How the “devils” from the OP are trying to push through bills in parliament that could block Ukraine’s European integration

In the near future, parliament will consider the scandalous bill No. 9627. If it is adopted, residents of territorial communities may be deprived of the right to determine the development of part of their territory. The proposed changes could block Ukraine's European integration

This will have the greatest impact on agricultural and recreational lands, where it will be possible to locate industrial and energy facilities using a simplified procedure.

A similar project has already been lobbied at the parliamentary level by the deputy head of the President’s Office, ex-regional Rostislav Shurma. The same Shurma, whose brother has solar stations in the temporarily occupied territories and received compensation from the Ukrainian budget for the “green tariff”. Now the Verkhovna Rada will consider the cloned idea of ​​the bill, which Shurma supported and which ultimately failed in the session hall.

A new initiative was submitted by representatives of the Servant of the People faction Dmitry Kisilevsky, Maryana Bezuglaya, head of the specialized agricultural committee Alexander Gaidu, representative of the Voice Yaroslav Rushchinin and a number of other people’s deputies.

According to experts, the narrowing of community rights proposed by legislators violates the Constitution. The conclusion of the Main Scientific and Expert Directorate of Parliament speaks of increased corruption risks in the land sector, because the project does not define the grounds for changing the intended purpose of land plots. Moreover, such changes are proposed to be introduced not only for the duration of the war - they will remain in effect for another five years after the end of martial law.

However, in reality the problem is even deeper. This project may violate Ukraine's European integration obligations because it does not take into account environmental risks. The “Honestly” movement analyzed the legislative initiative.

Why do the tracks lead to Shurma?

At the beginning of the year, in the article “Honestly” “Reconstruction with confiscation. Deputies are preparing to confiscate land from cities and people,” they were talking about two bills (No. 8225 and No. 8178-1). After this publication, representatives of the movement were invited to the President’s Office for a meeting with Ermak’s deputy, ex-regional officer Rostislav Shurma.

The official convinced that these were very important initiatives and that there would be votes for them in the session hall. One of them actually came to parliament for consideration. But bill No. 8178-1 failed. Only 187 votes were given for him.

The votes were given mainly by Servant of the People. She was traditionally joined by representatives of ex-OPPL, who help push the issue through the session hall when some of the “servants of the people” are not ready to vote for scandalous initiatives. But they tried to save the situation not only with the voices of OPZH.

It is noteworthy that among the representatives of the opposition, only the people's deputy from Golos, Vladimir Tsabal, supported the bill. This is not the first time he has voted or acted as a legislator in such a way that his actions could benefit Bankova.

So, when the parliament supported Razumkov’s populist amendment, which, in the absence of funds in the budget, would have to guarantee an increase in funding for the military, Tsabal submitted a resolution that blocked the submission of a legislative initiative to the Office of the President.

And this saved Vladimir Zelensky from an unpopular step - vetoing. If we talk about considering amendments to the declaration of employees of the Office of the President, the Golos faction supported this norm, but Tsabal was “absent.” But from a comparison of the votes before and after, it is clear that he was in the hall. This is typical behavior of a “dodger” - pulling the card out of the slot. Golos representative Alexandra Ustinova said that her card did not work.

However, the first unsuccessful attempt to carry out the project for which Shurma was so rooting did not stop anyone. Immediately after the failed vote, there were two more attempts. The second - a vote on sending the draft for a second first reading - was also failed. The final attempt to maintain the initiative finally “buried” it. Thus, only 201 deputies voted for returning the text of the bill for revision, thereby forever leaving this initiative in the status of “Rejected and withdrawn from consideration.”

As for the second project - No. 8225, when the first one failed, they decided not to bring it into the hall. Subsequently, when public attention to the topic decreased, there was another attempt, but they refused to take it into the session hall.

It is noteworthy that Shurma himself is now trying to “whiten himself” after an investigation by Bihus.Info. Journalists discovered that his brother’s solar stations are located in temporarily occupied territory and receive compensation under the “feed-in tariff.”

If in the Bihus.Info investigation the name Shurma was mentioned in a negative context, now there is advertising for events where Shurma and “energy” are positioned in a positive way. Meanwhile, in parliament they are preparing for consideration a project, the analogue of which Ermak’s deputy was very much rooting for and which, in particular, concerns industrial facilities and, oddly enough, energy.

What's wrong with the new initiative?

To prevent the new project from being immediately associated with the one that Shurma unsuccessfully lobbied for, the authors radically changed the name. Now the initiative, which provides for simplification of the procedure for establishing and changing the intended purpose of land plots, has a very loud and general name “on making changes... to attract investment with the aim of quickly restoring Ukraine.”

The main author of the bill, Dmitry Kisilevsky, says:

“This project is similar to the one you mentioned (the project that Shurma supported - ed.). The goal is to reduce the period for changing the intended use of land from 1-3 years to 1.5 months. But the way it is proposed to do this is different. That bill was intended to address a similar issue, but with a broader application. There was housing, and lands of scientific institutions, and many other things that do not relate to my subject in the committee - industry. To recover, it is important to introduce changes that will help restore it. Therefore, I undertook to present the changes in such an edition that it would be acceptable.”

The stated purpose of the project also contains many formulations that do not reflect the actual content of the text.

Experts from the Main Scientific and Expert Directorate of Parliament note that this approach does not comply with the rules for designing projects, because in fact “the name of the project does not agree with its content.”

This is not the only comment from experts about this bill.

If we talk about the new rules, they should work for another five years after the end of martial law. People's Deputy Kisilevsky says that this is exactly the amount of time needed for effective restoration in the post-war years.

“For the rapid implementation of projects for the construction of industrial and energy facilities during martial law and during the recovery period, a temporary simplification of the procedure for changing the intended use of land is necessary. The proposed provisions significantly speed up this procedure. But in general, this is a significant deregulation, which is a good signal for the investor and for our economic ability,” says one of the co-authors, People’s Deputy Rushchyshyn (“Voice”).

Also, the conclusion of the Main Scientific and Expert Directorate states that in order to solve pressing problems and destruction, it would be sufficient to temporarily simplify the procedure for changing the intended purpose of land plots, however, the authors of the project propose a number of changes that will be in effect permanently, that is, even after the termination or lifting of martial law and completion of construction of relevant facilities. And the authors do not justify the need for such radical changes in any way.

“If we evaluate the project from the point of view of rapid restoration during the war and in the post-war period, then it is positive. Will support recovery and potential economic recovery. But there is one hole: de facto individual decisions at the local level, which can significantly increase corruption risks in local governments, which are already considerable in this area. If we can find an anti-corruption fuse here, then the model may well work,” says Vitaly Bezgin, a member of the committee on the organization of state power and local self-government.

Urban planning expert Georgy Mogilny emphasizes that parliamentarians propose changing the purpose of land outside settlements in the absence of approved urban planning documentation for the construction of industrial and agricultural enterprises: “Communities are depriving some of the rights to determine the development of their territory. Now similar rules are already in force for the construction of industrial facilities, but only for enterprises evacuated from the combat zone and until the end of martial law. Such a narrowing of the rights of non-military communities for the benefit of private individuals is extremely negative and, in fact, is a violation of the Constitution.”

Here, the main author of the bill, Kisilevsky, claims that the previous bill, which Shurma supported, had significant comments from representatives of local government: “I had several rounds of discussions with local government. We have removed the most critical comment regarding cases where there is already approved urban planning documentation. A simplified mechanism for use exclusively outside populated areas has been proposed. Where there is no developed urban planning documentation for the list of objects specified by law. It will not create a conflict between where the community has already approved zoning for its area.”

The Association of Cities reported that they do not support the project. The executive director of the association, Alexander Slobozhan, stated this: “If there is no urban planning documentation, then there are no public discussions. The architect will make a discretionary decision on development without the territorial community and the city council. This is what they wanted to do with the scandalous urban planning reform 5655. There will be expensive black soil - it will be chaotically built up with industrial facilities. Now imagine what will happen to the ecology and quality of the agricultural products that will be grown near these industrial enterprises. And this is about the quality of the food we all consume.”

Expert Mogilny argues that the adoption of this bill will also lead to a violation of Ukraine’s international obligations on the issue of ecology, which is extremely important for the EU.

“Industrial and agricultural facilities have a negative impact on the environment. In order to fulfill our obligations under the Aarhus Convention and other documents, we have already adopted two key laws - on environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Individual objects that have characteristics above certain limits are subject to environmental impact assessment before construction. But firstly, in many cases developers can bypass such assessments. Secondly, a large number of small industrial facilities of different owners will harm the environment no less than one large facility, but an environmental impact assessment is not required for them.”

For a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact, a strategic environmental assessment is carried out. And it is carried out precisely during the development of urban planning documentation. Thus, allowing a change in purpose in the absence of urban planning documentation, simultaneously cancels the strategic environmental assessment and the involvement of the public in resolving issues that have an impact on the environment.

That is why this step back in already fulfilled international environmental obligations can have extremely negative consequences for European integration.

People's Deputy Kisilevsky notes that, in his opinion, there will be no serious violations of international obligations: “There is always an ideological conflict between industrialists and environmentalists. This project does not regulate environmental impact assessment issues. For those objects for which it is necessary to conduct an environmental impact assessment, it will be carried out. Thus, when applying the procedure for changing the intended use of land, an environmental assessment must be carried out. But there is a conflict in the legislation. The mandatory assessment is stated in the law on environmental impact assessment, but the Land Code does not provide for this. In most cases, in practice, an assessment is not carried out when the intended purpose changes.”

Lawmakers must correct gaps in legislation if there is a conflict. But such gaps are a source of corruption risks. Unfortunately, during the meeting of the Anti-Corruption Committee on September 18, such risks were not voiced or considered.

The Association of Ukrainian Cities sees an alternative way for locating industrial facilities: a base of land plots with the appropriate purpose should appear. “The Ministry of Economy can contact local governments to obtain data on industrial or residential land. There should also be information about relevant communications,” notes Slobozhan.

However, with such a scheme, serious financial fraud becomes possible, and Georgy Mogilny also focused on this when he considered the previous project. Having information about where important facilities for the state will be built, it is possible to buy agricultural land for next to nothing and then sell it to the state as expensive land for industry.

Why does the committee work in secret?

The main topic of the bill is the Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy, which is headed by the co-author of the bill, Alexander Gaidu. The project passed the committee in an accelerated manner. Committee members supported it as urgent; accordingly, the time frame for submitting alternative initiatives became significantly shorter.

There is no transcript for September 13 on the committee’s website. Therefore, the public cannot find out how the discussion took place. The message on the website says that in the session hall, people's deputies supported this initiative as a basis and in general. But it is not so.

The bill card states that it should be adopted only as a basis. Therefore, what exactly should happen in the session hall is still unknown. “Honestly,” it was not possible to find out from the chairman of the committee on agricultural policy and co-author of the bill, Alexander Gaida, why this is happening. He did not answer the questions asked.

The main author of the bill, “servant of the people” Kisilevsky, assured that the bill should be voted for only in the first reading.

It could be put to a vote in the coming days. It is important that, subject to restrictions on access of the media and the public to parliamentary sessions, the public, and the people's deputies themselves, are aware of the risks of bills that are being considered in an accelerated manner. Such initiatives subsequently become the rules of life for Ukrainians during the war and after the victory.

In previous terms of parliament, it also happened that a certain scandalous bill did not have support in the hall and failed. In this case, a slightly modified, more acceptable version was subsequently submitted. And then between the first and second readings, with the help of amendments, it was possible to correct the situation.

The “Honestly” movement promises that it will monitor amendments to initiative No. 9627, the voting process and inform citizens about this.