding howprogressive waste management regulationshave gone systematically unfulfilled.State and industrial sector programs are121

chaotically established. Financing for suchprograms is based on the “remainder”principle, and often is “voluntary.” There isno active control over implementation ofplanned measures. It is possible to assertthat the contents and practice in executingsuch programs will not offer an opportunityto solve the denoted urgent issues in wastetreatment.Recommendations1. To unite acting laws and acts intoa general code of laws on waste productsand use of natural resources. To continuework on developing new normativedocuments and improving those active inthe sphere of waste product management,consistently transitioning to EU standardsand recommendations.2. To analyze the quality of actinglegislative acts, to remove divergencesand to introduce necessary changes. Toconsider the main directions of: developingeconomic regulation mechanisms in wasteproduct management, stimulating thedevelopment of progressive technologiesand equipment for waste product treatmentand creating a market of services in thissphere.3. To develop mechanisms of regulatingthe economy of primary material resourcesin manufacturing and their replacementwith corresponding secondary materialresources.4. To consider emissions into theatmosphere and water basins as wasteproduct pollution. To implement a systemof statistical reporting and pollution indicesbased on contemporary global standards.5. To define a single central organ(conditionally – “Resource Saving”),where all the functions of managing wasteproduct treatment, manufacturing (includingradioactive) and consumption will beplaced.6. To create, with correspondinglegislative regulations, special fundsof waste product treatment, namely: aradioactive waste products and materialstreatment fund and a manufacturing andconsumption waste products treatment fund,with costs accumulating at the expense ofwaste producers.7. To implement in Ukraine a statecadastre of waste products. To achieve fullcertification of waste products, to completethe creation of a single informationalanalyticalnetwork, “Waste Products,”and a list of sites to accommodate wasteproducts.8. To stimulate an inflow of investmentinto waste product management and todevelop a secondary resources marketinfrastructure; to attract to this sphere smallandmedium-sized businesses with theprospect of creating a sector of collectingwaste products and processing them intocommodities.9. To implement temporarily statenormalization of processing separatekinds of waste products, followed by thedevelopment of corresponding nationalplans and programs to develop thesecondary resources market.10. To introduce a system of separatelycollecting hard domestic waste productsand mandatory recycling of waste productssuch as packing materials, used vehicles,tires, chemical energy sources, largehome appliances, etc. To provide for theimplementation of the requirements of EUDirective 94/62/EU, “On packing and itswaste products.”11. To forbid accommodating industrialwastes in places of disposing municipalwaste products.12. To develop a national program oftoxic waste product and sustainable organicpollutants treatment through 2010, directedtowards efficiently resolving principle tasksand ensuring its financing.13. To implement the formation andrealization of oblast (regional) programs ofwaste product management.14. To demand that enterprises of allownership forms develop their own waste122

product management programs, followed bytheir coordination.15. To create oblast (regional) test sitesfor toxic waste product management andthe necessary infrastructure for wasteproduct collection and temporary safestorage. To create a national repositoryfor toxic waste products and a network ofenterprises to execute their destruction orpreparation for disposal.16. To perform engineering inspectionsof hard municipal waste test and disposalsites and to forbid their use without thenecessary equipment, in order to preventnegative effects on surrounding naturalenvironment.17. To change the code of Ukraine “Onbowels” concerning property rights on manmadedeposits and the responsibility ofenterprises to store, neutralize and recyclewaste products.18. To cease the practice of “suspending”separate articles of Ukraine’s laws in thesphere of waste product treatment duringthe preparation of bills for the State BudgetLaw of Ukraine.19. To develop a legislative base for:developing an organizational-industrialinfrastructure of a secondary resourcesmarket, creating a competitive system ofcollecting, processing and recycling wasteproducts and also limiting the governing andeconomic authority of the state company,“Ukrekokomresource.”20. To develop a system promotingthe development of scientific-engineeringprovision of waste product treatment and tocreate domestic specialized equipment inthe sphere of waste product treatment.21. To review the acting standardsand rules for the application of EU norms,directed towards rational raw material use,waste product treatment and introducingnon-polluting technologies and production.To support the introduction of ISO ecologicalstandards, as well as voluntary obligationsfor manufacturers to reduce waste volumesand transition to “ecological” production.1234.9. Improving the ecological monitoringsystemMonitoring the natural environmentis a system of supervising, collecting,processing, transferring, preserving andanalyzing information on the environment’scondition, forecasting its changes anddeveloping scientifically groundedrecommendations for making decisions toprevent negative changes in environmentalconditions and adhere to ecological safetyrequirements.Ecological monitoring of the environmentis a contemporary form of realizing society’secological activity by applying means ofinforming and specially organized measuresof systemic data collecting on qualitative andquantitative environmental parameters. Theyprovide regular estimates and forecastsof environmental conditions, society’s lifeactivity and ecosystem conditions in order tomake administrative decisions on ecologicalsafety, environmental preservation andrational nature use.The basic deficiencies of the contemporarysystem of monitoring are:• a departmental separation and responsibilityfor collecting and processinginformation;• an absence of expert-analytical andforecasting centers, where informationcan accumulate and complex ecologicalforecasts and expert estimates of ecologicalrisk can be developed;• an absence of efficiency in data entryfor information users (except for hydrometeorologicalinformation);• scattering of data on various monitoringagents;• difficulties in collecting and analyzingprimary monitoring data for practicalapplication during tasks estimating ecologicalrisk;• virtually a complete absence of crisismonitoring subsystems.• an absence of a single parametric systemof natural environmental components for

Ukraine’s territory (digital cards on theenvironment) to model processes andcalculate forecasts.These deficiencies should be removedand separate components of environmentalmonitoring should be developed, withmandatory adherence to principles ofpreservation and inheriting the previousinformation.The necessity to modernize and developa system of monitoring Ukraine’s naturalenvironment is connected to the new foreignpolicy of the Ukrainian government, directedtowards European integration. Between1998 and 2003, the European EconomicCommission of the United Nationsperformed a productivity inspection ofenvironmental protection activity in Ukraineand developed recommendations on furtherimprovement. Proof of the urgency ofthese problems, and faith in Ukraine as anequal partner in the European ecologicalprocess, became the May 2003 hosting inKyiv of the pan-European conference ofenvironmental ministers, “Environment forEurope.” It stipulated the necessity of amore decisive, persistent and consistentecological policy directed on increasing thelevel of the state’s ecological safety andthe European region in general, minimizingthe consequences of crisis situations andcreating good conditions for sustainabledevelopment.Monitoring is implemented based on along-term state program defining commondepartmental executive organs, enterprises,organizations and institutions (irrespectiveof their ownership forms) with agreedupon goals, tasks, territories, sites, time(periodicity) and means of acting.The overall objective of the stateprogram is improving monitoring researchand achieving the appropriate level of theirperformance.The primary goals of the state programconcern two directions.The first direction - creating andensuring the functioning of a newinfrastructure of a state system of monitoringresearch on the basis of integrating124departmental and regional systems into asingle system. The tasks of this directionare pressing and urgent. In particular, theyare:• creating a component inventory of theexisting system’s infrastructure;• creating and ensuring the functioning of asingle structure of information interaction atindicated levels;• creating monitoring centers at indicatedlevels;• creating and ensuring data bases thatoperate in all directions of monitoring;• providing legal and normative bases forthe system’s functioning;• creating mechanisms to analyze andestimate data monitoring;• creating mechanisms to evaluate andforecast environmental conditions;• defining economic mechanisms for thesystem’s functioning.The second direction - improvingelements of the created system and itsinfrastructure. To realize this direction, theresolution of prospect-oriented tasks isprovided for, the realization of which willenable to radically improve the quality of thesystem’s functional activity:• optimizing supervision networks;• optimizing supervisory rules andprograms;• improving the equipment and technicalbase of supervisory networks;• improving the technical base and softwarefor information exchange;• improving and unifying the legalmethodicalbase of supervision;• developing and introducing new methodsand indicators of evaluating environmentalconditions;• determining and optimizing targeted useof information, particularly for ecologicalindicators conforming to the requirementsof the United Nations’ European EconomicCommission;

• ensuring scientific support for thefunctioning and improvement of the statesystem of monitoring research, particularlyspecialized complex research, theintroduction contemporary methods foroperative information retrieval using mobilesupervision means, distant sounding, aswell as aviation and space monitoring ofenvironmental sites.125

Chapter 5. Development of science and education5.1. Ecological science of Ukraine forsustainable developmentThe United Nations General Assemblydeclared in 2005 the start of the Decadeof Education in the interest of ecologicallybalanced development.Leading scientists’ analysis of ecologicalproblems has indicated that a main reasonthat the “daily agenda for the 21 st century”has gone unfulfilled by the internationalcommunity is a thoroughly low level ofecological culture and awareness, as wellas governments’ insufficient attention todeveloping fundamental ecological science.Among the 21 st century’s ecologicalpriorities, therefore, education mustreceive special attention, in the interestsof ecologically balanced development, andof all-around development of ecologicaleducation, culture and science as a maincomponent of ecologically safe humanactivity.Currently, ecological education andscience is one of the main instruments ofecologically balanced development, the toolof ecologizing human activity and improvingmanufacturing and nature use, takinginto account the biosphere’s possibilities.Ecological experts should lead an innovativeprocess of forming a new paradigm ofcontemporary culture and create a neweducational system for harmonious,ecologically balanced development.Since the 1950s, Ukraine’s scientistsand ecologists started to play not only asignificant national role, but internationallytoo.In 1930 in Kharkiv, they createdUkraine’s first ecology section at theInstitute of Zoology and Botany at KharkivUniversity. It was there that ProfessorV. V. Stanchinsky, ten years earlier thanV. M. Sukachov, came to the idea ofbiogeocinosis as the functional unity ofbiotic and abiotic factors (V. V. Stanchinsky,“On understanding biogeocinosis,” 1933).Between 1940 and 1980, the research ofUkrainian scientists I. G. Pidoplichko, F. A.Hrynia, P. S. Pohrebniak, S. M. Stoiko, D. V.126Vorobyov and others on landscape ecology,rational wildlife management principles andforest ecology achieved global recognitionBetween 1980 and 1990, ProfessorA. P. Travlyeyev significantly contributedto developments in forest ecology;academic A. M. Kholodnyi contributed toiron bacteria ecology; and academics Y.R. Sheliah-Sosenka, K. M. Sytnyk and M.A. Holubets contributed to developing themethodological and conceptual foundationsof contemporary ecology.In the field of industrial ecology, theresearch and scientific works of Y. M.Kondragiazh (1970-1980) reached a newconceptual level, as did the methodicalwork and generalizations of academic D. M.Grodzynsky in the field of radiation ecology.As in education, Ukrainian scienceas a whole, and ecological science inparticular, has endured times of difficultcrisis. They were caused by the state’stransitional difficulties: developing a new,democratic society; reforming nationalconsciousness and culture; reassessingvalues related to establishing independenceand the necessity of overcoming economic,ecological and spiritual crises. Very negativefactors are the practically meager financingof academic and branch sciences (ten timesless than in developed countries); sharpdepletion of the scientific staff from Ukraine’sNational Academy Sciences and highereducational institutions for the past 10 to12 years because of a powerful migrationabroad (where better conditions for lifeand work are available); and ageing anddegrading laboratory scientific-engineeringand scientific-experimental bases. Hugeefforts on the part of impoverished scientificcollectives of scientific research institutesand their leadership manage to keepUkrainian science from complete decline. Toa certain degree, the preservation of scienceis helped by foreign grants, but at that themost valuable information goes abroadwithout hindrance and it’s there that thebest achievements of Ukrainian scientistsare realized. The system of organizing

Ukrainian science, the National Academyof Sciences of Ukraine (NASU), requirescertain reforming, taking into considerationsocial-economic and scientific-technologicalchanges that occurred beginning in thesecond half of the XX century.However, certain important achievementsin the field of ecological science in Ukraineexist. These are significant theoreticalmethodologicalworks by NASU scientistswhich still are not thoroughly analyzed,not systematized and not brought togetherinto a single, harmonious whole which iscapable of providing fundamental scientificsubstantiation with a strategy of socially,ecologically and economically balanceddevelopment of the state in the ХХІ century.But as a whole, they are on a much highertheoretical level than foreign analoguesand most importantly, they were developedtaking into account the temporal andspecific national conditions and problems.The foundation of Ukrainian scientifictheoreticaldevelopments should remainthe ideas and research results of ouroutstanding scientists V. I. Vernadsky and S.I. Podolynsky, which are worth developingand deepening taking into account theglobal and regional processes and changesof the last decades.In the beginning of the ХХІ century,several trends of scientific-theoreticalresearch in the area of ecologicallybalanced development developed inUkraine. Research in each of these trendsis differentiated based on the depth ofanalysis, as well as the argumentation ofthe main positions. The only thing whichdoes not offer the possibility to effectivelyuse the proposed schemes, models andrecommendations for realizing a strategyof balanced development is that eachtrend decides “its own” important issuesand “its own” components of balanceddevelopment, which are not unified into asingle, harmonious system, and not adaptedto each other nor Ukraine’s dynamic socialeconomicand political conditions.In the field of Ukraine’s ecologicallybalanced development, it is possible to127distinguish the following scientific researchtrends:1. Resource-economic (V. Shevchuk, L.Melnyk, B. Danylyshyn, and others)2. Economic-geographical (L. Rudenko,and others)3. Regional-economic (A. Shapar, R.Zayets, N. Bagrov, V. Bokov, Y. Golik, andothers)4. Social-ecological (M. Holubets, M.Drobnokhod, M. Hryniv, M. Nediukha, andothers)5. Philosophical-theoretical (M.Kyselyov, V. Mezherin, A. Tolstoukhov, V.Krysachenko, M. Khylko, and others)6. Ecological-еsoteric (G. Shvebs, G.Shneyderman, and others)7. Ecological-engineering safety (G.Rudko, O. Adamenko, and others)8. Geo-ecoinformational (M. Zhurovsky,O. Mazurova, and others)An analysis of the denoted scientificand engineering developments in the areaof ecologically balanced developmentdemonstrated that separated, they cannotbecome the basis for forming the conceptand strategy of Ukraine’s harmoniousdevelopment. The following factors arenecessary for this purpose:• solid theoretical-methodological andconceptual principles of harmoniousdevelopment adapted to contemporaryUkrainian conditions;• principles and criteria of symbiotic theoriesof harmonizing social development on thebasis of biotic regulation of surroundings;• a scientific-analytical review ofcontemporary features of Ukraine’stransition to harmonious development withthe construction of multi-factor initial modelsaccording to determined and fundamentalpriorities and characteristics;• a system of general and regionalstructural models of the transition processto harmonious development, taking intoaccount the following systematic elementsof development:

- effective noosphere organizations inspace and time;- insurance of balance and equilibrium ofconstituent elements;- purposefulness of development;- availability of national driving forces;- a system of primary trends ofneutralizing destabilizing factors during ashort period;- basic principles and strategic purposesof harmonious development for short-term,intermediate and long-term periods;- determined priorities of harmoniousdevelopment in the economic, social andecological spheres.In all concrete research into theecologically balanced development ofa nation, urban region, society, ethnosand economic branch, it is necessaryto ascertain undesired revolutionary(catastrophic) components, to preventtheir appearance, to learn and realize thepossibility of supporting and cultivatingonly acceptable, componential evolutionary(in particular, eco-evolutionary) andprogressive revolutionary developments,taking into account the ecological capacityof the territory.It’s not worth neglecting catastrophiccomponents: in supporting ecologicallybalanced development, no one specificallycultivates its catastrophic components,because already since 1992, nobody hasemphasized caution or aversion to them.Problems of harmonizing interactionbetween society and nature, which requirescientific substantiation, are the following:• all-round diagnostics of the contemporarystate of the natural environment andUkraine’s resources;• development of forecasts of changes inthe biosphere and the state of environmentfor different scenarios of economic andsocial development;• formation of new ideologies andmethodologies of life activity, directedtowards ecologizing the economy,manufacturing, policy, education;• formation of criteria for harmonization– a choice among the most coordinatedwith ecological imperatives and society’secologically oriented socio-economicdevelopment;• formation of a strategy of life activity forsociety, the economy and technologies,capable of coordinating the scales andcharacter of economic activities with theecological endurance of nature and withecological laws of development and humanbehavior;• transition from “strict” methods ofproduction and society management to“soft” methods by giving the system ofecological management priority significancein general management, by transformingecological education into (1) a norm of lifevalues, (2) an active, driving force in solvingof problems of harmonizing the “nature –society” system;• transition to noosphere model ofinteraction between society and nature, inwhich people purposefully limit themselvesin consuming resources, change forthe better in their attitude toward theenvironment; when wisdom becomes themeasure of behavior in issues of aspirationsand desires.The present times confirm there is noalternative in choosing a path of furtherlife activity according to the followingnoosphere principles:• restoring the harmonious coexistence ofsociety and nature;• humanizing the life activity of people andsociety;• value of religion, science, philosophy;• societal development and state policy forthe sake of people and nature;• belief in the great mission of education ingeneral, and ecological education primarily;declaration of a course in using renewableenergy sources and, above all, the energyof the sun, wind and biomass.128

These principles may be realized inconcrete, strategic plans of action, namely:• changing the philosophical values in thelives of humans and society, upon whichthe social-ecological integrity of the lifeenvironment and cultural and spiritualtraditions should be based;• ecological improvement of natural sitesand landscapes as the life environment;reducing technogenic pressures upon themand consolidating the goals of the societyand state on this basis;• the priority of the ecological balance of thecommunity, society and settlements as theultimate goal of harmonizing life activity;• distinguishing culture as a measure; andnoospheregenesis – as the methodologicalbase of the harmonization process;• humanizing education as a way of life,and as a driving force of the process ofharmonizing and enriching life forcesof people, society and their politicalsuperstructure - the state;• determining the direction of innovativechanges as a means of supporting stabilityand the dynamic balance of life forces;• ecologization of technologies, theiradaptation to local conditions andindependent energy sources; orientationtowards increasing the self-sufficiency ofliving conditions based on the principles ofsocial justice.An analysis of the experience in theeffective use of education and ecologicalscience for ecologically balanceddevelopment in advanced foreign countries(the U.S.A., Sweden, Great Britain,Germany, Italy, and others) showed thatnone of those models can be adapted toUkraine’s contemporary conditions fora number of various, important reasons(social and economic, firstly).5.2. Modern innovative scientific andengineering potential of UkraineTo effectively realize a strategy forUkraine’s harmonious development, ofgreat importance is the state of innovativeapproaches and work not only in ecology,but also in the fields of chemistry, physics,biology and other sciences with the goal ofecologizing human activity, i.e. increasingecological safety in all branches ofmanufacturing, reducing resource capacityin manufacturing and waste productsproduction, and decreasing technogenicpressures on nature.Among the components of thesustainable development strategy,ecologizing all spheres of human activityis among the most important. Urgentecologization is necessary for suchbranches as the water industry, energy,agriculture, transportation and wastemanagement.Among the issues of ecologizingdifferent economic spheres, the prioritybelongs to developing and introducing cleantechnologies.In chapters 7 through 11 of the“Declaration on the Environment andDevelopment” (Rio de Janeiro), it isindicated: “... advanced countriesunderstand the responsibility laid upon themin the conditions of international aspirationfor sustainable development, becauseof the pressure which their governmentsplace upon the global environment andthe technologies and financial resourcesthey possess … To achieve sustainabledevelopment and a higher quality of humanlife, states should reduce the amountand get rid of unsustainable models ofmanufacturing and consumption and assistin developing an independent democraticpolicy ... States should cooperate tostrengthen the process of cultivating internalopportunities for sustainable development;to improve scientific understanding throughthe exchange of scientific, engineeringand ecological knowledge; and also toaccelerate the development, adaptation,introduction and transfer of technologies,including those new and innovative ...”Above all, this concerns non-pollutingtechnologies, i.e. those, which comparedto used ones, save considerably differentkinds of natural resources, minimize129

environmental contamination (air, water,soils), do not make harm to health ofpeople and do not result in degradation ofecosystems and reduction of biologicaldiversity.In the Charter of the InternationalChamber of Commerce, Item 13 onbusiness principles of sustainabledevelopment states:“To assist in the distribution of ecologicallysafe technologies and managementmethods in the industrial and publicsectors...”The necessity of developing, realizingand active exchanging non-pollutingtechnologies is mentioned in otherinternational documents as well. Significantbut insufficient attention to this importantproblem is paid in Ukraine also. Thoughscientists of many N.A.S.U. institutesproduced many valuable and innovativeworks during the last ten years in the fieldof science and technology, the realization ofwhich would certainly have both economicand ecological effects, the Ukrainiangovernment disregarded them, and the workis not coordinated, financed or supervised.In Ukraine, an innovative, naturepreservingstrategy should be developedand coordinated by the Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection, as well as theCommission for Sustainable Developmentat the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Butthis isn’t being done.A number of negative economic,financial, social and engineering factorsbraked and continue to brake thedevelopment of an effective, innovativeculture in Ukraine. The abilities of theState Innovation Fund (its activity needsto be restored urgently) of Ukraine’sMinistry of Science and Education, which issupposed to be the main financing sourcefor the state’s innovative investment policy,particularly in the area of industrial activityecologization, are absolutely insufficient.Redistribution of resources from out-dated,ecologically dangerous and unpromisingmanufacturing towards productiontechnicalsystems with new technologicalapproaches is taking place very slowly andwith difficulty. The economy as a whole ispoorly modernizing, and its competitivenessand efficiency is raised by transfers ofnew, ecologically clean technologies.Privatization, tax, financial, monetary credit,regulatory, price and profit policies are notmobilized and coordinated for this.As a national innovation-orientedeconomic system is built, methods ofstructurally and technologically rebuildingthe domestic economy should receiveurgent attention. These metods shouldbe based on the implementation of newtechnologies in the energy sector, thewater supply sector, agricultural production,transportation, and waste processing.Among the main measures shouldbecome state support for private initiativesto develop non-polluting technologies; thecreation of appropriate conditions for easyaccess of all economic agents to new,necessary scientific-technological andeconomic information about resource-savingtechnologies and maintained stimulation ofnon-polluting technologies transfers.The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraineresolution, “The State Program ofForecasting Scientific-Technological andInnovative Development for 2004-2006” hada certain value in activating innovative andscientific-technological activity of Ukraine’sscientists. For the practical, organizationalwork from this program’s realization and theinsurance of unified general methodologicalapproaches of thematic expert groups andall experts and scientists involved in theresearch, the NASU Center of Scientific-Technological Potential and History ofScience in 2004 developed, “MethodicalRecommendations on Performing ofForecasting-Analytical Research.”Science should play a more importantrole in coordinating the interaction ofecological systems as systems maintaininglife with integrated technogenic systems;promoting the effectiveness of resource use;searching for new methods, means andalternatives of economized development;130

and developing less intensive use ofresources, particularly energy resources inindustry, agriculture and transport.Scientific knowledge should be appliedto developing and supporting the targets ofmanufacturing ecologization, and performingscientific estimates of present conditionsand the prospects of preserving ecologicalsystems for the future. The estimates,which are based on the available and newapproaches to different sciences, should betaken into account during decision-making,and also in the interactive processes, whichcover science and policy.The policy of strengthening scientificpotential depends on the following:• strengthening the scientific base andensuring the balanced development andecologization of manufacturing;• improving the interaction of ecologicaland manufacturing systems, especially indeveloping and transferring non-pollutingtechnologies;• improving long-term scientific estimates ofmanufacturing ecologization;• cultivating domestic scientific potential inthe sphere of manufacturing ecologization;• understanding on behalf of manufacturingdirectors the peculiarities of interrelationsbetween industrial and natural ecologicalsystems; improving the analytical meansand mechanisms of forecasting thedynamics of ecological situations.Extremely important is the improvementof long-term scientific estimates ofmanufacturing ecologization.Though many long-term ecologicalchanges that apply to industrial andecological systems have national andnational scales, basic changes can occurat the local and national levels. Industrialactivity at the local and regional levelsoften leads to occurrences of globalecological threats, for example, ozonelayer depletion, furthering the greenhouseeffect and acid rain increases. That is whyscientific estimates and forecasts haveto be performed on the national, regionaland local levels. These estimates shouldcover the regulated trends of activity anddevelopment within a framework of eachregion’s ecological, industrial, social andeconomic potential. To the fullest extent, it isnecessary to use the traditional knowledge,available in localities, of behavior in natureand the peculiarities of local approaches tosolving environmental problems.Taking into account the growing partscience should play in solving ecologizationand development problems, it is necessaryto create and strengthen scientific potentialin all branches and corporations. The mainways of creating such potential are: teachingand professionally training specialists in thefield of science and technology; grantingscientific-methodological help to branches,corporations, businessmen in improvinginfrastructures for scientific research anddesign work; developing a system ofstimulation with the purpose of assistingthe introduction of scientific research anddesign work; and also more complete use oftheir results in industrial systems. Extremelyimportant is granting help to basic industrialcomplexes in strengthening their potentialto study their own base of resources andecological systems, and their balancedmanagement, with the purpose of solvingof problems related to the ecologicaleconomicalbalance of territories.The barriers to new ideas of ecologizingbranches and manufacturing are:• the inertia of traditional education toalmost all resources, tangential and natural;• the interest of the majority of ownersof capital in keeping the existing powerintensivetendencies and structures, andalso inertia of consumers;• discriminating financial criteria(recoupment), which interfere witheffectiveness;• different stimulus for people, which couldprovide production effectiveness, andthose who use its results afterwards (forexample, owners of buildings and renters ofapartments and builders and their product -houses). That is to say, there are differentstimuli for consumers and manufacturers;131

• prices, which insufficiently or incorrectlydisplay actual expenses to society, nottaking into consideration ecologicalexpenses;• the lesser complexity of organizing andfinancing one big project, rather than manysmall ones;• out-of-date rules (laws), which eitherprevent introducing efficiency or make itoutlawed (for example, reduced rates fortransportation, which give advantage to rawmaterials compared to others);• the negative practice of regulating theneeds of manufacturing and municipalservices when providing electricity, gas,water, etc. in which they are encouragedto increase consumption, and sometimeseven fined for increasing the efficiencyof resource use. It is necessary tostimulate resource preservation, insteadof wasting them. It is necessary to changeconsumption models.Technological foresight of ecologicalconsequences as a systemic methodologyof strategic planning started to be used inthe late 1980s and early 1990s, first in suchcountries as Japan, the US, Great Britain,Germany, and the former USSR (in thespace industry), and later, the Netherlands,France and Australia. According to the wellknownUkrainian scientist and adherentof technological foresight, K.P.I. NationalEngineering University of Ukraine RectorMykhailo Zgurovsky, the use of such asystemic methodology was prompted by thefollowing:• constant growth in competition amidstconditions of limited energy and naturalresources.• limitations on social expenditures, causedby (1) the necessity of governments tobalance budgets amidst conditions of anaging population in advanced countriesand (2) the achievement politically limitingbarriers restraining taxation. That is tosay, a further increase of taxation in thesecountries will lead to disrupting the politicalbalance, and capital outflow.132• an increase in the complexity of socialand manufacturing systems, conditionedby strengthened ties and closer interactionof sociopolitical, economic and industrialsystems of a different type (national andregional, state and private, and others).• an increase in the role of scientifictechnologicalcompetency, caused bythe fact that scientific and engineeringknowledge becomes a strategic resourcefor countries and companies. That is alsothe main factor in improving quality of life;• an increase in understanding thescarcity of resources and the necessity offoreseeing the ecological consequences oftechnological innovations.In the society, aspects of technological,more correctly technological-ecological,foresight have, according to M. Zgurovsky’sdefinition, the following characteristics:First, foresight is a process that cancombine participants from different interestedgroups (the scientific community,the government, industry, private organizations,etc.) to discuss the issue: whatquality of life can be provided during thenearest decades.Second, to consider attempts to lookinto the future as foresight, they have to besystematic.Third, these attempts should have thecharacter of long-term foresight (for a periodof five to thirty years, and more).Fourth, the success of foresight isbased on balancing achievements in certainscientific-engineering spheres with society’seconomic progress and environmentalprotection.Fifth, advantage should be given tothe manifestation of so-called generatedtechnologies, i.e. technologies whichare in the pre-competitive stage of theirdevelopment, but depend on moreprogressive ideas and new effects, and thatis why they are justified for state financingat this stage.

The formed technologies should notonly positively influence the developmentof industry and the economy, but theyshould also be socially necessitatedconcerning economic, medical, educationaland other features, and have positiveecological consequences. These propertiesof technological foresight change socialinterrelations between science andtechnology on the one hand, and thesystem of government on the other.The mentioned problem becomes morerelevant now in conditions of decliningsupplies of organic fuel and naturalresources, and accelerating processesof world economic globalization with theirnegative consequences.Successful use of scientific andtechnological achievements becomesmore and more dependant on establishingeffective relations between industry,scientific institutes and branches ofpower, which are responsible for society’stechnological and ecological development.Technological foresight is the basis forestablishing and strengthening suchrelations. It assists also in the coordinationof national and regional innovative systems,making them more effective.One of the reasons that an increasingnumber of countries during the last decadehave been using the methodology oftechnological foresight is related to theconcept of a national or regional systemof innovation. The structure of such asystem includes a number of participatingcompanies, enterprises, scientificinstitutions and governmental structures. Atthat, from the position of systemic analysis,the interrelations between these participantsare very important. For example, anational or regional system of innovativedevelopment, which consists of participantswho aren’t necessarily very powerful buthave well- adjusted interrelations, canoperate more effectively (from the positionof generating innovations) than anothersystem with powerful participants, but weakinterrelations.133The insufficient level of ecologizationof science is connected with a low level ofecological education. Certain preconditionshave been created in Ukraine to acceleratethe ecologization of education, but they areinsufficient.Extremely important is the urgent needto increase the level of ecological culture,education and consciousness of executivesof all areas, at all levels.With the purpose of realizing thedecisions of the International EcologicalForum concerning activating, developingand realizing non-polluting technologies atthe national level, the President of Ukraineand the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine inrecent years have implemented a numberof measures to form a legal-methodologicalbasis for creating an effective andrealistic system of stimulating the transferand implementation of non-pollutingtechnologies.The previous analysis showed that fortoday, such a system does not exist yet, butalready developed and implemented arerather effective non-polluting technologiesat some domestic industrial sites of energy,transportation, agriculture, water andfood processing and production (the Kyiv,Kharkiv, Khmelnytskyi, Poltava, Zaporizhiaareas).The considerable contribution to thedevelopment of non-polluting technologies– particularly in the field of waterpurification, hard waste product processing,catastrophe protection, technologies ofeffectively training administrative staff,development of ecological business,development of ecological energy, etc.– was made by Ukrainian scientists, NASUspecialists, Ukraine’s Ministry of Education,Ukraine’s Ministry of Natural EnvironmentalProtection, the Ukrainian Academy forAgrarian Sciences and others.Ukrainian scientists, manufacturers andbusinessmen actively study, and adapt toUkraine, their experience gained abroad indeveloping and introducing non-pollutingtechnologies in the fields of energy,agricultural manufacturing, oil refining,

the chemical industry, and processingwaste products. They are studying theconditions and methods of involvingUkraine in forming and cultivating a worldmarket of ecological goods and services,which is quickly developing (its capacity isestimated by experts at a minimum $500billion, with an increase of more than 5percent annually; in Canada, more than 10percent for one year). The market capacityof ecological services in the countries ofeastern Europe is estimated at $20 billion,with an annual gain of about one percent.According to expert forecasts, during thefirst half of the XXI century, up to 40 percentof world production will be composed ofproduction and technology connected tothe ecology and energy. Advantages will begained by those companies, manufacturersand enterprises that use non-pollutingtechnologies more quickly. This is confirmedby the experience of the USA, Canada,Japan, Germany and France. In the USA forexample, investors collected $128 millionin less than two weeks for creating nonpollutingtechnologies (2003).During the last several years inadvanced countries, competitors not ableto maintain ecological standards have beendropping out of the market more actively.Companies and countries that investedcapital in non-polluting technologies earlierthan others become leaders in the worldmarket (Germany, Denmark, the USA,Japan, etc.).Ukrainian experts in the field of naturepreservation discovered that currently,Ukraine lags significantly behind E.U.member-states and country-applicants inwater drainage systems provision levels,water supply and water purification, wasteproducts treatment and processing levels,energy ecologization and improving nationalnature protection legislation improvement (alevel of conformity to EU nature protectionrequirements, European standards).In the closest years in Ukraine, thepriority investments into developingnon-polluting technologies should beinvestments into the following spheres ofnature protection activity:1. water resources protection (about60 percent of total investments), waterpurification, water supply, demineralizationof sea water and others;2. storing, recycling and waste productsprocessing (12 to 16 percent);3. protecting atmospheric air (about 16percent);4. protection of bowels and rationaluse of grounds and mineral resources, andreserved fund preservation (about 10 to 12percent).The past 10 years have seen Ukrainianscientists and innovators developmany important and high-potential newtechnologies, produce unique equipment,and effect rational improvements in energyand water usage and in other areas.This has occurred without state interestand financial support; of interest, help,coordination, and control from the NationalAcademy of Science and other scientificinstitutions; and of interest and support fromindustry management.As in the West, use of biofuel, windand solar energy may become especiallyefficient now in Ukraine.An analysis of developing andecologizing energy in the world for the lastdecade discovered the following tendenciesrelated to exhausting organic fuel resources(oil, gas) and nuclear fuel, and the necessityto reduce environmental contamination byenergy sites: active development of energyfrom alternative sources (solar energy,wind, energy of small rivers, biopowerequipment), improving and ecologizingacting technologies of obtaining electricityfrom gas, and particularly from low-gradecoal, of which stocks are enormous.In Ukraine, use of low-grade coal hasprospects also.During recent years, when prices forenergy transit increased and relationsbetween many countries became verytense, the majority of advanced states134

significantly activated scientific work in theuse of non-conventional energy sources,and some of them achieved significantsuccess in it (Germany, Sweden, Norway,China, the USA). In relation to this, thevolume of energy produced in thesecountries – with the help of wind, smallhydroelectric power stations, biogasequipment – reached 10 to 15 percent, andplans are to increase alternative energyuse up to 30 percent by the end of the ХХІcentury, which no one could have foreseen15 years ago. Technologies became muchmore improved and effective, and theirimprovement continues. In the nearestfuture, the U.S. plans to produce up to 7percent of its diesel fuel from rapeseed.Canada and Poland are pinning big hopeson rapeseed; in Germany, biofuel alreadymakes up about three percent. In 2006, theEuropean Community imported 200,000tons of rapeseed oil fro m Canada, fivetimes more than in 2004.Calculations of Ukrainian expertshave shown that it is entirely realistic forbetween 10 and 15 percent of total energyto be produced from non-conventionalsources (biogas, wind stations, smallhydro stations) between 2015 and 2020 inUkraine. This is proven to be true not onlyby scientifically based calculations, butalso with highly technological scientifictechnologicaldevelopments - actingapparatus, installations and aggregates.According to the experts, if 10 percent ofUkrainian arable land were used to plantrapeseed (Vinnytsia, Poltava, Khmelnytskyi,Ternopil and other areas in the Polissia,forest-steppe, and Carpathian regions) witha harvest culture of 25 centners/hectare, itis possible to receive more than 3 milliontons of biofuel, enough to provide the agroindustrialcomplex with 75 percent of its fuelneeds.The scientists at Vinnytsia StateEngineering University, the National AviationUniversity, Ivano-Frankivsk institutes andothers have certain potential achievementsin constructing diesel engines that operateusing biofuel.135Donetsk National Engineering Universityscientists have promising work in the field ofhydrogen technology and energy and windhydrogentechnologies.At the Pivdenne factory inDnipropetrovsk, the Donetsk factoryof high-voltage bearings, the Kharkivaviation factory and the Ivano-Frankivskenterprise Karpatpresmash, production hasalready been arranged for contemporary,competitive wind power units of varyingcapacity (from 50 kw up to 600 kw). About100 wind power units already operate inPryazovia (near the Azov sea).Potential developments, calculationsand recommendations are performed byUkrainian scientists in the field of smallhydro-engineering (using the energy ofsmall rivers). The economic energy potentialof Ukraine’s small rivers is estimated at upto one percent of total contemporary energyconsumption. Development of this kind ofenergy may be extremely prospective forregions of the Carpathians, Prydnistroviaand Podillia, where its part of the totalamount of energy will represent betweenfive and ten percent. Of importance isenergy autonomy and independence (aswell as bio-energy), which guaranteesenergy safety to local and regionalmanufacturers and economies in the eventof natural or technogenic accidents, whichmay disable hundreds of kilometers oftransmissions lines, or cause a catastrophicdeficiency in oil or gas. Damless smallhydroelectric stations are being developedthat work using chained buckets along awater stream, even silent ones.Deserving of national attention are theworks of “Luhanskhiproshakht” Instituteengineer Anatolii Yazev, who created aunique device which effectively uses theenergy potential of coal ore and coal oflow quality (the brown one). Within a year,a program was developed providing allindustrial enterprises of the Luhansk regionwith energy due to a transition from motorfuel manufacturing to providing a massivesupply of independent energy sources.Those are the gas generators (they wereproduced some dozens of years ago

already), which after being improved toa certain degree, may be effectively andwidely used for big and small manufacturingwithout billions in capital investments.For raw materials, the generators will useorganic waste materials and brown coal.The cost of the complete unit was only $2million. It is more than 100 times cheaperthan the modern expenses for constructinga complex for liquid fuel production. By theway, Russian engineer Sergey Digonskydesigned a special chemical reactor forreceiving fuel from brown coal and peatalso.It is necessary to mention the inventionof the scientists of the Kyiv laboratory“Proton-21” under the direction of StanislavAdamenko. It developed a unique smallsizedunit for manufacturing electrical powerby bombarding targets with comparativelyweak electron bunch, therefore such targetsbegin collapsing (are compressed inward),and then powerfully blown up by energya millions times greater than the energyof the initial electron bunch. It is proventhat this enormous energy can be usedtechnologically.In Chernivtsi in particular, in the Centerof Thermoelectric Technologies (Institute ofThermoelectricity of the NASU), scientistsunder the direction of academician LukyanAnateychuk developed a unique, small-sizedthermoelectric generator which can be usedfor household needs (refrigerators, etc.),as well as for space stations (independentthermoelectric supply). The generator wascreated by a Ukrainian-Japanese enterprisethat develops thermoelectric models forindividual, independent life support.We mentioned only part of the uniquedevelopments and inventions of Ukrainianscientists, which unfortunately are coveredwith dust on the archival shelves of differentdepartments and ministries.Water industry problemsThe Dumansky Institute of ColloidChemistry and Water Chemistry of theNASU, which is dedicated to resolving superpriority state problems, achieved significantsuccess in its investigations on supplyingthe population with quality drinking water.To carry out the Law of Ukraine, “Onthe nationwide program ‘Drinking waterof Ukraine for 2006-2020’,” at the order ofthe State Municipal Economy of Ukraine,specialists of the Dumansky Institute ofColloid Chemistry and Water Chemistryand the Engineering Committee forStandardizing ‘Quality of Drinking Water’(ТК-147), together with the experts of someministries and departments and scientificresearch institutes, developed the project ofthe State Standard of Ukraine, “Sources ofcentralized drinking water supply. Hygienicand ecological requirements and rules ofchoice.”This standard provides for improvedanalysis of outgoing water. If by the actingstate standard 2761-84 “Sources of drinkingwater supply,” there were 51 standardsfor surface water and 33 standards forunderground water, with the introductionof the State Standard of Ukraine “Sourcesof centralized drinking water supply,” therewill now be 372 standards for surface water,and 279 standards for underground water,accordingly.The Institute single-mindedly workson complex programs of developing andintroducing improved, effective technologiesfor preparing quality drinking water.A multi-purpose block unit for receivingdrinking water, Vega-3-UM is intended toprovide quality drinking water to schools,children’s establishments, catering andpublic health service establishments,inhabited sites, railway and water transportand other water users.In contrast to all types of domestic andforeign equipment and devices, Vega-3-UM employs various unique features toguarantee the cleaning and disinfecting ofwater. There are no analogues to this unit.The unit provides a high level of waterpurification in the water supply system, minewells and artesian water from particles,toxins, chlorine and chlorine organiccompounds, heavy metals, radionuclides,136

nitrates, pesticides and herbicides. The unitenables salt content correction adjustmentand full disinfection of drinking water ofany initial composition. It can be the basisfor seawater demineralization. The drinkingwater received with the help of the unitmeets not only the requirements of theacting standards of the State Sanitary-Epidemic Committee of Ukraine, but alsothe requirements of the Directives Councilof the European Union 98/83/EU and theWorld Health Organization (W.H.O.).The institute’s work in the area of biotestingis prospective. Different kinds oftoxicity on the cell level are analyzed,including structural (genotoxic) andfunctional (cytotoxic) changes in thegenome.The universality of the cellularorganization opens ample opportunities forresearch with application to different groupsof animals and plants, and subsequentextrapolation of results received fromhuman cells.The discussed approaches areextremely important for practical realizationin our country because until now, there wasalmost no research on the genotoxicity andcytotoxicity of natural and drinking water(with the rare exception, for example, ofstudying the consequences of radiationpollution of waters after the Chornobyldisaster).Biological testing (complex use ofoptimum sets of test organisms, aswell as cellular biomarkers) objectivelycharacterizes the biological constituent ofwater quality. Bio-monitoring of drinkingwater, inclusive with different stages of itspreparation, clarification and disinfection,should be carried out for toxicological (sharpand chronic toxicity), geno- and cytotoxicity,and mutagen parameters.The technology of processing thesewage from household waste productdumps was also developed at Vega-3-UM.It provides sewage processing through useof reverse osmosis in combination withother methods of water purification, withthe purpose of receiving clean water that137conforms to reservoir throw standards,and valuable substances suitable for usein national economy. The result was aresearch-manufacturing plant for processingsewage of waste product dumps with aproductivity of 0,5 m 3 / day and its practicaltests on test site № 5 in the village of VelykiDmytrovychi.The acting model of the state’sinnovation policy is significantly ramified,but insufficiently integrated and notoriented towards achieving an overallobjective of innovative activity - theexpanded economic revcovery on a new,ecologized, technological basis; intensiveGross Domestic Product growth; gaining,reconquering and forming new commoditymarkets and services.Each of the branches of power –commissions, councils and committees– which should form an integrated statepolicy through realizing their tasks,powers and functions, has no complexscientific substantiation and professionalaccompaniment for approving andintroducing its decisions. A center ofinnovative policy, which would implementinnovative ideology into economic practice,is not formed. The formation of a stimulatinglegislative-legal base and adequatefinancial and economic mechanisms are notcompleted. Certain orientation is requiredfor the state’s entire economic model.To form an innovative policy for Ukraineand its embodiment, it is necessary tocreate a specially authorized organ ofexecutive power. Branch ministries anddepartments should have professional,structural sub-divisions for innovativepractice and realizing scientific andengineering target programs.To ensure scientific support for statepolicy in all government branches, it isnecessary to form a National Institute ofScientific, Technical and Innovative Policy(at the Council of National Security andDefense of Ukraine and the NationalAcademy of Sciences of Ukraine) on whichthe following functions shall be laid:

• supporting the realization of a nationalpolicy of innovative development andeconomic modernization of Ukraine;• ensuring constant monitoring andexecuting intermediate and longtermforecasts of Ukraine’s scientific,technological and innovative development;• state regulation and development ofscientifically proven recommendations onthe approval of administrative decisions inthe spheres of scientific, engineering andinnovative policies;• informational-analytical and organizationaltechnicalprovision of work for the Councilon Science and Scientific-TechnologicalPolicy at the Presidential Secretariatand the Interdepartmental Commissionon Scientific-Technological Safety at theCouncil on National Security and Defense ofUkraine on issues of scientific-technologicaldevelopment at the Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine and the Interdepartmental Councilon Coordinating Basic Research at theNational Academy of Ukraine;• implementing scientific-educationalwork for the corresponding approval of astrategy of innovative development, andcomprehending an exceptional role forscience and innovative activity in the social,economic and national-cultural revival ofUkraine on the part of state employees,directors, businessmen, specialistsmanagers,youth and the population as awhole.For legislative insurance of innovativeactivity in the Supreme Council of Ukraine, itwould be expedient to form a parliamentarycommittee on scientific-engineering andinnovative policy issues.It is necessary to create a Ukrainianbank of reconstruction and developmentas a central innovative bank through whichfinancing of investment and innovativeactivity should be implemented and whichwould be controlled by the National Bankof Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine.At the branch and regional levels, allthe way to innovative enterprises, it isnecessary to form (to revive) a system ofinnovative funds, centers and structuresof other types that would have all thenecessary support and state protection.And eventually at the national level, tosave and develop productive education(technical, natural, engineering, etc.) andculture, as well as scientific and intellectualpotential, which are fundamental for socialprogress.Main deficiencies in innovative policyTo realize a single-minded, long-lastinginnovative policy in Ukraine, the appropriatemechanisms have not been created.Realizing the appropriate monitoring,productivity analysis of state policy andresponsibility for its effectiveness are notprovided for.This process is also hampered by:• a low level of the general innovativeculture of executives, as well as a significantportion of scientists;• an extremely low level of state financingof science, nullifying the system of statescientific-engineering programs with prioritydirections of science and engineering;• destruction of the system of competitivefinancing for science;• imperfect system of priorities and theirinsufficient substantiation;• absence of support and sufficientstimulation of innovative and inventingactivity of individual scientists, engineersand manufacturing workers.The need to integrate Ukraine intothe world’s high-technology competitiveenvironment necessitates establishing aninnovative development model in whichpride of place will be given to scientificacquisitions and their technologicalapplication. This generates steadyeconomic growth and builds a base onwhich a knowledgeable society can cometo life. Implementation of an innovationmodel requires faster development ofhigh-technology production; production138

of knowledge-intensive products thatare competitive on the world market.Crucially, it also requires an increase of thetechnological level in all economic spheres.Advanced countries chose ecologicalindicators as one of the main requirementsof technology and production quality that arein the national economic space. The societyand government of such countries stimulatedevelopment of scientific research directedtowards new ecologically comprehensibletechnologies and their implementation. Onthe other hand, the government implementsnew “rigid” requirements to the existing ornew manufacturing and its production bya system of standards and requirements.The totality of such actions encourages abusinessman to look for and implementinnovations of an ecological character andmake significant expenditures for his own orordered scientific and technology research.The innovative activity of the Ukrainianenterprises is very low. Only 12 to 14percent of enterprises perform innovativeactivity, mainly of an extensive character.For its part, the state does not stimulateinnovative processes, and in particular – theprocesses of ecologizing manufacturing.In the days of the U.S.S.R., the innovativeprocess was an obligatory part of stateplans and was supervised fairly strictly ateach enterprise. The innovative policy inmodern Ukraine is mostly of a declarativecharacter, and is not clearly defined andconsistent.In market conditions, innovations area “voluntary” endeavor of the owner of anenterprise. That is why innovative policybecomes more difficult - on the one hand,innovations stimulate the market with all itscomponents. On the other hand, innovationsare stimulated within society throughstate policies directed toward maintainingrequirements of sustainable development.In Ukraine’s conditions, state policies aremost valuable, especially with regard toecological requirements in manufacturing.The present period in Ukraine ischaracterized by a new investmentsituation, the defining moments of whichare changes in financing sources, withcollective, private, domestic and foreigninvestors primarily replacing state budgetappropriations. Another characteristic is theinvesting of profitable and “fast” projects, inwhich enterprises of insignificant influenceare involved.Technologies directed toward preservingthe environment are created on the baseof special ecology-resource programsand on their own initiative. The difficultiesof real maintenance of such programs -the financing and attraction of widescaleinvestment into this science intensivearea – call for the development of a singleprogram-target complex of Ukraine, whichshould integrate all available and newecology-resource programs of differentdepartments and provide for major actionon managing the country’s natural-resourcepotential. In conditions of limited budgetaryfinancing, such an approach will enablethe organization of interaction of subjectsin solving important national and regionalnatural-resource problems, to use thesupport of international funds, etc.The major condition that provides atransition to sustainable developmentis forming ecology-innovation programsthat are aimed at transitioning to newtechnological processes, which cardinallyimprove the ecological situation. The core ofsuch programs should be target innovativefunds. Such programs are efficientlyformed within the framework of economiccomplexes. In modern conditions, accordingto the character of environmental influence,it is possible to distinguish from them, forexample, the following:• traditional complexes, such as fuel andenergy and mineral-raw materials, whoseactivity influences the natural environmentparticularly strongly;• territorial-production complexes, related tothe regimens of special wildlife managementin territories with high concentration ofmanufacturing and population, whichpredetermines high requirements forenvironmental quality;• interbranch complexes, related tomanufacturing and consumption of139

production, which influences the globalecological processes – climate warming,ozone layer destruction.Innovative programs have someuncertainty concerning the provision offinancial resources. That is why an importantpart should be played by economic stimuli.An efficient tax and credit policy with thepurpose of involving the enterprises’ ownfunds, as well as external investments forrealizing this or another program, shouldbe introduced, the results of which canused by all or certain program participants.Among the functions of TIF, other thanfinancing target programs, an importantrole is granting ecology-innovative servicesto program participants, for example -engineering, technology and productioncertification.However, apparent contradictions donot assist nature protection legislationand normative documents in creating aneffective way of realizing ecology-innovativeprograms. The Law, “On protecting thesurrounding natural environment,” directlydoes not provide for the creation of suchspecialized target innovation funds. It isimportant to note that the basic functions ofthe existing ecological and target innovationfunds coincide. If ecological funds are usedmainly for solving current environmentalproblems, the specialized ones are aimedat solving long-term tasks. For the newedition of the mentioned law, it is necessaryto include together with ecological fundsthe definition of functions and sources ofthe means of forming target innovativefunds. Such funds should have the sameconditions as ecological ones, includingprotected targeted positions in the statebudget.Currently about 80 percent of the fixedcapital in the industry is depleted. On such abase, even the restoration of manufacturingparameters that were achieved ten tofifteen years ago places the prospect ofeconomic growth under doubt. First, withoutthe proper technological re-equipping, it ishardly possible to satisfy growing demand.Secondly, ecological consequences andgrowing ecological requirements will lead140to an increase in expenses. That is whythe importance of urgent implementationof ecology-innovation programs can’t beoverestimated.Developing markets of ecologicalproduction, non-polluting technologies,equipment and services is related to a seriesof economic and administrative influences,which should be directed toward increasingthe competitiveness of ecological productsand excluding of non-ecological goods fromthe competitive environment. A special rolehere is played by the appropriately strictspecifications and emissions controls onthe environment. Among technologies,an important part in realizing the strategyof sustainable development belongs toutilization processes. Concerning natureprotection equipment, they should createa competitive environment in the market ofmost economic equipment at comparableecological productivity. Ukraine’s ecologicalservices market is in its embryonic stage.The main ecological-economicinstrument that influences the profit ofenterprises is standard-violating pollutionpayments. Mostly, enterprise emissions aredefined by the balance method, startingfrom the size of technological productionand the removal of waste products into theenvironment. Fees are collected basedon the information on emissions given bythe polluters themselves. The possibleincorrectness in drawing up such a balanceand absence of independent control overemissions generate a demand for consultingservices for understating standard-violatingpollution payments. It is possible to preventthis phenomenon with the help of directcontrol over emissions on the part ofregional bodies of wildlife management.A number of acting and createdcommercial structures and civicorganizations try to perform functions ofcontrol, examination and standardizing,which can lead to a decrease in the level ofstate regulation of environmental quality andmonopolization of the ecological servicesmarket by such structures. The activity ofcommercial structures should be strictlylicensed.

Accounting for ecological requirementsduring the privatization of economicsites may become a serious factor inthe ecological improvement of privatizedenterprises to ensure the attraction ofinvestors’ funds. On the basis of anecological audit, the advantage should begiven to those investors who will committhemselves to ensuring, as soon aspossible, the ecological improvement ofenterprises with minimal involvement ofstate and municipal budgets.Ecological regulation of the privatizationprocess needs to be connected withdeveloping the system of ecologicalinsurance. It is possible to offer the newowners of the enterprise a mechanismof returning part of their investment inbuying the enterprise under conditions ofexclusively using their financing for natureprotection needs. It is possible to create aprivatization ecological fund, which wouldkeep track of funds that are returned toinvestors with the goal of maintainingecological safety, and which calculateamortization of nature protection sites aswell as profit, which is to be reinvested bythe enterprises for nature protection needs.For the region, agreed-upon limits on usingprivatization revenues should be establishedfor the needs of ecological sanitation.Among the innovative actions ofecological improvement that are includedin competition conditions, enterpriseprivatization plans and in forming financialobligations, which should be undertaken bythe enterprises’ new owners, should be thefollowing:• construction and reconstruction of gas anddust collecting and cleaning facilities;• liquidation of unorganized sources ofemissions, nature protection arrangementsfor combustive-lubricating materialstructures, chemicals and places toaccommodate waste products;• changes in basic technology, whichsignificantly decrease the level of ecologicaldanger;141• participation in developing regionalnature protection sites (municipal cleaningstructures, landfills, ranges, etc.);• removal of site polluters from waterprotection zones and coastal areas.To stimulate and realize innovations ofan ecological orientation, a special fundshould be created for the correspondingsubaccount of the enterprise. All benefitsstipulated by the current legislation forecological funds should be distributedthrough the fund. The enterprise’s profitdirected toward the fund should be tax-free.Nature protection equipment, materialsand reagents, and also ecological services,which are paid from by the fund based onauthorized estimates, should be paid with a50 percent discount on the value-added taxin the price structure of specified goods andservices. The fund’s unused money in thecurrent year should carry over into the nextyear within the bounds of its active term.The state should develop standardizedrequirements to develop innovative andinvestment projects. The investmentproject model (program) should includeecological-economic indicators (of lossand implementation results). Realizinginvestment projects or projects of programswith ecological parameters should provideeconomic, as well as social effects:improvement of living and health conditions,reduction in disease, reduction of naturaland manmade risks, maintenance ofecological balance, preservation of naturaland anthropogenic landscapes with culturaland historical value, etc.The economic result of implementingecologically-oriented projects can be, forexample, the difference between potential,possible expenditures of material andfinancial resources to carry out emergencyrescueoperations in the event of violationsto the surrounding environment, as a resultof a project’s realization or absence.New approaches, which flow from thenecessity of transitioning to sustainabledevelopment, define the correspondingrequirements in transforming and developingterritorial manufacturing systems, which

are ideally supposed to be manufacturingnatural.Ultimately, the manufacturing ofeach region should produce little waste.That can be achieved with the type oforganization of the regional industrialsystem, where waste products from onemanufacturer would be the raw materialfor another. The suggested approach hasadvantages over just the defense methodof decreasing manmade pressures, sincethe environmental problem is resolved in amore economically determined means.Realizing the idea of transforming theregional low-waste industrial systems intransition to sustainable developmentrequires developing work based on thescientific-engineering substantiationaccompanied by creating certainorganizational structures in the appropriateregions and industrial centers. Theprocess of the stage-by-stage creationof regional, wasteless industrial systemsshould be supported with differentforms of organizational and institutionaltransformations (creation of regionalfinancial and industrial groups, interbranchconcerns, etc.).The following actions will considerablyspeed up the process of innovative activityof manufacturers and enterprises in the fieldof ecologization:• amending the Law of Ukraine, "On taxingthe profit of enterprises and organizations"in the part on stimulating nature protection,resource- and energy-saving activity;• amending the Law of Ukraine "Onbusiness activity" in the part on stimulatingecological business activity;• implementing the new state programof resource-saving developed on new,progressive principles;• approving the government program ofcreating and using low- and non-wastetechnological processes and manufacturing,as well as the legal and economicmechanisms of their introduction;• developing methodical recommendationson estimating investment projects,programs and recommendations, whichtake into account ecological issues duringprivatization;• forming a uniform national plan of actionfor studying, reproducing, using andprotecting natural resources in a generalprogram of transitioning to sustainabledevelopment.Recommendations1. To create a National Institute ofScientific-Engineering and Innovation Policy(improvement, coordination, monitoring ofscientific-innovative activity).2. In the Supreme Council of Ukraine, toform a parliamentary committee on scientificand innovation policy issues with the goal oflegislative insurance of innovative activity.3. To create a Ukrainian bank ofreconstruction and development as thecentral innovative bank.4. To develop standardized requirementsfor innovation and investment projects, inwhich ecological-economical indicatorsshould be obligatorily included.5. To strengthen the activity andopportunities of the state innovation fundof the Ministry of Education and Science ofUkraine.6. At the government level, to support allinitiatives by manufacturers to develop nonpollutingtechnologies.7. To make produce forecastinganalyticalresearch in the area of ecologizingmanufacturing.8. To strengthen the scientific base ofmaintaining the balanced developmentand ecologization of the priority branchesof manufacturing with the help of financialand legal support; to increase domesticscientific potential in the field of ecologizingmanufacturing and improving long-termscientific estimate.9. To increase the level of ecologicaland innovation culture of the directors ofall sectors, obliging them to pass specialcourses improving qualifications.142

10. The Ukrainian government shouldcreate all opportunities for introducingtechnological innovations with ecologicaland economic prospects already developedby domestic scientists that are directedtoward solving energy and water problems.11. To improve the legislative base bygranting more legal rights of ecologicalcontrol over manufacturing activity to localbodies of nature protection.5.3. Education towards sustainabledevelopmentIn 2001, Ukraine approved the Conceptof Ecological Education. The conceptconsiders the current opportunities andchallenges for developing public knowledgeregarding ecology. Furthermore, it discussesmaking ecological culture a part of nationaland civil education, for all strata of society.Education in the interest of ecologicallybalanced development is not equalto ecological education and is not areorientation of any spheres of education.It has to include economic, social andecological aspects equally and become aprocess of training during an entire lifetime,with clear roles for formal, informal and notofficial education.Education in the interest of sustainabledevelopment should become a newtraining process. Nowadays, the transitionfrom the traditional teaching process toan educational process in the interest ofsustainable development is important.Wide cooperation in the interest ofecologically balanced development willassist in the sphere of education towardexpanding mutual understanding betweencountries, and toward ensuring peace,safety and common well-being.Education in the interest of sustainabledevelopment should be one of theimportant tools of transition to balancedmodels of manufacturing and consumption,and formation a new system of valuesthat adhere to a culture of moderation,and principles of balanced developmentin general. Development of educationin the interest of ecologically balanceddevelopment should form ecologicallyresponsible behavior during an entirelifetime, as well as a complete (holistic),interdisciplinary approach during trainingand familiarization processes that arenecessary for solving modern globalproblems and promoting a balanced, safefuture.One of the key tasks of education inthe interest of sustainable developmentis forming an ecological consciousnessand an ability to see the world in all itsinterrelations, including interdependencein the humans-nature-economy-societysystem.Ukraine’s education system, andthe education system in the interest ofecologically balanced development inparticular, is currently experiencing a deepprocess of reform.Expert analysis testifies that a tendencytowards educational deterioration on alllevels has been observed in recent years inUkraine. This is related to:• the current national educational system’simperfection and the obsoleteness ofapproaches and educational measures;• the absence of a state system monitoringeducation quality;• the absence of authorized criteriaestimating the quality of preparation ofspecialists by higher scientific institutes;• an obsoleteness of teaching methodshigher education institutions and theabsence of work partnerships betweenteachers and students;• a disinterest of employers and clientsto prepare and qualitatively providemanufacturing experience to their futureemployees;• the absence of a clear concept about thepurpose, content and method of educationin the interest of sustainable developmentin most parts of society;143

• the absence of an effective system ofimproving the professional skills of teachersand ecologists, and the level of ecologicaleducation among managerial personnel;• the absence of active participation ofsociety as a whole in developing thenational education system, in the interest ofsustainable development in particular;• insufficient financial and technical supportof education, the low level of paymentfor teachers and tutors and a decline inprestige in the teaching profession;• the absence of enough moderneducational literature and close contactsbetween high schools and academicscience;• non-conformity of vocational training to thereal needs of the economy and society.The degradation process of thepreschool preparation system andvocational training is continuing. Extremelydangerous is the fact that in high schools,especially in rural areas, ecology is nottaught, which fails to abide by the nationalconcept of ecological education, as well asthe program of its realization.The number of school age childrenwho have no elementary education owingto homelessness is growing. Inequality inopportunities to receive quality secondaryeducation and higher education for ruralinhabitants is growing as well.The system of ecological educationin Ukraine continues to be fragmentary,uncoordinated and ineffective. This iscaused by:• a long-term domination of a consumerattitude toward nature;• ignorance and destruction of nationaltraditions of rational wildlife management;• a lack of appreciation of ecologicalknowledge in the national system of generaleducation;• the absence of a necessary legislativebase;• insufficient responsibility of executivestructures in the field of education andscience;• absence of control in carrying outapproved decisions;• weak material and methodicalmaintenance of teaching and educationalprocess;• an extremely flawed system of training andretraining personnel;• an absence of state support for civicorganizations, youth and children'sorganizations and other structures thatoversee ecological education.Recent years have seen the situation,as it relates to ecological education,deteriorate due to the dissolution of thesystem for retraining ecology teachers inregional teacher graduate education centers(retraining courses have become irregularand non-obligatory); decreases in “elective”course hours; increases of pedagogicalloads; and exclusion of ecological subjectsfrom school programs.It is important to note the role of massmedia in developing education in the interestof sustainable development. Conditions areinsufficient and unsatisfactory on informingthe population on issues of environmentalprotection and rational wildlife management.In particular, there are no ecologicalpublications on the national level, norregular ecological television and radioprograms to inform the population. Thereis no system to certify that the positionsof the Aurhus Convention, and ecologicalknowledge in general, are introduced tothe chairs of executive organs, enterprises,establishments and organizations.In Ukraine’s media, programs andadvertising negatively influence thepsychological, mental and physical health ofUkraine’s population, particularly portrayingimmorality, hatred of mankind, violence,smoking and alcoholism.At the legislative level, conditions ofaccess to ecological information werenot created, and the mechanisms of itsdistribution were not introduced.The lack of information, or its poorquality, results in the destruction natural144

sites, pollution of water sources. Quiteoften, it is the reason of many ecologicalcrimes. At the government level, publicinformation efforts remains unsatisfactory,not only because of the insufficient amountof television and radio programs onecological education for children, but alsobecause of the lack of desire to inform thepublic on ecologically important decisionswhich are made by the state.From the mass media, the societyreceives ecological information mainly asoccasional reports on accidents, failures oracts of nature.At the same time, oligarchic structuresadvertise ecologically dangerous projectsvery positively in the mass media. Primaryattention is paid to creating new workplacesand promises of high wages accordingly.Such advertising is promoted by powerstructures, which easily give different taxprivileges to projects and manufacturers,which are ecologically dangerous forthe most part. Often, with the purpose ofcreating the necessary public opinion, theyspeculate on patriotism and citizens’ lackof information. The necessity of introducingecologically dangerous projects ispresented from the point of view of nationalsafety interests, and economic and socialnecessity. Objective information is ignored,as well as the results of independentecological, social and economic evaluationsof such projects.Currently, 103 institutions of highereducation prepare ecological andenvironmental protection professionals.These institutions are mostly practicalin the ecological work they do, and giveconsideration to specifics. (hydroecology,meteorology, agroecology, industrialecology, forest engineering, monitoring ofthe environment, radioecology, etc.).Only two higher education institutionsin Ukraine are licensed to train teacherecologists.These are the ChernihivPedagogical University, which preparesecologists who work in chemistry, and theMelitopol Pedagogical University, whichprepares ecologists who work in biology.Both schools have an insignificant numberof students (about 50 people). They do notsatisfy the demand for specialists.A serious problem is the employmentof graduates with bachelor’s, specialistand master’s degrees, for whom there ispractically no state demand.In contemporary Ukraine, few candidateand doctoral dissertations are beingdefended every year on ecological problemsand aspects of ecological education. Aqualifying scientific board for these issueshas not yet been created.So ecological education, despiteits urgency and importance in solvingecological safety problems, has not becomea priority in state policy and is in a crisisperiod.Informal ecological education has itsspecific features. Social movements, thoseof youth and children in particular, are asuccessful system for forming of a selforganizedpersonality, or people with highindicators of public activity and civil liabilityin ХХІ century society. In after-school work,children reveal the most possible personaltraits. On their basis, with the help of adultsand peers, they form new skills and habits,and create their own worldview and attitudeto people and nature.Education in civic organizations shouldoccur to give an opportunity to eachchild and young person to take part ininteresting, necessarily and practical natureprotecting activities. With the help of specialprograms in each activity, children to havepossibility not only to increase their levelof knowledge of ecology, not only to formtheir own ecological outlook, but also to trythemselves to be a leader in the team.Civic organizations use the systemapproach. They combine ecologicaleducation with practical work, neweducational development measures,children’s scientific-practical work, a systemof self-management and developmentleadership qualities.Representatives of nature preservationnongovernmental organizations in145

Ukraine have worked less than a year ondeveloping and introducing after-schoolecology educational programs, popularizingecological knowledge, as well as developingspecial ecological training, courses,exercises, and games. But the valuableexperience they gain from the after-schoolnature protection ecology educational workis used by our state bodies insufficiently orignored.For many decades the network of public“Nature” universities, under the auspicesof the Ukrainian Association for NatureProtection, and accounting for over 60thousand auditors annually, supportedpublic ecological education. Along withthe Junior Natural History Study Group,the National Ecological-Naturalist Centerof Student Youth of Ukraine’s Ministry ofEducation conducts large-scale educationalactivity.Interesting is the experience of children’scivic organizations - ecological, tourist andregional studies. The all-Ukrainian children’sunion “Ecological Guard” constantly workson creating and introducing new programsin the field of ecological education, suchas “Ecological Guard of our own Future,”“Guard Skills,” “Clean the Planet,” and“School for Ecology Leaders.” Organizingand hosting ecological competitions,seminars and training, ecological excursionsare integral activities of the “EcologicalGuard,” as well as the creation of ecologicalclubs, centers and creative workshops.The children’s ecological association“Green Country,” which is in the Donetskregion, has its own publication – thenewspaper “Bdzhilka” (Bee). The youngecologists investigate rivers, land and treesand take part in ecological expeditions.The regional youth ecological association“Ecosphere” (Uzhhorod) works by its ownmethod, a program of ecological education,“Nature School.”.The children’s association “Rostok”(sprout) works with children and youth onecological and biological issues, payingmuch attention to practical and researchaspects.In Ukraine, non-governmental organizationsfunctions and take part in effortsto increase the public’s awareness onecological issues.The all-Ukrainian Ecological Leaguecreates its own educational and publishingprograms. Their series of books, “EcologicalEducation and Teaching” and “NatureProtection Measures” are useful toteachers and young ecology leaders. Thebooks suggest conducting lessons, afterschoolevents on ecological themes andrecommendations on carrying out natureprotection measures. The organizationpublishes the popular scientific magazine“Ecological Bulletin,” the essay magazine“Ecology,” and has issued “The EcologicalEncyclopedia.”The all-Ukrainian civic organization“Living Planet” between 2001 and 2005carried out some useful educational projectswith the purpose of increasing ecologicalculture among schoolchildren (treating ofpets), as well as manufacturers (ecologicalmarking of production).The Center of Ecological Educationand Information has its own thematic andperiodic publications.Informational-publishing center “TheGreen Dossier” also issues certainecological, educational literature, but itsvolume is insufficient.The WETI ecological information fundand others publish regular newsletters.Significant practical work was carriedout recently by the all-Ukrainian civicorganization “Mother-86,” which between2001 and 2003, supported by the Novib-Oxfam (Netherlands) fund, implemented 11projects in various regions (Kyiv, Kharkiv,Nizhyn, Tatarbunary, Feodosiya, Odesa,etc.) to involved effective ecologicalengineeringdecisions on the problems ofdrinking water (within the framework of thecampaign “Drinking Water of Ukraine”).Ecologicalnon-governmentalorganizations publish the followingperiodicals: “Dear Nature” (UkrainianSociety of Nature Protection, together with146

the Ministry of Nature), “Green World”(UEA, “Green World”), “Alive Ukraine”(UkrUNEPKOM), “Sprout” (all-Ukrainianfund “Rostok”) and thematic ecologicaleditions (the National Ecological Center ofUkraine).University science should form itsown scientific schools in all fields ofknowledge. Ecological science should usethe achievement of scientists to improvethe quality of education in the interest ofecologically balanced development. Thepresence of a scientific school, recognizedfor its achievements, at higher educationalinstitutions indicates their high quality.In the future, the scientific-theoreticalbase of education in the interest ofsustainable development should bedeveloped and coordinated by the Ministryof Education and Sciences of Ukraine,and the Ministry of Natural EnvironmentalProtection of Ukraine should resolve thepractical aspects of ecological education.Recommendations1. To create in the Ministry ofEducation and Sciences and the Ministryof Environmental Protection of Ukrainecorresponding sub-departments forcoordinating and constantly controllingthe status and development of educationand science in the interest of the state’secologically balanced development, basedon the decisions of the fifth conferenceof ministers “Environment for Europe,”the decisions of environmental protectionand education ministry representatives ofthe United Nations’ European EconomicCommission countries, and the decisionsof the E.E.C. supervisory committee oneducation in the interest of ecologicallybalanced development2. To reform Ukraine’s educationalsystem according to time requirements,having considerably raised society’s role informing the national education system andhaving based this educational system onecologically balanced development.3. To develop and ratify a nationalstrategy of education in the interest ofecologically balanced development.4. To improve the concept of Ukraine’secological education, adapting it to thenational strategy of education in the interestof ecologically balanced development.5. To ensure continuous executionof developed strategy, programs andassumed obligations and tasks within theframework of national education programsin the interest of ecologically balanceddevelopment.6. To promote, by all means, thedevelopment of social partnerships directedtowards preparing and implementingeducation in the interest of ecologicallybalanced development, and involvingsociety in this process to the fullest extent.7. To strengthen cooperation in educationin the interest of ecologically balanceddevelopment between Ukraine’s leadingnature protection civic organizations, andbetween these organizations with Ukraine’sMinistry of Environmental Protection andMinistry of Education and Science.8. To direct the attention of Ukraine’sgovernment to the necessity of mandatoryintroduction of ecologically educational andecologically informative aspects of massmedia, and also constant reporting onthe state’s most important environmentalproblems.9. To develop coordination mechanismsat the regional and the national levels forthe active involvement of civil society inthe process of implementing educationin the interest of ecologically balanceddevelopment.10. To nominate representatives ofUkraine’s leading civic nature protectionorganizations to the Scientific-MethodicalCommission on Ecology at the Ministry ofEducation and Science, and to nominaterepresentatives of regional civic natureprotection organizations to regionaleducational centers.147

11. To restore the specialty “AppliedEcology.”12. To add the subject “Fundamentalsof Ecological Knowledge” to the entranceexams of natural science departments atUkraine’s higher educational institutions.13. To implement the subject“Fundamentals of Ecological Knowledge” tothe curricula of schools, vocational schools,lyceums, colleges and technical schools asone of the basic disciplines.14. To harmonize the ecologicaldisciplines of Ukraine’s higher educationalinstitutions with those of leading Europeanhigher educational institutions that havejoined the Bologna process.15. The main task of the NationalCommission for an Educational Strategy forEcologically Balanced Development shouldbe constant communication with Europeanand UN structures involved in the Decadeof the United Nations process on educationin the interest of ecologically balanceddevelopment.148

Chapter 6. Non-governmental and ecological civil organizations:reinforcing partnership, interaction and development6.1. Implementing the Aurhus ConventionRegulations in UkraineThe Fourth Conference of EnvironmentalProtection Ministers “Environment forEurope,” held in Aurhus, Denmark in 1998,unanimously passed “The Convention onInformational Access, Public Participationin Resolutions, and Access to Justice onEnvironmental Protection,” which Ukrainejoined in 1999 (ratified by the Law ofUkraine No 832-XIV on July 6, 1999).The convention encourages thetransition to democratic principles forbuilding civil society, creating ecologicalawareness among the population, andraising environmentally-aware citizens whoknow their ecological rights and understandthe link between their personal health andthe condition of the environment; whocare about preserving the environment forthemselves and for future generations.Improving access to ecologicalinformation and boosting publicparticipation in decision-making enhancesthe quality of the decisions made and theirimplementation. It also helps improve howinformation about environmental problemsflows to the public, gives people the chanceto express their concerns, and lendsexecutive organs the chance to take intoaccount those concerns.By signing the EU Partnership andCooperation Agreement in 1994, Ukrainewas obligated to comply its legislation withEU standards. The latter acknowledgesthe importance of transparency and publicparticipation in ecological management.The EU requires that informational accessand public participation in environmentalresolutions are transparent and in line withall branches of ecological law.Current EU legislation includes the90/313/EEU Directive on free access toecological information (Ecology InformationDirective) and the 85/337/EEU Directive onthe evaluation of certain public and privateenvironmental projects, amended by the14997/11/EU Directive “Ecology Evaluation.”There are also EU legislative statementsthat entitle the public to specific rightsto information and the ability to vote onenvironmental resolutions.The 90/313/EEU Directive on freeaccess to ecological information grantsthe general public rights to ecologicalinformation from the government, includingadministrative acts such as the issuing oflicenses and permits.The 85/337/EEU Directive on theevaluation of certain public and privateenvironment projects, amended by the97/11/EU Directive “Ecology Evaluation,”ensures that there is public participation inthe environmental decision-making process.Along with ecological evaluation itself, itrequires an appropriate timeframe to enableopinions and information to be exchangedamongst the public before resolutions arepassed. An example of this exchange mayinclude designating a place where the publiccan meet and become acquainted withimportant information and public educationcampaigns.The 96/61/EU Directive on theprevention and reduction of environmentalpollution demands that member-countriesensure that license inquiries for openingnew enterprises or making significantchanges to existing enterprises are madeavailable to the public within a long enoughperiod to allow the public to comment onlicense inquiries before official resolutionsare passed. Potential resolutions and thenumber of licenses granted should also beavailable for public consideration.According to foreign experts working inthe Ukrainian-Danish project, “Aid to Ukrainein Aurhus Convention Implementation,”which was completed in March 2003,Ukrainian legislation is progressivein the context of certain points of theConvention. However, the absence of directimplementation mechanisms and normative

legislative statements impedes successfulimplementation of the Convention.Certain provisions of the AurhusConvention are contained in the laws ofUkraine: “On environmental protection,”“On ecological expertise,” “On information,”“On public applications,” “On mass mediacoverage regarding the work of state andlocal authorities,” “On landscaping and areareclamation,” “On citizenship integration,”“On local self-government,” and “On civicorganizations for the youth and children.”Experts from Ukraine’s Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection, in compliancewith the Aurhus Convention requirements,had prepared the Law of Ukraine, “Aboutthe modification and alteration of certainstatements in the legislation of Ukraineas a result Ukraine’s ratification of theConvention concerning informationalaccess, public participation in decisionmaking,and access to legal rights andjustice regarding ecology matters”. TheSupreme Council of Ukraine ratified it onNovember 28, 2002 under Nr 254-IV.In order to develop real implementationmechanisms of the Aurhus Convention,Ukraine’s Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection, as recommended by the Cabinetof Ministers of Ukraine, prepared twodecrees dated December 18, 2003: No 168,“About the ratification of the Statement onpublic participation in decision-making in thefield of environmental protection”, and No169, “About the ratification of the Statementon ecological information availability”,and registered them in the Departmentof Justice on February 4, 2004 under No155/8754 and No 156/8755.After the Aurhus Convention came intoforce, Ukraine encouraged the authoritiesto form an open database system includingthe creation of Web sites for Cabinet ofMinisters and executive authorities. Itenabled them to expand public availabilityto their work and information, instead ofonly through radio, television and the press.To create conditions for the collection,processing, and analysis of ecologicalinformation and for informing the public,there were a series of standard legaldocuments approved. These included:the Supreme Council of Ukraine decreeon November 4, 2004 Nr 2169-IV, named“About informing the public on environmentalmatters”; the order by the Prime Minister ofUkraine on the November 17, 2004, named,“In addition to the decree of the SupremeCouncil of Ukraine on November 4, 2004 Nr2169-IV;” and two regulations on December30, 2004 named, “On quarterly informingthe population via mass-media of ten sitesthat cause the most environmental harm,”and “On the network of a national ecologicalautomated information and analytic system.”This network had been planned to functionin 2005, but no system was established.To improve both the centralized processof passing resolutions on the nationallevel, and the decentralized process on thelocal level, with more public involvement,the following national documents werereleased:• The decree by the President of Ukraine onJuly 31, 2004, “On ensuring conditions forwider public participation in the processes ofstate policy formation and implementation”;• The decree by the Cabinet of Ministersof Ukraine on October 15, 2004 Nr 1378“Some issues on ensuring conditions forwider public participation in the processes ofstate policy formation and implementation.”In the above-mentioned presidentialdecree, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukrainewas charged to do the following:• Develop and approve the procedure ofpublic consultation;• Establish public councils at executive andself-government bodies at all levels;• Clarify via mass-media the matter of legalregulations regarding public participation;• Organize qualification training in thefield of modern information technologycommunications;• Authorize the State Committee of Radioand Television of Ukraine to completerecommendations for executive authoritiesat all levels on the procedure of processingpublic proposals published in mass-mediaand obtained during public consultations;150

• Advise self-government bodies to applyadditional measures in expanding publicparticipation and their organizations indiscussing and resolving important localmatters.Certain documents were also approvedto establish the standard and legal basis forpublic participation in resolving significantenvironment issues:• The decree from the Cabinet of Ministersof Ukraine on May 18, 2005 Nr 356 “Onadditional measures for public involvementin national affairs management”;• The decree from the President of Ukraineon September 15, 2005 Nr 1276/2005 “Onensuring public participation to form andimplement state policies”;• Authorization by the Prime Ministerof Ukraine on September 24, 2005Nr48164/1/1-05 “To the decree from thePresident of Ukraine” and on September15, 2005 Nr 1276/2005 “On ensuring publicparticipation to form and implement statepolicies.”Access to information about theenvironmentTo increase the level of publicinformation regarding environmental issues,there were measures implemented by theMinistry of Environmental Protection ofUkraine, including:• In 2000, the Web site of the Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection of Ukraine waslaunched, and in 2003 – the Web portal(http://www.menr.gov.ua) for reference toenvironmental information and activities,was launched by the Public Council underthe General Staff of the Ministry of NaturalEnvironmental Protection of Ukraine and itslocal bodies; with a separate Aurhus trainingcenter Web page;• Before 2002, a national report regardingenvironmental conditions in Ukraine wasprepared, however there were none in theyears 2003 and 2004;• Regular press-conferences and briefingsfor the mass-media;151• Participation of the Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection of Ukraine inparliamentary hearings related to ecologicalissues;• An Aurhus information and training centerwas opened under assistance from theMinistry of Environmental Protection ofUkraine;• Presentation of the outcome of the EUproject, “Information, Education and PublicAwareness,” which was completed inDecember 2004. It resulted in the releaseof various manuals and instructions forstate officers and community leaders, withthe purpose of promoting information abouthuman rights guaranteed by the AurhusConvention. They are used by educationalinstitutions and civic organizations thatimplement training;• Specialists in the Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection of Ukraine will prepare articles onecological topics for the press, participatein relevant television and radio broadcasts,and respond to informational inquiries fromcivic organizations and individuals.Public Participation in ResolutionsA specially authorized central bodyof the executive office of the Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection of Ukraine shouldpublicize information with regard to thefollowing:• Environmental conditions, the dynamicsof its changes, pollution sources, and wastedisposal and management;• Environmental emergencies and ways torespond and prevent them;• Development and approval of ecologicalprograms, plans, and documents relevantto environmental policy;• Regional ecological problems andpossible ways of resolving them, with thegoal of involving the community more inthe decision-making processes related toenvironmental protection;• Intentions to locate high ecological risksites, which require an assessment of theirenvironmental impact;

• Intentions to distribute relevant documentsregarding the use of natural resources oflocal significance, and also environmentalpollution;• Identification of modified organisms whichmay be imported to the country according tointernational agreements;• Experience in cooperation with the publicin environmental protection, rational use ofnatural resources and ensuring ecologicalsafety;• Other ecological aspects or factors, whichare important for the public while carryingout public, ecological assessments, orrealizing other ecological rights.However, no real mechanisms topublicize such information have beencreated. And announcements in massmedia are mostly subjective.The Ministry of Environmental Protectionof Ukraine has arranged public hearings fortwo regulations, “About public participationin environmental resolutions,” and “Aboutecological information procedure,” whichtook place October 12, 2002 within theUkrainian-Danish project, “Assistanceto Ukraine in Aurhus Conventionimplementation.”The person approving the decisiondetermines the duration of public discussiondepending on the type of resolution.Duration of public discussion cannotexceed:• Three months for international, stateand regional programs, plans, strategies,concepts, standard and legal act projects,implementation of activities that affect ormay negatively impact the environment;or for decisions related to the cost ofenvironmental preservation measures atthe expense of the State EnvironmentalProtection Fund;• Two months for local programs, plans andstrategies; expenditure resolutions relatedto environmental preservation measures atthe expense of local protection funds;152• One month to issue relevant documentson the utilization of natural resources, onthe intentional discharge of geneticallymodified organisms into the environment,and decisions regarding activities that maynegatively affect the environment.In practice, as stated by the “EcoPravo-Lviv” Charity Fund, before this regulationwas approved, Ukraine’s Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection often did notfollow the provisions of a mentionedarticle and issued resolutions in the shorttime after the public was informed, whichmade public participation impossible. Forinstance, during the national ecologicalassessment on the technical and economicbasis for the Danube – Black Sea channel,a decision was reached on the seventh dayafter informing the public, particularly thepublishing of a statement of environmentalconsequences. As had been discovered,local self-governing authorities, which arenot subordinate to Ukraine’s Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection, violated the termsof informing the public. This case becamewidely known in Ukraine, roundtablediscussions took place, and the “EcoPravo-Lviv” Charity Fund filed a lawsuit, which stillisn’t resolved.Nevertheless, despite numerous claimsfrom citizens and foreign and domesticorganizations, construction of the canalcontinues. Similarly, public opinion wasignored during the construction of theTashlytskyi storage plant, and the Rivneand Khmelnytskyi nuclear plants. Overall,democratic principles regarding publicdiscussion of significant ecological issuesare being implemented very slowly inUkraine.Opportunities for higher degreesof public participation in developingenvironmental protection policies arementioned by the decree of the Cabinetof Ministers of Ukraine issued October 15,2004 Nr 1378, named: “Some issues inensuring public participation in forming andimplementing national policy.” The decreenamed “Procedure on public consultationson issues of national policy formation andimplementation” was also approved, which

enabled a partial expansion of the scope ofthe Aurhus Convention on all governmentorgans within Ukraine’s economy.Other than that, the Secretariat ofthe Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine hascomposed and published a procedureprovision document named, “PublicConsultations: Direction, Technique, andExperience.” 1,500 copies were distributedat public hearings called, “Discussing the2005 State Budget” on September 22,2003.The Secretariat also introduced thepractice of involving civic organizationsin public hearings on various topics, butdid not deliver the relevant documentsduring the specified time of one month.Civic organizations and citizens werenotified three to seven days prior to thecommencement date of the hearings,making it impossible for the public torespond and comment on proposals.Indeed, several written proposals hadbeen partially included in the resolutionsfrom such hearings. But the further fate oftaking public opinion into account at thesubsequent stages of drafting documentsremained unknown.Access to Legal RightsTo secure the right of any individual toobtain ecological information, the Code ofUkraine named Clause 91-4, “Rejectingto provide ecological information andpurposefully concealing or falsifyinginformation” “contains an administrativepenalty for the violations of withholding orconcealing ecological information from thepublic. Violations include:“Rejecting to provide timely, completeand accurate ecological information,purposefully concealing or falsifyinginformation, and illegitimately declining anyinquiries of information. These violationsresult in an administrative fine againstthe officials accountable for ecologicalinformation distribution in the amount ofthree to ten untaxed minimum averageindividual incomes.”A court resolves all disputes surroundingthe protection of rights and the will ofcitizens. Therefore, the court cannot denyan individual the acceptance of any suiton the grounds that it can be viewed inpreliminary pre-trial procedure.For instance, in accordance with Clause35, the Law of Ukraine “On information,”in case a client seeking information isdenied obtaining an available documentor the case is postponed, the client hasthe right to appeal the rejection or delay tohigher authorities (the so-called pre-trialprocedure).If authorities responsible for ecologicalinformation do not respond to a publiccomplaint, then the public is also entitledto a trial appeal (so-called trial procedure).If the right to obtain ecological informationwas violated, only the citizen or publicorganization whose rights were breachedare authorized to choose the protectionmethod, either pre-trial or trial. In otherwords, the community decides where toapply first - to the higher authority and thento pre-trial, or to trial directly.According to the norms of the CivilProcess Code of Ukraine, resolutions anddecrees are sent to the participating parties,the public prosecutor, and third parties.According to Clause 216 of the CivilProcess Code of Ukraine, if the parties andthird persons are involved in a case but notactually attending a session in court, thenthe court will send out copies of resolutionsand decrees to those who need them.According to Clause 124 of theConstitution of Ukraine, courts exclusivelyadminister legal rights with jurisdictionextended to any legal relationship within thestate.Constitutional rights for citizensconcerning legal defense are stated inClause 4 of the Civil Process Code ofUkraine. According to the mentioned clause,any interested persons have the right,following a legal procedure, to apply in courtfor protection of violated or disputed rightsor interests preserved by law.153

This right is guaranteed by the standardprovision of Part Two of the Clause,stating that any waiver to apply for a trial isinvalid. According to the process code, anyagreements or contract terms rejecting thepossibility to file a suit to defend one’s rightsare illegal.Clause 10 of Civil Process Code ofUkraine affirms the principle of transparencyof judicial review. According to Part One ofthe Clause, legal considerations are openin any court except for those cases when aprinciple of national confidentiality would beviolated.According to Clause 6, the Law ofUkraine “Judicial System in Ukraine,” alllegal entities are entitled to the protectionof their rights and legitimate interests by anindependent and unprejudiced jury.In accordance with Clause 9 of thementioned law, nobody can be preventedfrom obtaining in court verbal or writteninformation regarding the investigationresults of his legal case.Upon request by the interested party,local authorities of Ukraine’s Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection can providecopies of all resolutions, protests, verdictsand other documentation relevant to thecase at their disposal.In 2004, there was only one caseunder legal consideration concerningenvironmental protection with Ukraine’sMinistry of Environmental Protection as arespondent, with the Juridical Directorateacting on behalf of the Ministry.The complaint under review wasbrought by the charity fund “EcoPravo-Lviv”against Ukraine’s Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection to nullify a resolution by Ukraine’sMinistry of Ecological Resources named,“Creating the deepwater navigable channelDanube – Black Sea in the Ukrainian deltasection.”Any issue regarding this importantnatural resource was resolved judicially andin accordance with Clause 9 of the AurhusConvention.Unfortunately, no administrative courtsexist to more quickly resolve the issues ofvarious procedures related to environmentalpreservation, even though the Law ofUkraine specified their existence.Although court practice is insufficient,both civic organizations and executiveauthorities are informed about real cases.This contributes to cooperation betweenexecutive authorities and the population andincreases their legal awareness.Usually people identify access tolegal rights and justice through the use oftrials. However, there are several otherways to appeal a resolution. One of themost widespread is administrative claimsand claims to еру Plenipotentiary of theSupreme Council of Ukraine concerninghuman rights (ombudsman).Going to courts may require much timeand often involves considerable expenses.But there is a quicker, simpler, and cheaperway of how to contest the wrong decisionor to follow extra-juridical procedure. Thereare four major methods; yet results may bedifferent depending on each specific caseand each specific country.• Appealing a verdict in a higher legal organ;• Appealing in administrative court;• Lodging a complaint against theombudsman’s verdict;• Lodging a complaint to the public prosecutor.6.2. Role of non-governmental and civilorganizations in planning and realizingstate policy in the sphere of environmetalprotectionThe state and steps towards establishingan ecological civic movement in UkraineThe environmentalist work of the public,civic organizations, and of movements isextremely important in making ecologicalpolicy more effective and establishingan ecological culture. It is obvious thatsolving ecological problems cannot bethe job of scientists, administrators, orentrepreneurs exclusively. More and more,154

people are feeling the negative effects ofenvironmentally harmful enterprises thatpollute the environment and impact theirhealth.Awareness is rising that perceptionsabout nature have to change. Theimportance of this awareness is that it isorganically connected with the developmentof a mass environmental movementoriented toward coping with ecologicalhazards and solving ecological problems onboth regional and local levels.Civic organizations represent theinterests of citizens. They possessinformation about environmental conditionsthat they can pass on to state officials, andcan significantly influence public awareness.This creates better conditions for realizationof state policy and helping overcome thedifficulties of the current transitional period.The ecological civic movement reflectsmajor tendencies of social and economicdevelopment, since ecological damage isalmost always caused by human actions.It is certainly evident that uncontrolledprocessing of material goods will causedeterioration to human lives and disruptnatural cycles and interrelations within theenvironment. Since human activity hassuch a large impact on the environment, itis essential to discover a new way of coexistencebetween the environment andhuman society. Therefore, establishing anecologically friendly culture is an integralpart of helping to solve many of theenvironmental problems at hand; and anecological movement must be encouraged.In 2006, the ecological community ofUkraine celebrated the 100 th anniversary ofthe Nature Preservation Movement and the60 th anniversary of the Ukrainian Societyof Nature Preservation. On November 1,1906, the Nature Club was establishedat the University of Kharkiv, which in fiveyears became the Kharkiv Society ofEnvironmental Supporters.On July 26, 1946, the decree of theCouncil of Ministers of the UkrainianSoviet Socialist Republic Nr 1273, “About155regulative measures on the preservation ofnational reservations and nature funds in theterritory of Ukrainian S.S.R.,” establisheda Ukrainian Society of EnvironmentalSupporters with a Kharkiv regional branch ofa voluntary Society of Nature Preservation.During six decades, the Society performedcountless good deeds for the environmentand for people; it also received broadrecognition and became truly national.In the 1960s and the beginning of the1970s, several works appeared, such asthe first report of the Rome Club called“The Scope of Growth,” which impressedpeople and played an important role informing a mass ecological movement. Forthe first time, the specific environmentalconsequences of continual, unregulatedgrowth of manufacturing and utilizingnatural resources was outlined. Increasedamounts of ecological crises resulted in theestablishment of public movements, unions,clubs, and even large civic organizations onthe national level. Active members of theecological movement set specific targets,such as protecting the natural environmentand effectively using natural resources.During the 1970s and 1980s, thepolitical and philosophical foundations ofthe ecological movement were formed. Insome European countries, Green partieswere formed, taking in small but active civicorganizations (particularly in Great Britain,France, Italy, Sweden, Germany andothers).During the same period, voluntarystudent groups of nature preservation wereindependently organized and functionedwith other student organizations. At certainpoints, there were approximately 45 studentgroups. Their major activities includedcleaning residential territories and parks, aswell as firefighting.The development of an active ecologicalcivic movement in Ukraine was sparked bythe creation of an independent state andthe formation of public policy measures.Worsening ecological conditions caused thisgrowth of environmental activism, especially

with regard to the Chornobyl catastrophe.For example, the number of ecologicalorganizations increased and became moreassertive; and representatives of Ukrainianenvironmental groups participated in variousinternational ecological forums that tookplace in Europe at that time.In 1991, the globally significant“Environment for Europe” process began.This idea of international ecologicalcooperation was born resulting from politicaltransformations which took place in Europebetween 1989 and 1991, and the desire tocreate a new “European Ecological Space”(a conference of environmental ministersfrom the EU, the UN and the OECD inDobrzhychi, Czech Republic).The period between 1992 and 1997can be characterized by the consistentdevelopment of a public environmentalmovement in Ukraine, simultaneous withthe development of the above-mentionedprocess, “Environment for Europe”. Inrelation to Ukraine’s ratification of the“Convention on informational access, publicparticipation, decision-making, and access tolegal rights and justice on ecology matters”(1999), this further consolidated anddeveloped ecological civic organizations,and enhanced the effectiveness of localecological organizations.The period of 1999 through 2005exhibited more active participation of certaincivic organizations. Members of publiccouncils took an active role in planningthe fifth Pan-European Conference ofEnvironmental Ministers held in Kyiv in2003.Through the efforts of civic organizations,annual all-Ukrainian conferences of theecological community were organized. Thefirst conference, “Ecological Policy: PublicVision” (2000), examined the followingissues:• Assessing Ukraine’s ecological policy andform an acting model of public participationin decision-making that helps improve theenvironment,• Summarizing the experiences of Ukrainianecological civic organizations in enforcingrequirements in ecological legislation,• Developing an interactive program ofUkraine’s ecological civic organizations.The second conference, “Ecologicalpolicy and implementing principles ofsustainable development in Ukraine:public vision” (2001), approved a series ofdocuments and addresses which illustratedthe successes and difficulties of ecologicalpolicy. It also assessed the prospects forsustainable growth in Ukraine, as well asproposals regarding preparation plans forecological civic organizations at the “Rio +10” summit in Johannesburg, South Africain 2002.The third all-Ukrainian conference ofthe ecological community in 2002 aimedto increase public involvement in thepreparation process for the fifth Pan-European conference of environmentalministers, “Environment for Europe,” and fora public forum that discusses the document,“Public Assessment of Ecological Policy inUkraine”.The fourth all-Ukrainian conference,“Ukraine in the ‘Environment for Europe’Process: Public Participation” (2003),reviewed the mechanisms of taking publicopinion into account as a factor in theeffectiveness of state policy in defendingthe environment. Also reviewed was thedocument, “The Future of the ‘Environmentfor Europe’ Process,” as well as thelegislative, social and economic activityof non-governmental organizations,etc. Seminars were held to discuss thedocuments of the Ministers conference,as well as a general meeting of Ukrainianecological civic organizations and theEuropean eco-forum.Participants in the fifth all-Ukrainianconference of ecological civic organizations(2004) discussed the issue of Ukrainianpublic participation in developing anecological partnership with neighboringcountries for the purpose of resolving transborderecological problems.156

An important stage in the developmentof an ecological civic movement in Ukrainewas the preparation of the report by nongovernmentalorganizations, “Publicassessment of Ukraine’s ecological policyin Ukraine”. This was a unique report, bothin Ukraine and Europe, as a comprehensivepublic assessment document.In this report, ecological civicorganizations applied various methods andforms of work. For instance, they mentionedthat the public must be well informed ofenvironmental crises, legal assistance inthe field of ecology should be provided,public hearings should be initiated, publiccouncils should be organized at authorityorgans on various levels, and the goals ofthe environmental protection fund should bespecified.After several stages of development, thepublic environmental protection movementhas gained professionalism and is ready tohelp create mutual approaches to resolvingecological issues.The basis for Ukraine’s civicenvironmental movement is made up ofnative public organizations, local ecologicalgroups, charity funds, scientific societies,thematic cooperatives, associations,networks, and workgroups all workingtowards confronting national and localecological problems. There are around440 public ecological organizations (2006),among which 28 are on the all-Ukrainianlevel, registered by the Ministry of Justice.The largest organizations are: the UkrainianAssociation for Nature Protection, the All-Ukrainian Ecological League, the Ukrainian“Green Light” Ecological Association,the Ecological Guard All-Ukrainian YouthCooperative, the National EcologicalCenter of Ukraine, the All-Ukrainian PublicEcological Organization “Mother 86,” theUkrainian Geographic Society, and theUkrainian Botanical Society.Other public ecological organizationsinvolved in nature preservation work(legislation, education, energy and theenvironment, health and the environment)are “Eco-Pravo Kyiv,” the Scientific Unionof Engineers and Electricians of Ukraine,and the all-Ukrainian Charity Fund, “YoungGrowth.”Beginning in 1997, many organizationsand groups joined to create networks,coalitions, and working groups, includingthe Ukrainian river network “Black SeaNetwork,” the Working Group on GlobalClimate Change, and the Association ofCarpathian Ecological Non-GovernmentalOrganizations.Public ecological organizations existin all regions of Ukraine. They are mostlyconcentrated in Kyiv (more than 100) and atsome regional centers. (Between 10 and 20have been registered in Donetsk, Kharkiv,Simferopol, Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolayiv,Odesa, Chernivtsi, and Lviv).More than 120 organizations arefunctioning in local centers and villages.The effective work of many of them is wellknownand is expanding into the country’sother regions. For instance, “Eco-Plai” inYaremcha; the Green Movement of Donbasin Horlivka; the “Bakhmat” Eco-CulturalCenter in Artemivsk; “Inter-Eko” in Vinnytsia;the Western Center of the World EcologicalLaboratory in Lviv; “Krona” in Chernivtsi;“Ecosfera” in Uzhhorod; “Ecology andthe World” in the Autonomous Republicof Crimea; and the Eco-Cultural Centerin Kyiv. The main objectives of ecologicalcivic organizations are to implement publiccontrol over resolving ecological problems,distribute ecological information, conductecological awareness education andtraining, and participate in forming nationaland local policies.In 1996, the Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection supported establishing a publicboard of all environment-oriented Ukrainianorganizations, including representativesfrom the most influential. The members ofthis council were: the Ukrainian Society ofNature Preservation, the National UkrainianEcological League, the Ukrainian ChildrenUnion “Ecological Watch-Guard,” the All-Ukrainian Ecological Civic Organization“Mama-86,” the National Charity Fund“Young Growth,” the all-Ukrainian committee157

to support the UN environmental programUNEPCOM, the Scientific-EngineeringUnion of Engineers and Electriciansof Ukraine, the Ukrainian EcologicalAssociation “Green World,” “Ukraine:Agenda for the XXI Century,” the UkrainianBotanical Society, the Ukrainian branchof the international organization “HumanEcology,” the Ukrainian Geographic Society,the Ukrainian Society of Bird Preservationand others.Similar public councils were founded atlocal state administrations for ecologicalsafety. The establishment of a public councilat the Ministry became an important step incoordinating its work, as well as expandingpublic participation in forming resolutionsconcerning ecologically important issues.The public council’s main tasks are:• To activate the process of forming a publicposition in developing an ecological policy inUkraine, and to support public participationinitiatives in this process;• To arrange informational exchangesbetween the Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection and Ukraine’s population;• To stimulate the development of legislativeand regulatory mechanisms that increaseecological control and monitoring of theenvironment.The integration of civic organizationsinto public councils contributes to a greateramount of activism that enables the stateto reform and develop ecological policy.Public ecological organizations, despite adecrease in funding from international donororganizations and state authorities, workto expand ecological education, arrangeecological activities on Environment Dayand the Day of International EnvironmentalProtection, perform ecological reviewsof buildings under construction, and helpprotect and preserve the Dnipro River, thesouthern Buh River, and small rivers basins.Problems for Ukraine’s Ecological CivicOrganizationsThe activities of ecological civicorganizations in Ukraine may be groupedinto three areas – legal relations, financialsupport, and relations with governmentaland non-governmental institutions.Legal Aspects of Ecological CivicOrganizationsPublic organizations are protected andregulated by government legislation onpublic participation in environmental affairs.These possibilities are guaranteed by boththe Aurhus Convention ratified by Ukraine,and by national legislation.But despite a large amount of normativeacts, the legal aspects of ecological civicorganizations in Ukraine have not yetbeen systemized, nor has terminologybeen developed. Both legal and sublegalacts that regulate charities and taxcivic organization are often confusingand contradict each other. This situationcauses misunderstanding between entitiesthat register civic organizations (forinstance, between Ukraine’s Ministry ofJustice and local state administrations).Public organizations are therefore unableto influence this situation as they areunauthorized to be politically active. Also,the fact that the term “civic organization”has gradually disappeared from Ukrainianlegislation arises suspicion.Changes that have taken place inUkrainian legislature in the last 10 to 15years practically don’t apply to improvingthe legal bases of citizen organizations andthe spheres of regulating their activity.Financial Conditions of EcologicalCivic OrganizationsThe funding of civic organizations variesdepending on their character and fieldof work. Thus, almost one-third of themare charitable organizations, which relyon private donors and sponsors. Othercivic organizations are mostly funded byinternational grants, donors, or the rentof the premises they own. Locally, onlysome ecological civic organizations obtainfinancial support for their activities fromlocal ecological foundations. However, theseorganizations also receive funding fromthe state budget; and due to an imperfect158

legal relationship with the state and thecomplexities of financial reports, civicorganizations also are dependant on statefinancial authorities and tax inspections.It is almost impossible to renewfunding of ecological civic organization atthe expense of collected taxes since taxlegislation is unregulated and incomes arelow in most small cities and agriculturalareas. Incomplete legislation and theabsence of economic enterprises withvarious forms of ownership, which couldprovide significant charity aid, makesis impossible to fund ecological civicorganizations.Funding from international aid programs(grants) and separate international financialdonors is not necessarily better. Foreignaid is very specific in its purpose andusually cannot be spent on maintaining acivic organization’s infrastructure, such asmaintaining the premises, water, electricity,heating bills, technical equipment andadministrative costs. In addition, donor aidand grants are mostly used to pay to foreignexperts rather than fund ecological prioritieswithin regions.Relations between EcologicalOrganizations and Governmental andNon-Governmental InstitutionsAt the national level, the relationshipbetween ecological civic organizationsand state administrations are usually ofa declarative character: there is no realcooperation and interest in partnershipon the part of the state. Ecological civicorganizations were granted the right toundertake public control over the conditionof the environment and the pollution ofwater resources. However, the governmentoften ignores complaints and resolutionswritten by civic organizations. Authoritiesfor the most part also do not consider publicopinion, such as the construction of theDanube – Black Sea channel.The state is seldom willing to actuallytake into consideration the rights, effortsand needs of civic organizations, whichgratuitously conduct ecological activitiesand provide public education. However,159their influence in society is insufficientand limited, much of which is due to thegovernment.Interaction with Scientific CommunitiesA lack of sufficient funding of scientificorganizations has considerably decreasedthe scientific potential of Ukraine.Nevertheless, most scientists with significantknowledge who had been previouslyuninvolved or unemployed in their fieldshave begun working for civic organizations,including ecological ones. This hasconsiderably increased their abilities toundertake independent ecological expertise,education and training activities.Interactions with InternationalOrganizationsThe international community recognizesthe high potential and professionalism ofUkrainian ecological organizations, many ofwhich are collective members of internationalorganizations of environmental protection,such as the IUCN, EUCC, WWF, CEEBankwatch Network, Black Sea Network,Birdlife International, ICEU and others. Butunfortunately in recent years, there has beenless interest from the side of internationalorganizations and charity funds in the workof Ukraine’s ecological civic organizations.The EU TACIS program has decreased itsactivity, the Soros Foundation and REC-Kyivhave reduced their work, and the IUCN closedits programs. Big donors, such as the WorldBank, the EBRD and USAID dictate theirown vision of current ecological problemsin Ukraine to civic organizations. Most oftheir funding also goes toward sustainingunprofessional foreign experts, unfamiliarwith conditions typical for Ukraine, ratherthan Ukrainian organizations themselves.Civic Participation in Forming andImplementing State PolicyEcological policy is a range of meansand measures required to ensuresustainable ecological development andcivilization. Under this approach, ecologicalpolicy is intended to resolve two groups ofrelated tasks. One of them is to preserve

the current conditions of human existenceand pay special attention to scientific,engineering, economic and legal problems;while the other is mostly related to theproblems of human character and humannature regarding the environment.The development of economic andindustrial projects is a complicated matter,as it requires hygienic, demographic,technological, and energy planning, as wellas compliance to ecological standards. Itrequires a calculated and precise forecastof how the influences of these projectsaffect the life capacity of each link of thebiocenosis, and especially human beings.Certainly, the government should createand enforce ecological policy. For only thegovernment is capable of and obligatedto securing and implementing currentlegislation. Only an ideal set of laws is ableto form cultural, moral and personal valuesthat would provide the most favorable livingconditions for the population. The authoritiesshould provide ways, methods and meansto develop education, culture and aneconomy in a way to prevent ecologicalpauperization, soil degradation, pollution,unnatural swamp desalination or steppeplowing. Rational natural resource use mustarise from the experience and knowledge ofleaders, as well as enriching nature and ahigh ecological culture in our country, andothers. The mission of civic organizations isto encourage state authorities to create thissituation and to help the public understandthe importance of environmental protectionover manufacturing activity. It is also toenhance ecological awareness, ethics, anda feeling of ownership in our attitude towardnatural resources.Besides the Constitution of Ukraine, theprocess of civic involvement is supportedby a series of local self-government lawsand regulations. These include: “Onnational and local Referenda,” “On localself-government,” “On environmentalprotection,” “On ecological expertise,” theDecember 18, 1998 Cabinet of Ministersdecree Nr 1122, “About the procedure ofpublic hearings regarding nuclear energyuse and nuclear security,” the regulation “Onpublic participation in resolutions related toenvironmental protection” approved by theMinistry of Ecology and Natural Resourceson December 18, 2003, Ukraine’s Cabinetof Ministers decree on October 15, 2004,and the decree from the President ofUkraine on September 15, 2005.Public participation in forming resolutionsis a bilateral process. On the one hand, it isa moral obligation because state authoritieswork for the benefit of society. On the otherhand, as a result of public participation,decision-makers obtain information onhow their ideas and resolutions complywith public expectations. Therefore, publicinvolvement in this process may benefiteach group separately, as well as society asa whole.The concept of public participation isbased on two major principles:• People have the right to participate indeveloping the fundamental decisions thataffect their lives;• Due to the active involvement of aninterested public, the quality of political andadministrative decisions may be increased.Public participation provides opportunitiesto create more pertinent solutions,including those that comply with the needsof majority. Successful decisions increaseof the quality of life. While the publicis participating in forming decisions, itsimultaneously improves social, economic,and ecological conditions.The more people involved in theprocess, the broader the range of optionsand solutions they will propose. If aresolution were formed from a wide rangeof personal experiences and opinions, thissolution would most likely be correct, as ithad taken into account more aspects andassessed more factors at risk.Opportunities for public participationin the process of forming and ratifying aresolution include the following advantages:• State administrative authorities betterunderstand the needs of the general public;160

• The public obtains knowledge on theplanning and implementation of plans, aswell as control over projects;• Public participants improve their skills andknowledge;• The level of satisfaction and trustincreases with decisions passed by stateauthorities;• Officials and citizens share responsibilityfor ratified decisions.Public participation does not guaranteethat the ratified decisions will satisfyeveryone, as various groups have differentpriorities and interests. However involvingthe public in the decision-making processin its earliest levels, as well as ensuringconditions in which the different thoughtsof people will be heard and taken intoaccount, promote a consensus. This meansthat certain interests are better taken intoaccount in the earlier levels of the planningprocess, when introducing changes iseasier than in the final stages, when eveninsignificant chances can lead to tangibleloss in finances and time.Public involvement in such a processwould be influenced by a series of factorsthat may affect the final solution. Eventhough people may disagree with thesolution, they may better understand thereasons why it was ratified.General Principles of PublicParticipation1. The public should be involved at earlystages when there is still a possibility tochange a resolution. Public involvement atearly stages means that it can participatein the process of analyzing all options anddecisions. It prevents long-term disputesafter ratification of a resolution, as alldifferences have been taken into account.The more open, frank and accountablethe process of approval is, the sooner theresolution will be ratified.2. Any information used during theresolution is available to the public. Stateauthorities are obligated to provide anythingrequired to satisfy public inquiries andfree access to any available informationregarding the resolution. Providedinformation has to be complete andrelevant, in any form. Providing only shortreports and/or summaries is not permitted.However, state authorities can chargefor certain services such as making copies,but not for the labor itself.3. The submission of proposalsand remarks is ensured. Any publicrepresentative is empowered to submithis proposals, comments, remarks, notes,analyses, or thoughts. Such a proceduremay include the submission of remarksand proposals in written or verbal formsduring public hearings or within the perioddesignated for public discussion.Any responses to the proposals orremarks should be written only. In caseof complete or partial disagreement witha person who ratifies a resolution witha remark or proposition, the person isobligated to prove his point of view andexplain the procedure to further resolve theconflict.4. In decisions by state organs, remarksmade by the public are properly takeninto account. In particular, state organsare required to properly review commentssubmitted by the public in the process ofpassing decisions. Properly taking intoaccount means that state organs arerequired to:• Learn all remarks and proposals;• Respond to remarks and proposals, ortheir elements, that contain reasonableconcerns regarding the environment orhuman health;• Develop measures or decisions toeliminate the reasons for such concern.5. The public obtains informationregarding the final decision. State authoritiesare obligated to publicly distribute theirresolutions. This includes not only to theparticipants, but also to the general publicthat did not take part in the decision-makingprocess. The public should have available a161

text of the resolution, including all data andstatistics on which the resolution was basedupon.It’s worth recognizing that very often,untimely, superficial and unconvincingevidence on a completely justified andefficient decision passed by governmentis a serious reason for increasing socialtension and strengthening distrust towardthis government.Recommendations:1. Since an effective state ecologicalpolicy in Ukraine is determined by thecharacter and degree of public involvement,it is required to do the following:• Improve the procedures and mechanisms(according to Ukraine’s legislation) whichassure the participation of ecologicalorganizations in forming strategies andprograms for ecological development;• Set up at the state level new mechanismsand procedures to guarantee publicparticipation in resolutions;• The state should maintain the coordinatingstructures for ecological civic organizationsat the national, regional, and local levels;• The state should render organizationaland logistical support to public councilsat ministries, administrations and selfgovernmentalauthorities;• The state should ensure that ecologicalcivic organizations have broad access toecological information through the nationalinformation system;• The state should induct representatives ofecological civic organizations into nationalstructures that provide mechanisms forecological policy implementation (suchas the National Council on SustainableDevelopment and the Strategic Council onNational Policy Development);• Broaden the opportunity for civic,ecological organizations to realize legislativeinitiatives by posting bills under reviewof Supreme Council committees on theSupreme Council’s Web site in order for thepublic to have a chance to bring proposalsprior to their approval as laws;162• Increase public awareness ofenvironmental issues by means of massmedia and formal and informal education.2. A decree from the President of Ukraineshould proclaim that ecological policy is atop priority in his work, and set criteria for anincrease of human development coefficientsthat reflect a balance between economic,ecological and social components of publiclife.3. Implement reforms of theadministration system, the regulation ofenvironmental protection, and the utilizationof natural resources. Extensively discuss,with maximum public involvement, theactivities of the state ecological inspectionand nature protection procurator; reformthese organizations to liquidate both theduplication and existence of non-regulatedzones in the activities of any authorities.4. Ensure a transparent personnel andhiring policy in environmental protectionauthorities and departments. They shouldprioritize administrative professionalism,education, and environmental protectionexperience; and hire those who have neverbeen discredited by anti-ecological actionsor corruption and are able to stand up forecological principles and cooperate with thepopulation. Appoint the minister, deputies,and managers of environmental protectionadministrations though a competitivemethod (in accordance with the Law ofUkraine, “On state administration.”5. Recognize the importance of adheringto the principles of the Aurhus Conventionand keeping it as a mechanism of publicinvolvement in ecological issues. Do notapprove any resolutions that may affectthe situation without public participation(such as public and parliamentary hearings,referenda, etc.). Keep the public awareat the early stages of potential resolutionformations. Restore previous publicdiscussions regarding the government’swork.6. Acknowledge that weak ecologicalawareness and education causes ecologicalproblems. Demand from all Ukrainianadministrators at all levels the absolute

fulfillment of the following requirement,stated in Clause 7 in the Profile Law, “Onenvironmental protection”: “Ecologicaleducation is a mandatory requirementfor all officials whose duties are related tonatural resource use and environmentalprotection.”7. Strengthen the state information policyby stimulating public demand for ecologicalinformation and promoting healthy lifestyles.Environmental problems should behighlighted in the news and in educationalprograms, and daily on the Web sites ofstate authorities (similar to “EuroNews”).Information should be unbiased andsubmitted on a consistent basis.8. State administrations should consultcivic organizations in helping reviseecological programs (national, state,governmental, local, etc.). Cancel thosethat are propaganda, and not administrativedocuments. Develop national plans ofaction, particularly to carry out obligationsto international agreements. Introduceadministrative and managerial positions thathave strict accountability for effective andtransparent management, actual results,and adherence to rules and regulations.163

Chapter 7. Ecological initiatives of local societies: state support,encouragement and developmentThe ecologic balance of the environmentsuffers from pollution and exhaustion ofnatural resources. This negatively affectsthe social and industrial spheres.The negative ecological situation ismainly caused by the prioritization ofmaterial and economic values over socialand ecological ones. To resolve this adversesituation, the country must integrate ecologyinto its political, economic, and socialspheres.The term ecologization refers to activityin any social sphere directed toward greatercompliance with ecological requirements.It also includes the prioritization ofecological problems, the structure ofeconomic reorganization and improvementof economic-legislative procedures fornature use and maintenance. The primaryimportance of problems of ecologizationand the participation of local communitiesin their resolution lies in the fact that furtherenvironmental pollution and ecosystemdegradation would lead to deteriorationof both the biosphere and civilization ingeneral.Local communities’ ecological initiativesare essential, because they demonstratethat ecological issues are gaining widerpublic understanding, and this provideshope for the successful resolution of theseproblems.7.1. Possible directions for local societies’ecological activitiesIn France and other EU membercountries,the participation of civicorganizations as water consumers andusers is not only proclaimed but is alsopractically implemented through nongovernmental(public) institutions andorganizations. Analysis of Europeanlegislation shows that the introduction ofcertain provisions into Ukrainian waterlegislation would stimulate the employmentof scientific and engineering advances164in water resources preservation, whichwould increase the effectiveness of waterresources management in Ukraine.In the sphere of ecological activity, localcommunities may initiate discussion of thefollowing issues:• providing the population with high-qualityfresh water;• removal, storage and recycling of wasteproducts;• screening, disinfecting and cleansingwastewater;• controlling the spread of dangeroussubstances;• maintenance and security of green zonesand parks;• planning and supervision of land resourcesuse;• public education on ecological matters;• regulating air pollution, emissions fromstationary and mobile pollution sources.7.2. Methods of realization for localsocietiesHumans, in their confrontation withnature, have gone so far as to becomethreatening to distinct natural territories,various species of flora and fauna, and toall living things. The escalating populationand rapid growth of social demands hascalled for an enormous extraction of rawmaterials. Consequently, as byproductsof manufacturing, dangerous substancescontinuously flow into the environment.Nature constantly recedes and weakensand is no longer capable of neutralizingindustrial and other wastes that societycannot appropriate. All these factors, plusthe need to constantly increase the useof biological resources poses a threat tohumanity and the entire planet. However,the threat of civilization is only slowlyreaching human consciousness. People

must be responsible for nature in its entirety,not just its separate parts.Taking responsibility for the environmentis a long process. It can be acceleratedthrough wider distribution of ecologicalinformation and education (especially aboutecologically safe technologies, becausetechnologies that destroy nature haveno right to exist – this statement shouldbecome our civilization’s highest law).Local communities may be stimulatedto develop ecological initiatives throughecological education and daily distributionof ecological information. In particular:1. Information about the quality of freshwater, conditions for establishing waterresources for drinking needs, the quality ofthe environment, and reasons for disease.Providing quality fresh water to citizensshould be the top priority among localcommunity initiatives.Note. A major part of the rural populationuses underground waters from open wells.The groundwater on Ukraine’s flatlandsis polluted. Analyses of water pollutiondynamics and population-disease dynamicsreveal connections between these processes,i.e., those diseases are largelycaused by environmental pollution, aboveall, in water.2. Information about the state ofplumbing and sewage systems or theirabsence along with plumbing systemavailability, reasons for ground andunderground water pollution, flooded areas.Note. As a consequence of groundwaterbeing maintained by almost 28,000 artificiallakes and over 1,100 water reservoirs,the absence of sewage systems in mostvillages where water-supply systems exist,and an excessive water supply to irrigatedlands, a significant part of Ukraine’s territoryis continually and systematically flooded.Certainly, this issue would be raised on theinitiative of local communities.3. Information about the role andmeaning of ecosystems in supportinghuman life, the restoration of natural andecological balance in river basins, and theeffective use, protection, and restoration ofnatural resources in the basins.Such initiatives are very important, asa majority of settlements, especially ruralones, are located near small rivers whichestablish the basic rate and character ofpollution.4. Information and recommendationsto new agricultural producers regardingmodern, ecologically safe agriculturalproduction technologies as the agrariansector of the economy transitions to marketrelations and landowners change. Inconjunction with farm development, whena farmer is not yet “on his feet” and has noproduction equipment (i.e. tractors, ploughs,etc.), when a farmer can hardly cover hisexpenses with earnings, simple agriculturalmethods prevail – burning leftover crops,repeatedly planting grains, widespreadsunflower planting that weakens the soil,lack of organic fertilizers because of adramatic drop in livestock numbers, highprices for mineral fertilizers, etc. This raisesthe issue of complying with agriculturalstandards and maintaining land productivity.5. Information about the regulatedapplication of methods, ways, means ofprotecting agricultural plants. Attentiongrabbingbut not always ecologicallyjustified pesticide advertisements have ledto a situation of using poisonous chemicalswhose producer and effects are oftenunknown not only in rural fields, but alsoin backyards and gardens. Now syntheticpesticides – poisonous to all living thingsand which accumulate for years in soil,water and consequently in both animaland human bodies – are widespread. Aftera while, when, as a result of ecologicaltraining and information, people will fullyunderstand the harm from pesticides anddisregarding regulations for their use, publicinitiatives will encourage a transition toorganic (biological) methods of farming.6. Information about the methods,ways, and technologies that protect thepublic from transportation activity. Thepopulation of cities, especially large ones, isanxious about environmental pollution from165

automobile emissions and noise pollution.This may result in public initiatives regardingtraffic restrictions or redirecting traffic routesto outside city limits.7. Information about the impactof industrial and domestic waste onthe environment; ways, methods, andmodern technologies for recycling them.Waste-related problems are distressingfor inhabitants of large cities. Removal,storage, and other dumping procedureslead to environmental pollution, especiallyof ground and underground water. Variouslocal community initiatives could focus onrecycling industrial and domestic waste.It is impossible to list all possible localcommunity initiatives, as they will dependon the specific conditions of each location.indices of water resources should beaddressed by the basin council;• the basin council reviews the localcommunity’s proposed initiative and in caseof approval sends it to the relevant scientificresearch or project-running organizationfor an expert opinion (the organizations’services are paid for by the basin council orthe State);• upon receiving a response from theabove-mentioned organizations regardingthe proposed initiative, the basin council(or other government organ) approves theresolution on its implementation and itsbudget;• when initiatives of local communities arenot related to nature preservation, they aresent to higher administrative authorities.7.3. Ways of introducing local societies’initiativesCreating public ecological boards inevery place of inhabitance will help increaselocal societies’ effectiveness and hastenthe implementation of their environmentalinitiatives. Such boards should includepublic representatives, including those frompublic environmental groups, scientists,teachers, doctors, and representatives ofthe states, industry, and agriculture. Theseboards should have public environmentalreception rooms that function constantly.This would enable numerous ecologicalorganizations to join efforts, coordinate theirwork, and fully focus on resolving regionalecological problems.Public ecological councils act accordingto the regulations approved by theSupreme Council and with consent of localauthorities.Accordingly:• local community (village, town, city, region)initiatives should be reviewed by specialists;each resolution should be approved andsent to executive authorities for resolution;• initiatives related to water objects or theformation of qualitative and quantitative7.4. Implementation of local societies’initiatives (water management as anexample)The practical implementation of variousinitiatives from local communities (villages,towns, cities, regions) requires a certainprocedure, as community resolutions shouldbe thoroughly examined for appropriatenessto specific location, region, river, and entireecosystem. Furthermore, implementationof some initiatives might require assistance(financial, administrative, or even legislative)from the State.Thus, it is worthwhile to characterizeUkraine’s principles of water resourcesadministration and water managementto define how they can best ensureecologically safe water use in the country.A similar administrative system hasproven itself in France, where it has beenfunctioning for over 25 years. Elements ofthis system also work in Germany and otherEuropean countries. It allowed the mainwater quality index in polluted rivers suchas the Main and Rhine to improve within arelatively short time period (five-six years).Ukraine is transitioning to new formsof economic development and marketrelations. In this respect the water supply166

and resources management system facesrestructuring. Management systems arebeing converted to the basin principle,creating institutions of public water usemanagement, implementing new economiccontrols, and decentralizing administration.The major principles of water resourcesmanagement are:1. Manage river basins, not administrativeterritories. The basin principleof management is based on theinterconnection and unity of ground andunderground waters within a river basin.Thereby water resources are managed notas a once-measured physical body but as asubstance for continual use, i.e., a complexexchange system, considering the ramifiedstructure of water consumption, with thewater’s chemical make-up, environment,ecologic conditions, etc. as its fundamentalcharacteristics.2. In the final stage, water resourcesmanagement in the river basin is public attwo levels, legislative and executive. Thefirst is realized through organization ofthe basin council, the other – through theestablishment of the Water Agency (publicbasin association).The basin council acts as legislatorfor all water problems in the basin. Thecouncil should comprise accountablerepresentatives from water managementorganizations, water users, the localadministration and the public. Its membersare appointed by the administration, publiclyelected, or recommended by organizations.The Council implements water managementpolicy within the scope of nationalprograms to protect the basin’s waterresources from pollution and exhaustion,to ensure proper operation of farms andthe environment; it also approves the basinmanagement association’s action plan andbudget.National ministries and departmentstogether with the local administrationshould establish conditions to facilitateimplementation of basin council plans andshould not intrude in the work of the counciland basin water association.The water agency implements thecouncil’s resolutions. It should look afterthe condition of rivers, all water users,and guarantee coordination of waterconsumption and drainage with thepreservation of natural water sources. Oneof the top priorities for the basin waterassociation should be providing practicaland financial assistance for various kindsof work performed by agency organizationsand for projects, and also low-rate creditfinancing to other subcontractors for watermanagement activities.3. Water resources are managed with thehelp of innovative economic practices, suchas charging fees for water consumptionand pollution. This money should go tothe agency for spending to improve waterquality and the ecological conditions ofbasin rivers, water supply improvement, andother measures.It is necessary to develop a specific,scientifically grounded program for eachbasin on how to preserve and improve itswater-ecological conditions over the next 5-10 years and approve the program with thebasin council. Then the program should beimplemented by basin water managementunits. It is important that water costs are nottaxed or spent on purposes other than basinwater issues.4. Administrative decentralization. Wateris the property of the State, a national asset,and therefore all citizens have a right to useit. Therefore, water use should be managedby a joint association – agency leadershipand the local administration. The State isresponsible for settling national problemsonly.5. Implement the principle of “sharedresponsibility,” where each official entity orperson is at once owner of and responsiblefor the condition of the water object as itbelongs to him. The entity is obligated tofollow and carry out the rules and programsfor water object development and to takeresponsibility for the water object before thebasin water association.Regional (oblast) nature preservationauthorities, acting under direction of theState administration, perform fiscal andregulatory functions.167

Through industrial and economicactivity, local services provide drinkablewater, cleanse wastewater, regulate watermanagement in populated territories, andbear responsibility for the abovementionedto the administration and water association.Should this river basin water resourcesadministration system be implementedin Ukraine, both the functions andadministrative structure of Ukraine’sState Water Management Committeewould change. The committee’s new roleand functions will include ensuring theimplementation of national programs, watermanagement development of specificobjects of national importance, and waterresources preservation, the advancementof economic and ecologic-economic watermanagement methods and techniques,better interrelations between the basinassociation and various groups of waterconsumers, assistance to local communitiesin resolving local or basin problems,and operating procedures of large watermanagement units, especially inter-basinones.7.5. State support and stimulus for civilorganizationsBoth domestic and foreign experienceshow that the participation of civicorganizations in discussing natureconservation projects, eliciting publicsupport for major nature conservationefforts, especially hydro-economic objects,etc., is highly effective. In Europeancountries, the participation of publicorganizations in approving resolutions onwater management projects and procedureshas become the norm.In eliciting public involvement, thefollowing guidelines are recommended:• Organize discussion groups at earlystages of project development, especiallywith water projects, taking into considerationthat early outreach leads to successfulproject realization;• Transparency when dealing with the publicincreases effectiveness during projectdevelopment and implementation;• Clear boundaries for public participationshould be set, as it is impossible toaccommodate each person’s interests;otherwise none of the projects would everbe implemented;• Official attitudes toward public relationsare very important. State officials whowork on the projects should be open toexchanging ideas and receiving publicfeedback. They should realize that the artof having a decision approved at the sametime requires an ability to maintain publicsupport.Cooperation with civic organizationsand the population should take diverseforms: distribution of informative materials(bulletins, newspapers, magazines, videos,etc.), organization of various forums(roundtable discussions, conferences,seminars, etc.), organization of advisorycouncils, and support of communityecological organizations.State support of local society initiativesconsists of participating in the financing ofapproved projects if those projects are notincluded in local budgets, and in providingconsulting services, etc.The State should pay special attentionto projects concerned with improving publichealth (quality drinking water, support fortraining in the application of ecologicallysafe technologies to industrial andagricultural production, implementation ofinnovative low-energy, low-water or waterfreetechnologies, etc.)The State encourages local communityinitiatives in the field of environmentalpreservation by granting benefits toinvestors that fund the implementation ofprojects initiated by local communities.Recommendations:The model for cooperation betweenlocal communities and state administrativeauthorities to sustain ecological initiativesinitiated by the Ministry for NaturalEnvironmental Protection of Ukraine in1999, has turned out to be effective and isstill active in certain regions.168

Further development of such activityat the new qualitative level requires thefollowing:1. Publishing a guide to Laws andRegulations related to ecological problemsand measures on environmental protectionand distributing it to local communities.2. Regularly (quarterly) releasing conciseinformation about the ecological conditionof Ukraine’s environment (water, air, foodproducts, etc.) to localities.3. Giving broad coverage via massmedia (radio, TV, newspapers) toenvironmental protection news with specificexamples and recommendations.4. Distributing bulletins about ecologicalstandards and requirements for utilizingwater, soil, wood and other naturalresources.5. Striving to reach an understandingbetween humans and nature so thatecological standards attain the authority ofthe highest law.169

Chapter 8. Ukraine’s international integrationIN THE SPHERE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONProtecting the environment is one ofthe key fields of international integration inthe 21 st century, with primarily concerns inthe European continent. At the same time,despite active international rhetoric, Ukrainepays almost no attention to the internationalattempts in the environmental sphere. Theenvironment fails to be included in what aredefined as priority sectors of cooperationwith the EU. This is despite the fact thatenvironmental issues are important to theEU integration processes of Central andEastern European countries.8.1. Bilateral CooperationEnvironmental protection, a sensitiveissue in world politics and economics, hasbeen discussed for decades. At present,ecological issues have become important inthe fight for competitiveness, and ecologicalstandards play a considerable role duringtrade negotiations.As a consequence of human activity,especially during the last century, ourplanet’s resource potential decreased.In turn, the problems of preserving andrecovering natural resources, with the goalof ensuring sustainable development, hasgrown acute. They encourage discoveringnew ways for national development andreviewing the system of relations betweennature and humanity.The idea of attaining a new quality ofeconomic growth has been spreadingworldwide. European politicians picturethe future as a “socially and ecologicallyoriented market economy” in which “themoral responsibility of coming generations”will play a key role.Resolving ecological issues requiresboth active bilateral and multilateralcooperation. Only by means of negotiationand finding mutual solutions that negativeconsequences might be subdued andprevented in the future. The role ofecological diplomacy gains importanceand significance, particularly at the presenttime when humanity has realized that theenvironment has no borders. Only by our170mutual efforts can we place everything in“ecological” order in our universal home,the Earth. Diplomats in all countries shouldunderstand that resolving and preventingecological problems is just as importantas maintaining peace in the world.Procrastination is similar to placing a minefor future generations.The establishment of Ukraine as anindependent, democratic state takes placein a period of fundamental political andeconomical shifts within Ukrainian societyand historical changes within the system ofinternational relations.Ukraine can and must become aninfluential world country able to play asignificant role in guaranteeing political andeconomic stability in Europe. This can beachieved through its geopolitical situation,historical background, cultural traditions,rich natural resources, and strong economic,science, technical, and intellectual potential.An essential condition in Ukrainesuccessfully realizing its potential is itsactive and full integration into the worldcommunity.Worldwide image expansion of Ukraineas a reliable and predictable partner is a toppriority for Ukrainian foreign policy.Ukraine is building its bilateral andmultilateral relations upon the principles ofvolunteerism, mutual respect, equal rights,mutual benefit, and a non-intervention policyinto the internal affairs of other countries.Ukraine unconditionally maintains theprinciple of carefully fulfilling all internationalcommitments and considers duly ratifiedagreements as a part of its internal right.One of the main, priority functions ofUkrainian foreign policy is participationin resolving contemporary global issuesincluding environmental protection,according to its most important nationalinterests and tasks.Resolving ecological issues is impossiblewithout active and extended internationalcooperation. It is stipulated by the following:

• the globality of the ecological issue• the inter-border character of pollution• Ukraine’s international commitments toenvironmental protection• the benefit of knowledge and technologiesinternational exchange, as well asopportunities for foreign capital formation.Ukraine’s international environmentalactivity is provided for through a frameworkof signed conventions, protocols, and twowayagreements. It is meant both to solvejoint ecological problems and to create apositive image for the country.Ukraine is a party to almost 50 bilateralagreements. Although most of thoseagreements have a framework character,nevertheless they should be consideredsufficient grounds for further cooperationsince they provide opportunities to definethe ways of dealing with various problems.At present, Ukraine has signed two-sidedagreements with such countries as theUSA, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands,Denmark, the Russian Federation, Belarus,Georgia, Moldova, Poland, Turkey, Hungary,South Africa, and so on.Bilateral agreements stipulate thefollowing principal fields of cooperation:• undertake mutually agreed actionsdirected towards reducing the negativeeffects of environmental and global climatechange on the economy and humanity;• arranging mutual and effective informationexchange related to any threat fromsignificant cross-border pollution on theterritory of either party, and informationexchange on forecasting its distribution;• introduce ecological training programswithin the population;• ensure an exchange of information in thefield of environmental protection;• harmonize ecological legislation, standardsand regulation in environmental protectionand nature management;• improve economic mechanisms foradministering environmental protection andnature use.Two-sided cooperation in environmentalmatters aids implementation of stateecological policy on the international leveland creates favorable relationships withother countries. These relationships areuseful toward fulfilling tasks that arise inconnection with global ecological problems.They are also useful for regional processdevelopment and managing the potentialTrans boundary impact of negative naturaland technogenic phenomena.Bilateral relations are especially valuablein learning methods and experiences inresolving certain ecological issues, andprinciples for establishing state ecologicalpolicies.Note that the priorities in the field ofbilateral cooperation had been slightlychanged within the last decade, and atthis point we may distinguish three periodsof establishing relations with the world’scountries.During the period between 1991 and1995, the process of creating contractualand legal regulations was the mostactively developed, with the help of signingagreements, memoranda, and protocolsthat laid the basis for the main principlesand identified the directions and forms ofrelations at the state and departmentallevels in the field of environmentalprotection.Development of interrelations took placebetween 1996 and 1998 and dependedupon developing common action plansand conducting meetings of committees,working groups, and other managing andcoordinating bodies created to implementsigned agreements.Between 1999 and 2004, bilateralrelations were mainly established withdonor-countries; with all other partnercountries, relations were established mostoften under circumstances and within theframework of international conventions atthe global or regional levels.Frequent rotation of leaders in theMinistry of Environmental Protection be-171

came a negative factor in developingbilateral relations.There is no general strategy ofdeveloping bilateral relations, thereforeit is required at times to urgently developan intergovernmental agreement with thevisiting country, without at all taking intoaccount the possibility for establishingcontacts and the level of real interest incooperation from both sides.Recommendations:1. Set strict criteria to elaborate andprepare international agreements.2. Along with the preparing theagreement text, it is appropriate towork out a package of measures on itsimplementation. Also, organize workinggroups if required.3. Develop methods of financialprovision to execute agreement conditionsand expenditure controls.4. Provide scientific support whendetermining the priority areas of bilateraland multilateral cooperation, implementingachieved agreements and providing for theirfinancial support.5. Coordinate the work with otherministries and departments.6. Set up a database of environmentalprotection international agreementsinvolving Ukraine as a party.7. Activate cooperation with Ukraine’sforeign diplomatic representative to involvethem in in international negotiations on thisor other agreement.8. Search and involve foreign investorsto prepare and implement joint projects inthe sphere of environmental protection onmatters principal for Ukraine.9. Inform the community of foreignpolicy priorities in the field of ecology, theeffectiveness of executing agreements andthe foreign policy priorities in this field.10. Strengthen the role of nongovernmentalorganizations in executingthese agreements.8.2. Multilateral CooperationIn order to solve today’s pressingquestions and become part of the worldcommunity as it confronts global ecologicalproblems, Ukraine is actively cooperatingwith international environmental organizations.Participation in multisidedmulti-party agreements gives the countrya chance to play an active role in theinternational negotiation process, andattract financial support for solving acuteinternal ecological problems.Multilateral international agreements(conventions, protocols, supplementaryagreements) represent the only practicalway to prevent and resolve ecologicalissues that humanity faces as a result ofunbalanced policies on natural resourcerecovery and use, including ignoring futuregenerations. Analysis of those agreementswould encourage achieving the goalsand objectives specified in conferencedocuments (Rio de Janeiro). It wouldenable the identification of weaknesses andthe joining of efforts in attaining integratedsolutions to nagging ecological problems.The Johannesburg Conference shouldoblige humanity to deeper comprehendwhether we do everything required toachieve the objectives being set at theRio de Janeiro Conference, and whetherour actions are effective in setting newobjectives, taking into consideration all thechanges that occurred since then.Because of the transnational, andsometimes even global, character ofecological problems, their resolutionrequires cooperation between manycountries. Ecological issues have ceased tobe domestic only. For instance, the purposeof the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change involves the entire globalsociety. Furthermore, none of the countriesshould act independently, but in conjunctionwith the other ones to agree and reach thebest gas emission decrease indices.The main objectives of multilateralcooperation are:172

• to protect the diversity of biologicalorganisms;• to protect cross-border water currents andinternational lakes;• climate change;• ozone layer protection;• atmospheric air protection;• recycling;• to evaluate influences on the environment.Currently, the matter of Ukrainianfinancial contributions into the ConventionSecretariat is critical. The Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Ukraine is making such payments,according to international agreements withinthe UN framework. Under other documents,they are paid by Ministry of Ecology andNatural Resources. The budget of Ukraineprovides funds for payments of current duesand covering debts, but unfortunately not inthe full amount. Secretariat managementunderstands the situation in our country andallows postponed dues payments. However,this may lead to a situation in which Ukrainewould be deprived of becoming a partyto one or another convention (protocol,agreement) that in turn would lead toundesirable consequences in both thepolitical and economic contexts.In the economic context, Ukraine’sdeparture or exclusion from a convention,agreement or protocol would cost morethan the regular payment of dues. Nointernational precedent of any countryleaving any convention, protocol oragreement has ever occurred before. It maycause a negative international resonance.For the moment, the practice of membershipexclusion because of non-payment of duesdoes not exist in any convention on natureprotection.No less important is the moral damagecaused by constant reminding at forums andin letters about Ukrainian debt under variousenvironment protection conventions.Climate ChangeAt the June, 1992 United NationsConference on Environment andDevelopment in Rio de Janiero (Brazil), 155countries, including Ukraine, signed the UNFramework Convention on Climate Change.It came into force on March 21, 1994, ninetydays after official notification from the 50thcountry that ratified the Convention.The Verhovna Rada of Ukraine didratify the Convention on October 29, 1996;and according to UN regulations, Ukrainebecame party to it as of September 11,1997.Today, the Convention has been ratifiedby 194 countries, including one organizationof regional economic integration, namelythe European Union.During the first session of the PartiesConference in Berlin (1995), the BerlinMandate that represents the legalization ofliabilities of the countries specified in Annex1 (wealthy countries and countries withtransition economies) was reconciled byapproving a special protocol.The quantitative obligations on limitingand decreasing greenhouse gas emissionswere determined by the Kyoto Protocol,which was coordinated and approved atthe third session of the UN FrameworkConvention Conference on Climate Change(December, 1997, Kyoto, Japan). TheKyoto Protocol provides for the voluntaryparticipation of parties in realizing “flexiblemechanisms” for fulfilling obligations: jointimplementation, greenhouse gas emissionquota trading, and mechanisms for cleandevelopment.Ukraine signed the Kyoto Protocol onMarch 15, 1999 and ratified it on February4, 2004. The result was an improvementin Ukraine’s international image in terms ofglobal ecological policy.In recent years, Ukraine activelydeveloped bilateral cooperation in climatechange issues. In particular, the followingagreements were signed:173

• Memorandum between the Ukrainian andCanadian governments on cooperation onclimate change, including mutual activities(1999);• Memorandum of intent between theUkrainian and American governments oncooperation on climate change (1999);• Memorandum of cooperation on climatechange between the Ministry of Ecologyand Natural Resources in Ukraine and theMinistry of Ecology in Denmark (2003);• Memorandum of mutual understandingbetween the Ministry of NaturalEnvironmental Protection of Ukraine and theUN Development Program on cooperationin the field of sustainable development ofthe environment and energy (2004);• Memorandum of mutual understandingbetween the Ministry of NaturalEnvironmental Protection of Ukraine and theUN Development Program on cooperationin the field of climate change (2004).Obvious is the necessity of developingand signing relevant agreements withcountries with interest in cooperating withUkraine through commonly establishedmechanisms, especially with Japan, theNetherlands, Austria, Germany and Sweden(note that according to the Kyoto Protocol,Sweden has almost the lowest level ofgreenhouse gas emissions and is entitledto increase them by four percent from their1990 base level).An agreement was reached with Japanto organize a working group of expertsto prepare proposals to collaborate onclimate change issues. Note that Japandemonstrates significant interest, especiallyin realizing the establishment of mutualprojects in Ukraine. This is confirmed by thenumerous meetings with representativesof large Japanese companies, such asMarubeni, Sumitomo, etc.At the same time, cooperation betweendomestic scientists, businessmen and theirforeign colleagues should be developed.It will enable to expand the area ofcooperation and to strengthen Ukraine’sposition on the world market as one of174the key players in realizing Kyoto Protocolmechanisms.In the framework of achievedagreements, several programs werelaunched to ensure Ukraine’s ability to keepits UNFCCC obligations.Between 1999 and 2003, the “Initiativeon Climate Change Issues” informationcenter was functioning in Kyiv, financiallysustained by the U.S. Agency forInternational Development.The International Development Agencyof Canada provided financial aid for aCanadian-Ukrainian program of ecologicalcooperation between 1999 and 2002. Theprogram was aimed strengthening Ukraine’spotential to resolve climate change issues.Between 2001 and 2003, a projectnamed “National Strategic Investigationin Ukraine on Mutual Establishment” wasimplemented through mutual programswith the World Bank and Switzerland.The principal objective of this researchwas to provide Ukrainian state authoritieswith instruments to analyze and use thepossibilities of potential internationalmarkets in reducing greenhouse gasemissions reduction through the applicationof mutually established mechanisms.The Kyoto Protocol offers economicinstruments to reduce greenhouse gasemissions to countries that agreed to takeresponsibility for their levels between 2008and 2012. As we know, the Kyoto Protocolcame into legal force in the beginningof 2005 and will be valid until December31, 2012. Decisions reached at the 11 thParties Conference on Climate Changeand the first session of the Kyoto Protocolparties, which took place in November andDecember 2005, offer an analysis on theissues of the future of the “carbon business”and inheritance of using greenhouse gasemission units. The main purposes of theParties Conference were:1. To pass the Marrakech Agreements.2. To create working groups of KyotoProtocol and arrange their work.3. To establish the process ofnegotiations regarding future commitments.

The Parties Conference unanimouslyapproved the Marrakech agreements,excluding the system of keepingcommitments, and decisions on thefollowing key issues:• how to maintain gas emissions registersand reports;• how to review and approve mutuallyestablished projects;• how to review and approve cleandevelopment mechanisms;• how to maintain national registers ofemission units;• the conditions for trading quotas;• additional quotas in Section 3.4 of theProtocol (forestry measures).These decisions gave the “green light”in developing the Kyoto Protocol’s uniquemechanisms, such as such as executingmutually established projects and tradingquotas.Foreseeing the main idea of the globalsociety main decisions on the problems andprospects of Kyoto Protocol implementation,a group of Ukrainian experts prepareda package of analytic materials, “GlobalClimate Change: Economic and LegalMechanisms of Implementing the KyotoProtocol in Ukraine.”It reports on the actual situation inUkraine and in most countries that upholdthe UNFCCC international commitments,gain positive experiences in realizing theKyoto Protocol’s “flexible mechanisms”,and are actively involved in the internationalnegotiation process. Among three “flexiblemechanisms,” the mechanism of mutualprojects was described in the most detail,including the world’s positive experiencein its realization. It lists the main principalsin developing the projects; techniques toidentify those that meet Ukraine’s nationalinterests; and the theoretical grounds forthe procedures and requirements on howto select the most effective projects. It alsocontains orientation analysis and estimatesthe potential of mutually established projectsin Ukraine.To initiate activity directed towardsresolving climate change issues and, inparticular, implementing the Kyoto Protocolin Ukraine, a “National Plan of Activitiesto Implement the Kyoto Protocol to theUNFCCC” had been developed by theMinistry of Nature and approved by theCabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on August18, 2005 # 346-r. Realization of the planinvolved all related Ministries, centraland local government bodies and localgoverning institutions.To execute the plan named, “TheOrder of Considering, Approving andRealizing Projects Oriented TowardReducing Anthropogenic Emissions orIncreasing Greenhouse Gases Absorptionin Accordance with the Kyoto Protocol tothe UN Framework Convention on ClimateChange,” a resolution by the Cabinet ofMinisters of Ukraine that was developedand approved on February 22, 2006 # 206.With the goal of legally providing anddefining procedures to review, approveand implement the mutually establishedprojects, Effective Guidance manuals wereprepared on issues of developing andapproving mutually established projectsin Ukraine, which included a database ofpotential mutually established projects inUkraine.Most of all, the Effective Guidancemanual enables both domestic and foreigninvestors to clearly estimate their capabilityin implementing mutually establishedprojects, to master compulsory rules andprocedures necessary for their executionand mechanisms of searching and makingapproved decision.On a practical level, it gives Ukraine’sgovernment the possibility of beginningactivity in implementing mutually establishingprojects, which domestic enterprises andorganizations are impatiently anticipating,along with international investors.175

Recommendations:Ukraine’s government should implementpractical measures for:• developing and effectively following-upon implementing agreements, contractsand other relevant documents related toestablishing mutual projects in Ukraine;• maintaining effective relations with theConvention Secretariat on Climate Change,international donors and companies onissues related to mutually establishedprojects in Ukraine;• gathering information about prospectivedomestic and foreign partners andanalyzing their potential through forming theappropriate databases;• initial processing of information receivedfrom either parties;• determining the relevancy of informationreceived on mutually established projectsbased on set criteria;• preparing a package of documentsfor Interdepartmental Board review,including ‘expert conclusions’ drawn fromthe results of processed documents andrecommendations on the approval orrejection of offers;• monitoring mutually established projectsboth in general and in separate stages, withfurther proposals on their improvement orstopping the realization;• preparing of reports ConventionSecretariat on climate change;• providing consulting services on KyotoProtocol implementation.Ozone Layer ProtectionIn 1985 the Ukrainian SSR signed theVienna Convention for Protection of theOzone Layer, with it being ratified in 1986.On February 18, 1988 the Ukrainian SSRsigned the Montreal Protocol on Substancesthat Deplete the Ozone Layer, and wasratified on September 13, 1988. Ukraine’sparticipation in this process has thereforelasted about 20 years, with the last 10 ofthese being characterized as the mostproductive.Starting January 1, 1994, Ukraineneither formally nor practically executedthe Montreal Protocol requirements. Thereasons were understandable; there weresignificant economic difficulties with thetransition period. Ukraine turned out to beunable to finance conversion projects. Atthat time, the assets of enterprises did notsuffice for modernizing their productivecapacities.In light of such a situation, Ukraine wasforced to turn to the Parties of the Protocolin 1995 with the request to review thestatus of executing the Montreal Protocolin the country and use measures on aninternational level. Taking the Ukrainiandelegation’s request into account, the VIIMeeting of Montreal Protocol Parties haddecreed special directive VII/19 concerningUkraine, taking into account its inability tokeep the Protocol’s requirements withinthe following years. However, internationalsanctions would not be applied if Ukraine:• ensured regular reporting of ozonedepletingsubstance use in the country;• developed and implemented a nationalprogram to stop the manufacturing and useof ozone-depleting substances.According to that decision, it wasrecommended that Ukraine be providedwith international technical assistancewith the goal of transitioning to ozone-safesubstitutes and technologies.In executing the Montreal Protocolrequirements, Ukraine had undertakenlegislative measures, namely:• the necessary legal and organizationalpreconditions were created for thedevelopment of appropriate work; thedecree creating the InterdepartmentalCoordinating Commission on ImplementingMontreal Protocol Requirements wasapproved;• the “Program to Stop Ozone-DepletingSubstance Manufacturing and Use” wasapproved;• the London amendment to the MontrealProtocol was ratified;176

• the licensing system of exporting andimporting of ozone-depleting substancesseparately and as components of equipmentwas introduced (Annex A and B to theMontreal Protocol);• the system of annual reporting to theConvention Secretariat on manufacturing,exporting and importing ozone-depletingsubstances (Annex A, B, C and E to theMontreal Protocol).An important step on the road toeliminating ozone-depleting substances inUkraine was the realization of the projecteliminating substances that ruin the ozonelayer. Ten of the largest enterprises, usersof ozone-depleting substances, receivedozone-protective and ozone-preservingequipment. As a result, about 1,000 tons ofozone-depleting substances were withdrawn(the remainder from the overall volume,between 20 and 30 percent, consisted ofmachinery and equipment that is graduallybeing exchanged for that which is ozoneprotective).In 1998, the Tenth Meeting of the Partiesdefined Ukraine’s conditions as a Party tothe Montreal Protocol as:• stopping the export and import of ozonedepletingsubstances listed in Annex A andB of the Montreal Protocol starting January1, 2002, particularly cold-agent CFV-12, themost harmful substance for the ozone layer;• renewing the national program to stopmanufacturing and using ozone-depletingsubstances.In case of violations of theserequirements, a decision would be madeto apply economic and other sanctionsagainst Ukraine, particularly placing a banon trading ozone-depleting substances withUkraine, as a country that breaches theMontreal Protocol.Ukraine did fulfill the requirements.Thus in 2002, the government intensifiedits control on exporting and importing theabove-mentioned substances listed inAnnexes A and B of the Montreal Protocol.The Montreal Protocol is currentlythe most developed and concrete globalecological agreement. It is not easy for anycountry to fulfill the numerous requirementsand obligations determined by thisdocument, which becomes stricter everyyear. This document has great politicalimportance, and goes far beyond theboundaries of ecological policy. Currently,a country’s success in fulfilling the MontrealProtocol serves as an indicator of thatcountry’s ability to fulfill its internationalobligations, and be a reliable and decentmember of the world community.Recommendations:In the immediate future, to implementon the national level the following stepsin implementing the Montreal Protocol inUkraine:• ratifying the Montreal amendment to theMontreal Protocol;• developing a national action plan onimplementing the Montreal Protocol;• approving a new edition of the programto stop manufacturing and using ozonedepletingsubstances in Ukraine;• obtaining a quota from the OzoneSecretariat to export ozone-depletingsubstances to sustain Ukraine’s vital needsin 2002;• storing reserves of ozone-depletingsubstances (so-called cold-agent and gallonbanks);• introducing and applying ecologicalmarking of ozone-depleting substances andproducts that contain them;• broadly informing the population aboutthe consequences of ozone-depletingsubstance emission into the atmosphere;• developing a program to gradually ceaseozone-depleting substance use in the sectorin the servicing and repair of refrigeratorsand other home appliances.Taking into account the country’sfinancial and economical situation, it isnecessary to also activate cooperation withboth international organizations and thegovernments of certain countries on financialsupport for programs that cease ozonedepletingsubstance use in Ukraine.177

Persistent Organic PollutantsFocus on the problem and itssignificanceThe problem of persistent organicpollutants (POPs) is a global one, asPOPs are the most toxic and hazardousof chemical compounds. Differing bychemistry, scope of production, and degreeof danger, persistent organic pollutantsmay be characterized by four commonproperties, such as:• resistance to decomposition and long-termstorage capability;• ability to accumulate in biota and to passthrough food chains to human bodies,where they accumulate in adipose tissueparticularly;• ability to transmit through the environmentover long distances; and• high toxicity.Those characteristics allow POPs to belisted among global ecoloical problems,such as ozone layer depletion, climatechange, and biodiversity disruption.Today, humanity is still unaware ofthe complete list of POPs, which varyfrom anywhere a dozens to hundreds ofsubstances.Starting in the mid-1990s, globalsociety began focusing its attentionon POPs. It studied the characteristicsof the first twelve POPs, which wereimmediately called “dirty dozen” for theirnegative impact on the environmentand unpredictable consequences onhuman health. The “dirty dozen” includesnine high toxic pesticides (4,4-DDT –dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, dihedron,caldron, heptachlor, murex, toxaphene,endrin, chlordane, hexachlorobenzene –HCB), factory waste (polychloride biphenyls-PHB and also hexachlorobenzene –HCB)and a group of substances generatedas byproducts of some production andcombustion processes. They are calleddioxins (polychloride dibenzo-n-bioxins anddibenzofuranes).178To protect human health and theenvironment from persistent organicpollutants, lower their use, and furtherliquidate and prevent the creation of the12 most toxic POPs, an internationaldirect action document – the StockholmConvention on Persistent Organic Pollutants– was created and presented for signing inMay, 2001. The convention went into effectin May, 2004. Ukraine signed the conventionin May, 2001 during a diplomatic conferenceof plenipotentiaries in Stockholm.The POPs Convention definesthe measures to eliminate the first 12POPs from the environment and theirsafe destruction in order to prevent anegative effect on human health and theenvironment. It also intends to prolongthe list of the first 12 POPs, defining “newcandidates” among chemicals that possessPOP characteristics.This issue is still of current importancefor Ukraine, first of all due to farming andpesticide use. During the 1980s, intensivetechnologies in plant cultivation resulted inan average annual pesticide use of 100,000tons.Nevertheless in the beginning of the1970s, some types of pesticides wereprohibited, although their productioncontinued and was directed toward farming.Prohibited and useless pesticides began toaccumulate at storage centers and farms,especially chemicals of chloral organiccompounds.After the U.S.S.R. collapsed, manyowners had supplies of needless pesticides;documentation and lists of their quantity andavailability were frequently lost; improperstorage led to ruined containers, while theimproper packing and marking of thesechemicals led to their mislabeling. Thereforeat this moment, there is no reliableinformation regarding the quantity or qualityof the remainder of useless pesticides inUkraine.Between 1998 and 2003, there wereseveral attempts made to completelyinventory or identify accumulated uselesspesticides. Nevertheless for some reason,

it had never been completed and existingdata do not depict the real picture of theiravailability in Ukraine.To implement the decree issued by theCabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on June 1,2004 #294-p “On industrial infrastructureintended to annihilate prohibited anduseless pesticides,” local institutions underthe Farm Policy Ministry, the Ministryof Nature, and the Ministry of HealthProtection of Ukraine performed a completeinventory in the places of accumulated anduseless pesticides. According to its results,Ukraine is currently storing 19,300 tons ofprohibited and useless pesticides at 4,983farm storages under all forms of ownership.The results of the prohibited uselesspesticides and prohibited waste productsinventory as part of the GEF/UNEP project,“Implementing measures in developing anational plan to implement the StockholmConvention on POPs in Ukraine” statethat as of January 31, 2006, Ukrainecontains 20,237.60 tons of useless andprohibited pesticides, including 16,964.80of unidentified pesticides and 2,021.20 tonsof pesticides from the POPs list. Moreover,there are 11,088 tons of waste productsfrom the POPs list (hexachlorobenzenes) inUkraine.This project also included evaluations ofPHB storage availability and wastes fromunintentional production of dioxins, PHB,and HCB.Principal problems in the field of POPstreatment in Ukraine are the following:• there are 18,986 tons of POPs-containingchemicals accumulated in Ukraine and theAutonomous Republic of Crimea, accordingto past estimates, which are extremelyhazardous to the environment and humanhealth;• the inventory and identification of uselesspesticide storage is incomplete, i.e. the reallevel of danger is unknown;• the large number (about 5,000) andinappropriate condition of useless pesticidestorage causes significant regional soilpollution;• a disturbingly low awareness amongthe population on the negative effect ofaccumulated useless pesticides on humanhealth;• PHB-containing liquids and equipment thatrequire secure elimination, according to theStockholm Convention on POPs;• the lack of hi-tech capabilities for the safeannihilation of POPs particles (uselesspesticides, PHB, HCB);• the volume of unintentional POPsemissions during manufacturing processesis not completely estimated, preventivemeasures are absent and there is nogradual plan of abandoning these obsoletetechnologies;• Ukraine never implemented dioxin biomonitoringand never controlled content ofthese chemicals in food products.Methods of resolution using experienceof other EU countries (or the best globaland European guidelines)The Stockholm Convention on POPshas been signed by 151 countries, ofwhich 120 countries became Parties to theConvention.To fulfill their obligations under theStockholm Convention on POPs, the Partiesshould develop National Plans to Implementthe Stockholm Convention (NPI).The Stockholm Convention aboutPOPs provides for financial and technicalassistance on behalf of the developedcountries for the others to implement theConvention.To support the process of ratifyingThe Stockholm Convention on POPs incountries with transition economies anddeveloping countries, the UN EnvironmentalProgram (UNEP) initiated a broad programfinanced by Global Ecology Fund (GEF).The program was created with the purposeof providing those countries with assistancein order to develop National Plans toImplement the Stockholm Convention on179

POPs, and developing national potential inthe sphere of managing them.In September 2003, Ukraine launchedthe GEF/UNEP project, “Ensuring measuresto develop a National Plan to Implement theStockholm Convention on POPs in Ukraine.”Its general objective is to develop nationalplans to effectively resolve any issuesrelated to quantitative reduction substances,annihilation of their storage for the sake ofhuman health and environmental protectionaccording to the Convention’s requirementon POPs.National priorities of Ukraine in the fieldof POPs treatmentWith the help of introducing the GEF/UNEP project, “Ensuring measures todevelop a National Plan to Implement theStockholm Convention in Ukraine,” thefollowing are current, earlier-designatednational priorities of Ukraine in the sphereof POPs treatment:1. Develop a national legislative basethat regulates POPS treatment according tothe Stockholm Convention requirements.2. Improve POPs monitoring systems inUkraine.3. Legislatively ensure the introductionand actualization of a State Register thatregulates the storage locations and limits ofPOPs.4. Chose the most ecologicallyappropriate and economically safetechnologies to neutralize or annihilatePOPs and sites polluted by them.5. Destroy (recycle) storage over10,000 tons of HCB - waste of tetrachloridecarbon production – at “Oriana-Galev Ltd.”in Kalush, Ivano-Frankivsk; completelyclose this enterprise and monitor the area.6. Neutralize (destroy) prohibited anduseless pesticides that are POPs; destroywaste products and equipment that containPHB using modern, ecologically safetechnologies.7. Reduce or eliminate POPsemissions.8. Develop an analytical base toimprove the monitoring system of POPs.9. Discover and rehabilitate areas andterritories polluted by POPs using moderntechnologies, including agro-technologiesand biotechnologies.10. Direct scientific and research activitytoward resolving the POPs issue.11. Promote information among thepublic and interested parties regardingPOPs.12. Mobilize resources and finance anyexpenses, foreign investments particularly,to implement the National Plan to Implementthe Stockholm Convention on POPs inUkraine.Ratification of the Stockholm Conventionwill give Ukraine the possibility to becomeinvolved in the mechanism of technical aidthat was approved at the first meeting ofthe Stockholm Convention of Parties in May2005.Recommendations1. Complete the process of preparingand holding broad discussion on theNational Plan to Implement the StockholmConvention on POPs in Ukraine.2. Obtain approval from the Cabinet ofMinisters of Ukraine on the National Planto Implement the Stockholm Convention onPOPs in Ukraine.3. Obtain approval from the SupremeCouncil of Ukraine on the National Planto Implement the Stockholm Conventionon POPs in Ukraine; ensure the processof its introduction with resources on thebasis of national sources of financing andinvolving technical aid, as provided for inthe Stockholm Convention.4. Commence the development of anational strategy and plan to minimize risksfrom accumulated unused pesticides withexpanded involvement of public at the earlystages.5. Support the process of developinga national strategy and plan to minimizerisks from accumulated, unused pesticidesthrough necessary financial recourses.180

The ecological state and mainenvironmental problems of Ukraine’sCarpathian MountainsThe Carpathians are an importantecosystem for the entirety of Centraland Eastern Europe. Traditional formsof forest management, agriculture, andindustry that did not significantly impact theenvironment are no longer practiced. Theyhave been replaced by destructive intensivetechnologies, even as poverty amongthe local population has exacerbated thenegative environmental situation evenmore.Imperfect technologies and forest loggingin the Carpathian Mountains resulted incomplicated ecological consequences,namely:• the average depth, damage to surfacearea and volume of eroded soil increasedby more than five percent;• the drainage area increased by about 50percent;• water turbidity increased by 30 times;• areas of damaged verdure grew larger;• natural recovery became longer.Disturbing the ecological balancebecause of deforestation and logging ofconiferous woods led to the disappearanceof numerous flora and fauna species, andto the expansion of some geomorphologicprocesses, such as surface soil surfaceerosion, mudflows, mudslides, etc.Despite the significant role of theforest nature-reserves of the CarpathianMountains in preserving biological andlandscape diversity, their area is insufficientand the preservation regime is not strictenough. Significant territories of naturereservesites are still being used. Theirborders were not officially defined, causingmuch controversy among the administrationand local government. Significant part ofthe territories are landscape regional parkswhere administration and appropriate,proper oversight and security are absent.Among those sites, national parks playa special role. There are five of them inCarpathian Mountains. Nevertheless, underthe Communist regime, the term “nationalparks” was strongly associated with the term“Ukrainian nationalism.” For this reason, inthe state nature conservancy system, moreattention was paid to the to the naturalnature-reserves, which had no recreationalpurpose and without proper state financingwere meant to “die off” gradually.Inhabited Carpathian Mountain territoriesgenerate the most problems because oftheir socio-economic activity, which createsenvironmentally-damaging growth. Mostmountain village territories are not servicedby gas networks; therefore, a significantamount of wood is used for householdpurposes. The villages lack garbagecollectioninfrastructures, which leads topollution of mountain rivers and streams,from household wastes. Also dumpedinto the streams is a significant amount ofsawdust from private sawmills, which hasmultiplied 5-6 times over the past few years.Local economic activity lacks ecologicalsensitivity which negatively impactslocal eco-systems. Unemployment andintensification of social crises in mountainrural areas lead to abuse of naturalresources. Because of extensive cattlegrazing, the upper forest zone, which playsan important soil-saving role, has beensignificantly damaged.The absence of organized and equippedtourist routes, along with rather intensivetourist concentrations, result not only inlittered territories, but further extinction ofrare species of plants and animals. Gameand fish (especially trout) poaching is quitetypical for the mountainous areas as well.More hunters arrive, while informationabout the availability of game is falsified,which leads to a “competition” betweenhunters and predators. On the other hand,reducing hunting reserves sometimesstimulates predators to attack cattle. In turn,it provokes farmers to shoot off predators.Therefore, the insufficient study ofthe Carpathian region’s biota, especiallythe fauna of invertebrates, and the lack in181

monitoring the territories, do not promotea balanced development of Ukraine’sCarpathian Mountains.Recommendations1. Develop and introduce a nationalstrategy of balanced ecological developmentof mountainous regions.2. Establish state financial aid fundto support balanced development of theCarpathians.3. Increase the percentage of theCarpathian forest land to between 10 and12 percent.4. Return the Carpathian ecosystems totheir natural, or at least half-natural state.5. Utilize skyline removal methods oflogging and even-gradual ways of logging.6. Abandon massive artificial cultivationof fir forests.7. Cease logging of coniferous woods.8. Consider forestry as supplementaryin the local population’s health andrecreation.9. Produce domestic, ecologically safeequipment for the timber-logging industry.10. Distinguish national, regional andlocal ecological priorities, taking intoconsideration the specifics of social andeconomic development.11. Expand areas of nature-reserveterritories between 20 and 25 percent.12. Set strict boundaries for naturalreservesites.13. Administer regional landscape parks.14. Inventory all resources of landscapeand biotic variety; identify the mostrepresentative and sensitive ecosystems.15. Train personnel to manage natureconservancy territories.16. Expand the tourism industry bybuilding tourist houses and makingecological paths in mountains, i.e. the“cultivation of wild tourism.”17. Create a paving system to encouragedevelopment of ecological and “green”tourism.18. Increase meadow valley cultivation.19. Make cadastral estimates of afterforestand shrub lands to determine theirfurther use.20. Adhere to rules of allowable levels ofpasture use.21. Improve the condition of riverbeds,streambeds and riversides.22. Regulate streams and rivers byerecting waterfalls and dams.23. Expand public education about floraand fauna.24. Create regulations on effectivelydeveloping the local economy, which wouldenable optimal realization of human planswithout ruining the riches of nature.25. Promote and demonstrate to thelocal population the benefits of ecologicallybalanced management of privateenterprise.26. Work out a system of benefits andcompensation for ecologically balancedmanagement of private enterprise.27. Prohibit hunting in the Carpathiansfor five years.28. Finance local projects that combinesustainable development with naturepreservation.29. Implement monitoring researcheson water drainage and quality, soil andecological reconstruction, modificationof flora and forest vegetation and faunamigration, reproduction and stability.30. Analyze ecological categories ofappearing species as they are affected bymain ecological factors, such as humidity,temperature, light and the acid reactionof soils, to emphasize the ecologicalcharacteristics of local ecosystems.31. Increase the interest of governmentstructures to involving non-governmentalorganizations in environmental preservation;182

form public forums to contribute topromote the introduction of the CarpathianConvention and Initiatives of the CarpathianEcoregion.32. Expand international cooperationin various sectors of society and to involveinvestments to develop the mountainousregions of the Carpathians.33. Realize international cross-borderprojects with the purpose of preserving bigmammals such as bison, brown bear, deer,wolf, lynx and others.34. Form a regional ecosystem of theUkrainian Carpathians and implement it intothe Pan-European ecosystem.Genetically Modified OrganismsRecent years have seen biologists makebreakthroughs that will soon determine howapplied biotechnology will develop. Geneticengineering has become a productiveforce that has rapidly created a marketfor genetically modified organisms. Todaygenetically modified plant crops cover 80millions hectares across the world. To makeconcrete predictions about this issue isrisky, however, given certain concerns onthe part of scientists.The great hopes of humanity are pinnedon molecular biotechnology:• accurate diagnostics, prevention and cureof the most infectious and genetic diseases;• significant crop harvest increases throughthe creation of plants resistive to pests,fungus, viruses and negative environmentalfactors;• modification of microorganisms thatproduce various biologically activesubstances, for instance, anti-biotics,polymers, amino acids and enzymes;• breed selection of livestock and otheranimals with perfected heredity;• recycling of wastes that pollute theenvironment.Ukrainian science works on the abovementionedfields. At the same time, theabilities of Ukrainian scientists in these fieldsare extremely limited. The state financesno further development of biotechnologies.Especially urgent is approving a law onbio-security. The absence of such a lawrestrains research that offers answers to thefollowing issues of biosafety:• the negative impact of organisms modifiedby genetic engineering on other livingorganisms, or the surrounding environment;• the creation and spreading of geneticallymodified organisms may reduce the naturalgenetic variety;• the lawfulness of using genetic engineeringmethods to change the genetic nature ofhuman beings;• utilization of new diagnostic methods mayviolate the human right to privacy;• patents for animals created by geneticengineering;• active financing of molecular biotechnologymay hamper the development of otherimportant technologies;• attempts to maximize profit may create asituation in which only wealthy people wouldbenefit from molecular biotechnology;• molecular biotechnology may negativelyaffect traditional agriculture;• new medical approaches based onmolecular biotechnology discoveries mayreplace traditional but effective treatmentmethods;• fight for priorities may prevent free ideaexchange between scientists.So amid the process of modernbiotechnological development, Ukraineshould clearly define its position, comingfrom its own economic interests as apotentially mighty agricultural producer. It’sno secret that in recent years, Ukraine as apotential market for producing high quality,ecologically clean agricultural produce isattracting some biotechnological companiesinterested in promote their products in newmarkets.183

On the other hand, Ukraine is apotentially influential country with a diversegenofund of plants and animals that haveunique natural characteristics. Such naturalwealth influences Ukraine’s cooperationwith the European community and itshighly advanced biotechnological andtechnological sectors. Such cooperation,however, is possible only after new laws onbiological safety have been passed.Black SeaThe Black- Azov Sea region (thecoastline and shelf zone) will in the futureplay a very important role in Ukraine’seconomy and politics. The significant growthof tourism and recreation on the coast, theexpansion of recreation and sanitary zones,and the imminent planned development ofunderwater natural resource exploitation(primarily oil, gas, and gas hydrates), willgenerate what forecasters say are multibilliondollar profits for the country andthe private sector. On the other hand,they will inevitably increase the generalanthropogenic load on the water ecosystemand coastal landscapes. Ecological risksin the region will increase in number andseriousness, and the ecological safetylevel for humans will decrease. Aquaticecosystem conditions will deteriorate,resulting in reduced stocks of fish, whichis already in critical condition. Therefore, anurgent assessment of the current situationis necessary in both the most prospectivelysuccessful water areas, and areas of waterthat are currently in dangerous ecologicalcondition, to prevent them from descendinginto complete degradation. It is urgent togather all ecological information in a registerof the main seaside and coastal sites todevelop programs of effective ecologicalpolicy in the region. The peculiarity of thispolicy and the region’s ecological safetylevel are not only of national importance,but have significant international meaningas well because of the following reasons:• about one-third of the continental Europebelongs to the Azov-Black Sea basin,which has now become among the mostecologically insecure in the world;• all six countries which endured coastalerosion by the Black and Azov seasare very concerned about satisfactoryecological condition of those seas (Ukraine,Russia, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, andGeorgia). Those countries are not only themain polluters of the seas, but also themain consumers of everything the seasprovide. They account for preserving thesea’s ecosystems before their nations andall of humanity;• other countries joined by their riversystems are also concerned about thissubject;Protecting the Black and Azov Seasand rehabilitating their ecosystemsare issues that in the past 15 yearshave drawn significant attention from anumber of international organizations,including the EU and the UN. Manyinternational programs and projects (GlobalEnvironmental Fund, TACIS, and others,1993-2003) are dedicated to evaluatingthe Black Sea’s ecological condition andpriorities. They implemented ecologicalmonitoring of water areas and studied theirbiodiversity, opportunities to improve theseaside’s integral management, and theestablishment of a Black Sea ecologicalfund, etc.Between 1996 and 2003, the Ukrainiangovernment and scientists paid muchattention to resolving Black Sea ecologicalissues (the National Academy of Scientists,Ministry of Ecology, and others). In 1998, aCabinet of Ministers Resolution ratified theConcept for Environmental Protection andRehabilitation of the Azov and Black Seas.In 2001, the Law of Ukraine “On Ratificationof the State Program of Protection andRehabilitation of the Azov and Black SeaEnvironment (2001-2010)” was passed.The national and international programsand projects mentioned above wereonly partially realized, due to a lack ofprecise coordination and firm control,and a lack of financing. The alarmingdevelopment of destructive processes inthese regions continues. Biological seastocks are catastrophically falling, and the184

contamination and ecological hazard levelsare rising as confirmed by the reports ofthe responsible services in the Ministry ofNatural Environmental Protection of Ukraineand the results of international inspections.One of the region’s main problems is aninsufficient amount of drinking water, thedeficit of which is growing.Among the main tasks in improving theregion’s ecological situation and preservingand recovering the Black and Azov seaecosystems are the following:• inventory and ecological classification ofall main sources of environmental pollutionin the Autonomous Republic of Crimea andthe southern areas of Odesa, Mykolayiv,Kherson and Zaporizhia regions; anassessment of the power, peculiarities andthe danger of degree of those sources forthe ground ecosystems;• an ecological registration and passportsystem for the most dangerous sites andareas;• the creation of a map of ecologicalcapacity of territories and water areas thathave the most potential for recreational andtourist development, as well as recreationaland tourist zones that are alreadyfunctioning;• work out specific plans (short- and longterm)to ecologize energy, transportation,agriculture and industry in the region;• introduce the most effective moderntechnologies of water-purification andwater-preparation, taking into considerationthe region’s specifics;• regularly perform ecological audits on themore dangerous sites (underwater dumps,places of underwater drainage of run-offwater, submerged military objects, areas ofpetroleum and gas mining, etc.);• form local and regional ecologicaldatabases on the sea shelf;• provide ecological training on preservingthe Black and Azov seas.Since the Azov Sea has uniquephysical-geographical and socio-ecological185properties. It suffers from an incredibletechnogenic load, and is turning into anecological catastrophe. This is why itsproblems must be solved on the internationallevel. It is worth mentioning that specificnational and international documents callthe Azov Sea an independent sea basinthat should have its own strategic protectionand rehabilitation plan, as well as itsown international ecological center andcorresponding ecological fund.International cooperation objectives inthe region are the following:• create an International Black Sea ScientificCoordination Center (on the basis of theMarine Hydrophysical Institute of NASU, orthe Odessa State Ecological University);• form a single base of complex ecologicaldata both in the region’s separate fields(hydro-ecology, hydro-chemistry, geoecology,social ecology, medical ecology,etc.) and along ecological parameters ofseparate sites, areas, regions and zones;• reanimate and activate the work of RETamong the countries bordering the BlackSea;• restore and improve the structure,functions, sources of funding and purposeof the International Black Sea EcologicalFund;• coordinate a new scientific andorganizational structure for Black Seacountries to account for the achievementsand shortcomings of the old ecological fund;• coordinate a plan to liquidate “hot spots”on the sea coast and shelf between 2006and 2008;• coordinate national plans to developand improve plans for sewage purificationsystems in every inhabited locality of theBlack Sea coast;• introduce methods of effective control onadherence to ecological standards, rulesand regulations by all marine transport,military and patrol sites and underwatermining operations;

• coordinate and introduce nationalstrategies of ecological management ofseacoast zones, based on contemporaryinternational legislation on naturepreservation.Recreational, tourist and industrialstructures in Black Sea zone should developan ideological basis of not exceedingthe ecological biosphere capacity andits separate components, along with theinsurance of lawful work in all areas, basedon abilities.8.3. Implementation of Kyiv Conferencedecisions“Environment for Europe” is aunique regional process of determiningenvironmental policy, in which Ukrainebegan to actively participate from itsbeginning, even before independencewas proclaimed. The Kyiv Conferenceof Environmental Ministers became animportant stage of this process, especiallyfor Ukraine as an organizer. Ten yearsprior to Kyiv, at the second MinistersConference in Luzerne, Germany, theprogram on environmental protection forcentral and eastern Europe was approvedto determine environmental policy in theregion for that period. The success of itsrealization was demonstrated by the entryof most central and eastern Europeancountries into the EU In relation to this,Kyiv approved new approaches to theenvironmental policy of eastern Europe,the Caucasus and Central Asian countries,as stated in the Conference’s frameworkdocument named, Ecological Strategy(“Ecological Partnerships in the UNECERegions: Ecological Strategy for thecountries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasusand Central Asia - Strategic Structure”).The task of every country of a region,therefore, became to set specific nationaland strategic ecological goals based on anapproved framework approach.In 2003, Kiev hosted the Fifth MinisterialConference “Environment for Europe.”Fifty-one delegations from UNECE and 29international organizations, representatives186from non-governmental public ecologicalorganizations, and world mass media cameto Kiev.The conference highlighted that solvingenvironmental problems requires Europeanheads of governments and ministersto make new decisions and take activesteps toward creating an ecologically safeenvironment. Only joint decisions andcoordinated policy in this area will guaranteea safe basis for Europe and the world as awhole.Having approved a national programof realizing the decisions of JohannesburgSummit, Ukraine is actively integratinginto European society and is ready towidely demonstrate its accountability andcompetence in the process of introducingthe results of the 2002 world summit inissues of sustainable development.This conference gave new impetus to theprocess of European ecological integrationand transition to sustainable development.It is important to support and safeguardthe results of the European ecologicalintegration process.The main documents approved duringthe conference were:1. Protocol on Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment.2. Protocol on Civil Liability andCompensation for Damage Caused bythe Transboundary Effects of IndustrialAccidents on Transboundary Waters.3. Protocol on Pollutant Release andTransfer Registers.4. Framework Convention on theProtection and Sustainable Development ofthe Carpathians (Carpathian Convention).5. Ecological Partnership in the UNECERegion: Environment Strategy for theCountries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus,and Central Asia6. Pan-European Strategy on Biologicaland Landscape Diversity;7. Ecological Education for SustainableDevelopment.The Strategy widens the boundariesof cooperation among the 55 countries

of the region. It encourages attractingfinancial resources for use in preservingand restoring natural resources, creatinginstitutional potential, developing alegislative base, spreading information, andenhancing public awareness.The Kiev Conference’s summarydocument was the Ministerial Declaration,containing all the decisions that had beenapproved. This document defines UNECEecological policy for the next 10 years.Among the obligatory conclusions of theMinisterial Declaration was the approval ofkey goals and directions of activity for theStrategy for Ecological Partnership.Responsibility for attaining the Strategy’sgoals had been placed upon the easternEuropean, Caucasian and Central Asiancountries to sustain their partners.Ukraine has demonstrated its ability tosuccessfully realize initiatives on this level,which is important to the country’s externalpolicy works towards integration with theEU and Euro-Atlantic structures. Theconference was not only “environmental,”but also a “political” examination for Ukraine.The conference’s participants admitted thatUkraine successfully passed the test.The results of Kyiv Conference stillrequire comprehension and detailedanalysis. Nevertheless, we have everyreason to talk about its role in projectingthe country’s image. This conferencewas remarkable not only because of theapproval of an ecological strategy, but alsobecause it designated priorities of furtherdevelopment of the “Environment forEurope” process and became a place wherethe Carpathian Convention was signed.Ever since then, Ukraine will be associatedwith high-level European ecologicalconferences. Ecological problems of anyscope are characterized by being commonto all countries, regardless of politicalsystem, religion, military power and worldgeography.After the conference, the Ukrainiangovernment commenced implementingits resolutions. Thus, the CarpathianConvention had been ratified. Ukrainianrepresentatives are actively participating inthe preparation of documents for sustainabledevelopment education. At the sametime, a detailed action plan for fulfilling theConference’s decisions must be developedand approved at the government level. Thefollowing steps need to be taken: familiarizeemployees of the relevant ministry andrepresentatives of other state governmentorgans with the conference’s documentsand decisions; ratify signed protocols;create a strategy for further developmentof national ecological policy; and activelyinvolve the public in the planning andrealization of state environmental policy. Itis also an approval of working plan of theMinistry of Natural Environmental Protectionof Ukraine, with the goal defining cleartargets and tasks on both the national andregional levels.Recommendations:1. Develop and approve the actionplans to implement the resolutions of theKyiv Conference.2. Integrate ecological issues in thedevelopment of key economy sectors.8.4. Use of international technicalassistance and attracting investmentTaking into consideration theseriousness of ecological issues inthe region, achievement of ecologicalgoals set by the Strategy of EcologicalPartnership and Cooperation wouldrequire significant efforts from the region’scountries, especially financial. As a result,ministers appeal to donors to cooperatewith the transition economy countries tomake realistic ecological investments andfinancial plans on both the national andlocal levels. In addition, it is understandablethat for countries like Ukraine, internationaltechnical aid (that would never exceedseveral percent of national financing ofecological expenses) should, above all, bedirected to support the attempts of drawingmore serious financing from both nationaland international sources.187

Ukraine spends a significantly lowerportion of its national income (up to 0.3%of the country’s budget) on environmentalneeds in comparison with other Europeancountries. There is a substantial gapbetween what is required and the presentfinancing levels, as Ukraine typically hasa significantly small investment financingportion among its general expenses. Theother problem is that a giant portion ofecological expenses are used for financingcommunal infrastructure (mostly watersupply infrastructure and sewers).Although formally the greatest part ofexpenses are used to finance the mainnational priorities – water purification andpollution prevention – it’s possible to saythat the national environmental policy hadnot been formed on the level of specifictasks, the resolution of which wouldenable the controlling of realizing agreedupon goals. Political statements are maindeclarative and do not define generalpriorities. There are some ecologicalprograms that correspond with certain goalsof ecological policy, but their priority in thegeneral context has not been evaluated.The main problem of such programs is theconsiderable lack of financing.Management of state ecologicalexpenses is unsatisfactory. Because of theweak informational base, an assessment ofrequired expenses also remains a problem.Investment and operational expensesto achieve ecological goals are rarelycalculated directly; therefore they cannotaffect the development of a correspondingpolicy. Implementation of ecologicalpolicy largely depends on the quality offinancial management. The majority ofstate ecological sector expenditures arespent without an exact program structure ordefinition of the goals that need achieving.Inadequate expenses restrain anachievement of ecological results. Approvedprograms have no expense-effectivenessanalysis, nor realization mechanisms orrealistic financial plans. Although thoseprograms often include investment from theprivate sector and municipalities, they donot stimulate potential investors. As a result,188limited resources are allocated too broadlyamong the high number of programs andprojects, which are mostly under-financedand consequently unrealized.Weak management of ecologicalexpenses also deprives the sectorof appropriate resources. Ecologicalinstitutions play secondary roles in thebudget process and state investmentprograms. That is a consequence of theunawareness by the rest of the governmentof the economical significance of ecologicalimprovements and responsibility for theprovision of ecological services, goods andinfrastructure. Nevertheless, ecologicalinstitutions may improve their effectivenessthrough the involvement of state fundsusing recognized standards of appropriatestate financial management.Unlike most of the countries in theregion, extra-budgetary ecological fundsplay an important role in Ukraine. At thesame time, the present system of ecologicalpayments is ineffective in both involvingthe extra cost for nature preservation anddissuasion to pollute. A lesser amount ofsimpler, inflation-protected and transparentpayments are needed. Reform of ecologicalpayments (neutral with regard to incomes)is at hand, including ecologically orientedtaxation and charges for ecologicalservices.The low priority of ecological stability innational programs is a barrier to involvingcosts from international sources. In thecurrent international context of development,donor aid and loans are increasingly issuedaccording to the priorities of national plansof development.The main issues in the field of investmentinvolvement are:• an absence of substantial economicand financial information to develop aneffective policy and to direct costs to priorityproblems;• most of the costs are spent without clearprograms and objectives, and there areno instruments for realizing programs andfinancial plans;

• ineffectiveness of existing ecological fundsand the system of ecological payments andeconomic mechanisms.Recommendations:1. Improve informational support toprovide effective ecological financing andimprove transparency and availability.2. Develop solid and realistic programsand related investment priorities; applyinternational standards of financing;introduce a system to analyze the economicexpediency of all ecological projects andprograms.3. Strengthen the profitability of existingand new ecological taxes; improve thesystem of ecological funding (utilizingresources where they are collected, reducethe amount of funds, intensifying the battlewith corruption).4. Apply new market mechanisms(for example, trading of quotas within andbeyond the country).5. Involve commercial and foreignsources to finance ecological investments.6. Use opportunities to credit ecologicalexpenses as debt repayment.189

A complex assessment of nationalecological potential allows us to draftstrategic recommendations on how thefollowing can be supported: environmentalprotection measures by the government,rational use and rehabilitation of naturalresource potential and the securing ofecological safety, and the creation ofecological and economic grounds formaking a transition to a regime of ecologicalmanagement and sustainable development.Institutional changes• Complete and approve a National Strategyof Sustainable Development of Ukraine asa basic foundation of its competitivenessin the global and European civilizedenvironment.• Develop and obtain approval from theCabinet of Ministers of Ukraine for theconcept of a national system of ecologicalmanagement using the mechanismsof state, regional, civil and industrialaccountability.• Implement a complex ecological audit ofall the approved and implemented nationaland state programs. The assessmentshould have the goal of assessing programspotential and providing recommendationson identifying the mechanisms ofimplementation to reflect the experience ofthe international cooperation.• Implement on a national level the ComplexProgram of decisions reached at the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development(Johannesburg, 2002) for the years 2000-2015, by applying effective mechanisms ofmonitoring, financing, and setting prioritiesin accordance with specific goals.• Revise the draft and approve the programof scientific research on sustainabledevelopment in Ukraine as a part of theComplex Program mentioned above.• Elaborate and approve the decree ofthe Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine onstrengthening the potential implementationof international, national and stateecological programs with the renewal ofthe mechanisms of their realization andGeneral Strategic Recommendations190orientation on the principle “the polluter andconsumer pay a full price.”Chornobyl Problems• Fully implement a National Program forMinimizing the Chornobyl Catastrophe'sConsequences for 2006-10.• Concentrate on programs that lowercontamination of polluted agriculturalterritories in Polissya. Implement a systemof active agricultural countermeasures inradionuclide contaminated territories andredirect the agricultural industry to produceproducts for technical purposes.• Develop scientific, practical, and targetedtheoretical research associated withthe problems created by the Chornobylcatastrophe. Enhance the effectiveness ofecosystem monitoring and monitoring ofnatural process dynamics in contaminatedterritories. Move to enhance the barrierfunctions of ecosystems in the AlienationZone and adjacent territories.• Reconsider the status of inhabitedsites, with consideration given to the realradioactivity situation and radiation dosesreceived by the population, according toestablished Ukrainian norms.• Reconsider programs for taking theChornobyl station out of use and securingfull financing for it, given that the stationoccasionally rotates management to ensureaccountability. Who bears responsibility forthe station must be determined once and forall. Its financing system and its interrelationwith various organizations must also bedetermined.• Speed up development of the NationalProgram for Radioactive WasteManagement for 2007-12, which foreseesbuilding new nuclear-fuel storage facilitiesand units for processing liquid andhard wastes, and producing necessarycontainers.• Complete the state target program ofproviding safe burial for processed sourcesof ionizing radiation of high activity. Activate

a state register of ionizing radiationsources.• Organize preliminary work and develop aproject on a national strategy of radioactivewaste treatment. Establish a radioactivewaste treatment fund.• Insist on complete financing of the “Vector”enterprise and its further development,which should become the first step increating a national radioactive waste burial.• Determine, with public participation, thepotential use of the Alienation Zone as asite for a national radioactive and toxicwaste storage facility. In order to approvethe crucial decision at the highest levels, thenecessary scientific research must be setin motion and financed, and its fulfillmentcontrolled.Energy Policy• Take active steps to secure fulfillment ofthe Complex State Program for EnergySaving in Ukraine for the period until 2010.• Restore the national extra-budgetaryfund for saving energy and implementthe state’s partial reimbursement of creditinterest rates, designated for energy-savingpurposes (benefits crediting).• Set as a top national task the activedevelopment of energy-renewing sourceutilization and follow-up on levels and stepsto achieve set goals.• Revise or re-approve a new version ofUkraine’s energy strategy that providesfor the development and realization of thenational project, “The Energy of Nature.”Ecological culture and partnership• Prepare and submit through mass mediaan appeal to the President, the Cabinet ofMinisters, the Verhovna Rada of Ukraine,political parties and business circles aproposal from ecological civic organizationsto restore national ecological traditions andecological culture using national, politicaland business support.• Organize national eco-ethnic networksas a fundamental structure for restoringnational ethno-cultural and ecologicaltraditions.• Prepare and make agreements onNational partnership between the Ukrainiangovernment and business and civicorganizations with the goal of ecologicalrevival and recovery of the most sensitiveecosystems, particularly the most affected.• Improve or rebuild the process ofpreparing, approving and realizing strategicecological decisions, especially thoserelated to sustainable development, on theprinciples of ecological partnership andvoluntary ecological agreements.• Transform the Public council of the Ministryof Environmental Protection of Ukraineinto a Coordinating council of ecologicalpartnership, clearly stating in the provisionsits functions in preparing, approving andrealizing strategic decisions.Informational base for strategic ecologicalassessments and ecological management• Develop, on a governmental level,a scientific-methodological center foradapting to European requirements andfor developing the national ecologicalinformationalnetwork, and give this centerthe necessary authority and resources.• Develop regional informational centerswith geographical informational systemtechnologies.• Implement a system for primaryenvironmental information storage asstipulated by current legislation and stateecological policy: territorial environmentaleconomicbalances, ecological registrationof enterprises, wastes, ecologicalmonitoring, audit, and so on.• Develop and approve a Concept of aNational Ecological Informational Networkas an element of the National EnvironmentalManagement System, with creation ofregional and sectoral centers for ecologicaldata, identified in accordance with theEuropean normative methodological baseand methods of cooperation with theEuropean Environment Agency.Harmonizing Legislation• Analyze and compare EU and Ukrainianlegislation in the field of environmentalprotection.191

• Develop a national program to approveecological documents based on the EUexperience. Implement a selective approachto coordination of the appropriate legislation,taking into account the contemporarynational interests of Ukraine, its conditionsand abilities “to move to leave behind,” thatis to be oriented towards new, promisingeco-legislative mechanisms that are nowbeing formed in EU countries, as opposedto those which are traditional, questionableor may be substituted by new approaches.• Establish a capable national judicialauthority that rules according to EUecological legislation.Economic mechanism• Reconsider the normative and methodologicalbase for the environmentalregulation mechanism.• Implement a mechanism for permanent(yearly) indexing of normative indicatorsrelevant to changes in the inflation level,and in producers' prices.• Reform the payment system for allocatingwastes by introducing a progressivecharacter of such payments and expandingtheir accumulated volume.• Legally establish a system of fee sanctionsfor violating current environmental legislationthat adequately reflects ecological losses.• Reform the system for accumulating andusing funds for environmental initiatives.Accelerate the approval of the law ofUkraine “On the National Ecological Fund.”• Revise the legal framework for the targetuse of environmental initiative expensearticles in state and local budgets.• In shortest term, introduce a system ofeconomic regulators of nature use based ona combination of instruments, which aboveall, economically encourage and finally forceeconomic agents to realize nature defenseand resource preservation measures.• Improve in the methodological baseavailable economic instruments (chargesfor pollution, ecology tax, ecology funds,penalties) and also introduce new regulators192of nature use, such as various taxadvantages, franchised loans, franchisedcredits, flexible ecology taxes on products,financial stimulation of manufacturingecologization and differentiation of pricingaccording to ecology criteria.• Prepare a draft law to financiallysupport nature preservation through themechanisms of crediting, franchised taxationand targeted encouragement of ecologicallyconstructive activity. Develop and makeappropriate changes to the Budget and TaxCodes.• Widen the ecological taxation base byimplementing various types of flexibleecological taxes on products in order tolimit the production and consumption ofecologically hazardous and resourceconsumingproducts. Taxation should alsobe applied to products produced from scare(rare) natural resources. The taxation baseshould be set up based on the experience ofthe EU and the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development countries.• Develop the main elements of “ecosocial-economictax reform” as a promisingeconomic-legislative institution targetedsimultaneously toward preserving theenvironment, creating and modernizingexisting workplaces, and stocking budgetcoffers.Ecological audit and insurance• Legislatively adopt the national mechanismfor realization of the fundamental principleof independent ecological audit by makingthe relevant systematic changes to the Lawof Ukraine “On Ecological Audit”, particularlyto establish the independent Ecological-Audit Chamber of Ukraine.• Create regional and corporate centers forecological audit and clean production inorder to develop and implement productionecological programs consistent with KyotoProtocol obligations.• On the basis of the Law of Ukraine “OnEcological Audit,” create an ecologicalmanagement and audit system adequateto European regulation EMAS, coordinatedwith European requirements and national

and state standards series ISO 19011 and14000. Having made voluntary agreements,ensure the introduction of nationalregulations on the corporate and locallevels with the corresponding certificationof corporate systems of ecological managementand auditing as evidence of theecologization process of manufacturing atspecific enterprises.• Prepare and approve the Cabinet ofMinisters Decree “On Obligatory EcologicalInsurance and Responsibility for ParticularlyHazardous Objects Privatized WithoutConsideration for Ecological Requirements.”• Develop and approve the Concept for theDevelopment of Ecological Insurance inUkraine, which should define the structure,priorities, and order of implementationof certain legislative, normative, and methodologicaldocuments; how to regulate thecreation of an insurance market, with a viewto European requirements and guidelines.Ecological entrepreneurship• Create on the premises of state and localorgans coordination boards or committeesfor development of environmental entrepreneurship.These entities will prepareand suggest legislative and administrativeproposals for supporting and stimulatingecological entrepreneurship.• Prepare and obtain government supporton the basis of civic organizations thematic,targeted seminars on the tasks andopportunities of ecological enterprise in thecontext of the national policy of Europeanintegration and sustainable development.• Develop and implement targetedgovernment programs (action plans) forthe development of ecological marketsand entrepreneurship, with mechanisms offinancing the interaction of administrative,public and entrepreneurial structuresregarding the mutual introduction ofnational, regional and ecological programsand projects, executing internationalecological obligations regarding climatechange, preserving biodiversity and soforth.193• Develop and introduce educationalcourses in engineering, agricultural andcommercial higher educational institutions:“Ecologically clean technologies andenterprise,” and “Waste Treatment andEnterprise.”• Develop and implement a system ofindustrial and corporate standards forecologically clean production.• Conduct an inventory of the currentecologically clean technological productionbase, and an evaluation of needs for furtherdevelopment and potential sources ofinvestment.• Conduct a complex, sectoral, local estimateof technological needs for transitioningto a model of non-pollutingmanufacturing.• Consider a review of investmentobligations of privatized enterprises withthe goal of implementing their ecologicalmodernization through the use ofcontemporary methodologies.• Create all opportunities for introducingtechnological innovations, alreadydeveloped by domestic scientists, that arepromising from an ecological and economicpoint of view (above all oriented on solvingenergy and water problems).Land resources• Optimize the balance between arablelands and ecologically stabilizing landsby excluding degraded and unproductivelands from intensive usage. Rehabilitatedegraded/unproductive lands furtherand transform them into forest andnatural feeding areas. In the first stage ofoptimization, this balance should be 50:50.Under such circumstances, arable landswill decrease by 8-10 million hectares.Forestation and national feeding landproportions will correspondingly increase.• Integrate work on land maintenance,soil-agrochemical monitoring, and ecoameliorativemonitoring. Create aunified state land informational systemconsisting of a database about the spatialcharacteristics of the country’s land fund in

all its aspects. The informational systemshould be based on a unified system ofcoordinate organization and on complexuse of contemporary informational systems,distant and traditional monitoring methods.Secure active control over soil conditions inall areas of the national economy.• Create an independent fixed monitoringnetwork for ecological soil conditions.The related database, as well as pertinentgeo-informational systems, should beharmonized with European databases.• Continue improving legal and normativeframeworks for creating systems of landuse; protection and restoration of soilfertility; preserving soil layer firmness; andpreserving the ecological functioning anddiversity of agricultural soil under privateland ownership.• Take comprehensive actions to increaseland fertility (especially of black soils),eliminating unfavorable factors: overcompression,oxidation, structuraldeterioration, salification, erosion, dryingout, irrigation, flooding, etc; optimize use,protection, and restoration of Ukrainianlands’ natural resource potential.Water resources• Reconsider the current normative and legalbase for fostering rational use, protection,and restoration of water resources, with aview to the Ukrainian Constitution and laws.• Accelerate creation of a contemporarysystem for legally and economicallysecuring water-protective activity based onthe basin principle of management.• Urgently define protected territories and,in the economy’s agricultural and forestsector, establish “islands of preservation” inevery field, forest, or river territory. Hunting,fishing, herb-collecting, and other economicactivity will be categorically banned in these“islands.”• Intensify research towards developingnew purification methods for industrial andhousehold sewer water and technologies forcollecting particular pollutants: implementthe results of this research through futureprograms.194• Develop a concept for the rationaluse, protection, and restoration of waterresources and for development of the watereconomic infrastructure for the period until2015 (or 2020), defining priority directionsand preliminary problem-solving steps.• Conduct ecological audit and registrationof all the country’s enterprises. Thereafterapprove decisions about their furtherfunctioning, re-profiling, closure, oracquisition of new ecologically cleanresource-saving technologies.• Establish water-sector/ecological “regioning”of Ukraine’s territory. On this basisdetermine priorities for investment andimproving water resource usage indicators(pollutants, collection and drainagevolumes, use of land resources) with thehelp of these investments.• Develop and implement a water supplyprogram in Ukraine, changing the focusgradually toward underground waters.• Implement control over water use for directneeds (drinking water for drinking, technicalwater for technical needs).• Build facilities for centralized village watersupplies with the goal of providing goodqualitydrinking water to all villages by2015. Build sewer networks and purificationfacilities in the villages, along withcentralized water supply systems.• In order to minimize water consumptionand river and lake pollution, implementecological-economic methods for watersector management.• Involve local citizens (of villages, towns,regions, and oblasts) in administeringthe water sector and developing waterprotective (nature protective) methods;discuss projects with local citizensrepresentatives in the work of basin boards.Mineral resources• Plan explorative geological projects witha view to the Ukrainian economy’s current/future mineral and raw material needs.• Orient projects toward finding andexploring deposits with high levels of usefulcomponents and highly technological ores;

ensure their development and processingwith minimal technogenic impact on theenvironment.• Study and register mining and processingenterprise wastes in order to assign themthe status of technogenic sources.• Conduct a forecast assessment ofunderground drinkable waters to providethe population with ecologically pure waterof stable quality, as a basis for fosteringsustainable social development.• Develop a comprehensive program foreco-geological study of Ukraine’s territory.• Conduct an eco-geological evaluation ofUkraine’s territory and create correspondingmapping materials (on a 1:500,0000 scale)in order to provide information about thenegative impact of natural resource depositdevelopment and processing enterprises onthe environment, with technogenic soil andnatural water pollution a particular area ofconcern.• Create a map of Ukraine’s hydro mineralsources (scale 1:500,000) for providinggrounded evaluation of the negative impactof developing natural resource depositson hydromineral resources, which are astrategic component in the rehabilitation ofUkraine’s population.• Prepare a program for creating a polygonmonitoring system for eco-geologicalstudies under conditions of powerfultechnogenic load. This will provide forgrounded assessment of technogenicimpact, development of ways to improveenvironmental conditions and fosteringapproval of objective administrativedecisions with a view to rational use of statefunds and resources.• Develop and implement new technologiesfor natural resource processing to minimizethe use of toxic, environmentally hazardouselements during their enrichment.Biodiversity• Conduct an inventory of Ukraine’scontemporary biodiversity conditions, byinvolving relevant ministries, scientists, andpublic organizations.195• Compile an ecological-functional balancefor the country’s land fund, withvarious target determinations and usages,mandating: removal of seriously erodedlands and unproductive arable lands fromagricultural use; and an increase in areas ofnatural vegetation and forested territories.• Mandate that land with natural vegetationshould be included in new protected funds.• Perform the actions foreseen by therelevant law for 2000-2015 on creatingUkraine’s national-ecological network;the majority of these initiatives remainunfulfilled.• Finalize legislation on preservingbiodiversity, eliminating areas of noncompliancewith legislation associated withother natural object sectors, such as theLand Code.Nature protective fund• Develop and approve the Law of Ukraine“On the State Program for Developmentof Nature-Protective Activity Until 2020,”ensuring that it defines the main directionsof state policy for, and optimization andfuture development of, nature-protectiveactivity. Ensure establishment of thescientifically-based national ecologicalnetwork. Also, increase the natureprotectionfund’s area so that it comprisesup to 10% of the country’s territory.• Develop a plan for stable financingof territories and objects in the natureprotectionfund, taking into considerationnew multilateral mechanisms for attractingadditional resources.• Develop and approve an integral systemfor high-quality management of the natureprotectivefund by implementing multilateralmodels.• Urgently establish limits for territoriesand objects in Ukraine’s nature protectivefund by defining them with relevant status;include established limits on mappingmaterials; provide all fund institutions withdocuments establishing their right to thelands in question.• Review the classification of categoriesand objects of Ukraine’s nature-protective

fund, and approximate them to Europeanstandards.Forest fund• Complete and approve a new Forest Codewith the involvement of scientists with forestmanagement expertise.• Approve forest policy for Ukraine as acountry with limited forestation and a forestdeficit, with a view toward world tends.• Approve a long-term Forest nationalprogram for the period up to 2050 andguarantee its implementation by takingminimally productive and eroded lands outof agricultural use so they can be reforestedin the future, in order to increase Ukraine’sforestation level to 25-30% (the averageEuropean indicator).Atmosphere• Implement a system of air pollutionindicators harmonized to the EU’s.• In 2006-2007, identify stationary pollutingsources and the quality of the purificationfacilities that have been installed.• Establish requirements for enterprises,most importantly for the heating/energy andmetallurgical complex, for implementingmodern purifying equipment in 2006-2010. The result will be to purify emissionsof sulfur oxides, nitrogen, dust, andaerosol particles on a high level. The goalis to achieve indicators complying withcontemporary European norms.• Introduce new norms for sulfur content indiesel fuel.• Encourage catalyzing for neutralizingautomobile emissions (mandate obligatorycatalyzing for all new cars) and use of highqualitygasoline and oxygen-rich additivesfor that gasoline.• In large cities, widen the use of naturalgas as a fuel for communal and heavy-loadtransport.• Initiate an air quality monitoring system incities and in areas where hazardous andpotentially unsafe enterprises are located;revive the air monitoring system in bigcities.• Stimulate development and production ofair quality control systems, automatic controlequipment, and networks for transmittingand collecting information.• Develop a system for encouraging industryto use bio-fuels – fuels made from plantoils and alcohol - using US and Europeanexperience.• Establish, for polluting and hazardousenterprises, a license-issuing policy underwhich activity will continue only uponprovision of safety reports, similar to thoseprovided for nuclear energy objects; developrequirements for such reports.• Set requirements for equipping dumps withcomposting and bio-gas collecting systems.Waste management• Consolidate current laws and normativeacts into a general legal Code for Wastes.Continue development of new normativedocuments and improvement of currentdocuments in waste management;continuously work toward EU standards andrecommendations.• Analyze the quality of current legislativeacts, eliminate discrepancies, and inputnecessary amendments that havebecome necessary over time. Consider,primarily, development directions ofmechanisms for economic regulation inthe waste management sector, stimulatingdevelopment of progressive technologiesand waste management equipment andcreating a market for services in thissphere.• Develop mechanisms for stimulatingeconomization in production of primarymaterial resources, and their substitutionwith relevant secondary material resources.• Emissions into the atmosphere and intowater systems should be considered aspollution. Introduce a system for statisticalreporting and a pollution index systemin accordance with contemporary worldstandards.• Define a single central administrativeorgan (call it, perhaps, “Resource Saving”)to which will be devolved all industrial196

(including radioactive) and household wastemanagement functions.• In accordance with legislative regulations,create special funds for waste management,in particular: a fund for managing radioactivewastes and other radioactive materials,and a fund for managing industrial andhousehold wastes; generate financesfor these funds at the expense of wasteproducers.• Establish a state waste register in Ukraine.Achieve full registration of wastes, finishcreation of a unified “Waste” informationalanalytical network, and complete theregister of waste allocation sites.• Stimulate investment inflow into thewaste management sector; develop theinfrastructure for a secondary resourcemarket; attract small and medium businessto this sphere with future creation ofan industry for waste collection and forprocessing them into new products.• Temporarily implement state norms forlevels of processing separate kinds of wasteand, further, develop corresponding nationalplans and programs for future secondaryresource market development.• Implement a system of separate collectionof hard household wastes and obligatoryuse of packaging wastes, used vehicles,tires, chemical sources of electricity, largescalehousehold electrical equipment, etc.Secure implementation of Directive 94/62/ЕС requirements “On Packaging Wastes.”• Ban the dumping of industrial wastes insites where communal waste is buried.• Develop a State Program for ToxicWaste and Persistent Organic PollutantsManagement for the period until 2010,which will be oriented toward active solutionof principal tasks; provide financing for thisprogram.• Establish and realize regional (oblast)programs for waste management.• Demand that enterprises of all formsof ownership develop their own wastemanagement programs, and have thoseprograms approved.• Create oblast (regional) polygons fortoxic waste management. Create requiredinfrastructure for collecting waste andsafe temporary storage. Create nationalstorage for toxic wastes and a network ofenterprises that eliminate wastes or preparethem for burial.• Conduct technical investigation ofpolygons and burial sites of hard communalwastes and ban their use without requiredequipment, to avoid negative environmentalimpact.• Include amendments to the Code ofUkraine “On Natural Resources” regardingownership rights to technogenic depositsand enterprises’ responsibility for allocation,neutralizing, and utilization of waste.• Develop a normative legal base fordeveloping an organizational-productiveinfrastructure for the secondary resourcemarket; establish a competitive system forcollecting, processing, and utilizing wastes;also, separate power and administrativeauthority in the Ukrekokomresursy statecompany.• Develop a system for stimulatingdevelopment of a science and technicalbase for waste management, and creationof domestic specialized facilities for thewaste management sector.• Reconsider current standards and rulesabout applying EU norms for rational useof raw materials, waste management,and implementation of ecologically cleantechnologies and products. Stimulateimplementation of ecological ISO standardsand encourage producers to voluntarilyminimize waste volumes and transitiontoward ecologically safe production.Ecological monitoring• Create and ensure the functioning of anew infrastructure for a state system ofmonitoring research on the principles ofintegrating distant and regional systemsin a single system; improve all elements ofthe created system and its infrastructure;197

improve the quality of the system’sfunctional activity.Education for sustainable development• Improve the concept of ecologicaleducation in Ukraine, and develop andapprove the national strategy for educationin the interests of ecologically balanceddevelopment.• Introduce in entrance examinations tonature departments at Ukraine’s highereducational institutions the subject,“Foundations of Ecological Knowledge.”• Introduce “Fundamentals of EcologicalKnowledge” into the programs of elementaryschools, lyceums, colleges and technicalschools as a basic discipline.• Harmonize programs of ecologicaldisciplines at the higher educationalinstitutions of Ukraine with the programsof leading European higher educationalinstitutions that have joined the BolognaProcess.• Prepare and implement, on the basisof leading state institutes, a systemof professional preparation of officials(government officials and directors) whoare responsible for approving decisionson the bases of ecological policy andadministration.Civil Society• Given that the success of introducing stateecological policies in Ukraine is defined bythe equal involvement of the general publicin this work, it is necessary to improve theprocedures and mechanisms (in conformitywith Ukrainian legislation) which ensure realparticipation in ecological civic organizationsin developing strategies and programs ofecological development.• Ensure transparency and justification forhuman resource policy in nature protectiveorgans and associated institutions, withpublic participation.• Advocate the particular importanceof Ukraine's adherence to the ArhusConvention, in particular its principles,and as a mechanism for mass citizeninvolvement in democratic processes. No198decision that can impact the environmentshould be passed without being influencedby the participation of the public.(publicand parliamentary hearings, referenda,public ecological evaluations, and so forth).Citizens should be informed at the mostearliest stages in preparing decisions.Renew public discussions in Governmentactivity.• Affirm, as the root of existing challenges,the low level of environmental education.Demand from Ukrainian governmentauthorities - on all levels - unconditionaladherence to the requirements of Article 7of the Law “On Environmental Protection”:“Ecological knowledge is an obligatoryqualification requirement for all authoritieswhose activity is associated with naturalresource use and influences on theenvironment's condition.”• Change the national information policyby stimulating civic demand for ecologicalinformation, and propagate a healthylifestyle. Environmental problems aresupposed to be highlighted in the news andthe educational programs of mass media,as well as the Web sites of state institutionsthroughout the day (like the news on“EuroNews”). Information is supposed to beobjective and systemic.• Conduct revisions of programs withinorgans of government administration withthe involvement of civic organizations(national, state, branch, regional, etc.),particularly in the ecological sphere. Nullifythose which are propagandistic, but notadministrative documents. Develop anational action plans, particularly to meetUkraine’s obligations under internationalconventions. Introduce program-targetedmethods of administration and managerialpositions with a strict personification ofresponsibility for effective and transparentadministration, actual results and upholdingterms.International cooperation• Develop precise criteria for preparinginternational agreements. Along withpreparing agreements' texts, develop action

plans for implementing them, creatingworking groups when needed.• Develop mechanisms for financial insuringof executing the conditions of internationalagreements and control on using costs.• Ensure scientific accompaniment indefining priority issues in bilateral andmultilateral cooperation, realizing achievedagreements and their financial provision.• Create a continuously updated database ofinternational agreements on environmentalprotection to which Ukraine is a party.• Reinforce the role of nature-protectivenon-governmental organizations in fulfillinginternational agreements.• Develop and approve action plan forimplementing the decisions of the FifthMinisterial Conference “Environment forEurope” (Kiev, 2003). Ensure its highestpriorityimplementation in the contextof Ukraine's preparation for the SixthMinisterial Conference of UNECE countries(Belgrade, 2007).199

Кyiv2007