In September, the head of the Servant of the People party, Elena Shulyak, submitted another bill. Her scandalous urban planning “reform” (5655) made life easier for developers on land (adopted last December, but the President has still neither signed nor vetoed), while the new initiative does the same on water (9664).
The goal that legislators are talking about is to balance the interests of the state and investors, to simplify the construction mechanism in internal sea waters and the territorial sea, and the like.
Such a project would have to be considered by the transport committee, because it is the committee that is responsible for issues of ports and grain corridors. But by a strange coincidence, Shulyak’s initiative ended up in the committee headed by its author. This is a committee that is responsible for organizing state power and local government. It would seem: this should make consideration easier.
But the first attempt failed - the project was removed from the agenda, sent for consideration by subcommittees and the NACP was asked to prepare an anti-corruption examination.
Representatives of Golos (9664-1) came up with an alternative. The main author there is Yulia Klimenko, a member of the transport committee. She notes that all parties should be involved in the lawmaking process, communities should decide what they allow to be built on their land, so that it does not end up like with urban planning “reform.”
What does Shulyak offer?
Now it is possible to transfer land to someone for the construction of some kind of facility on the water only if there is a detailed plan of the territories, a general plan or a zoning plan. Shulyak proposes to build when these documents are not available.
Her colleagues from Servant of the People have a similar initiative, only it concerns lands for agricultural and recreational purposes, which they want to give to industry using a simplified procedure. She has the support of the Deputy Head of the Office of the President Rostislav Shurma. And there, too, legislators ignore the environmental assessment of the land and the possible consequences for the environment.
On the water they propose to do the same thing - to make changes to the Water Code. And if this happens, then there will be no need for approvals from regional state administrations or the State Water Agency.
First, on October 9, Shulyak presented the project to the environmental committee.
“A group of people’s deputies together with the Ministry of Infrastructure, plus business representatives are the developers of the document. There are a number of problems with the implementation of investment projects, whether they are carried out for public or private funds... We understand the load that is placed on the ports of the Donetsk region, how quickly it is necessary in this region to restore infrastructure after shelling, to create new structures... We do a certain deregulation when we eliminate the need obtaining approval for the allocation of land and water space for merchant shipping,” Shulyak noted.
And she added that the Cabinet of Ministers can instruct regional administrations to transfer for use plots located outside the territorial units. This initiative was supported at the meeting by Deputy Minister of Infrastructure Yuri Vaskov.
The head of the expert department of the Ukrainian Environmental Group NGO Petr Testov notes that there are serious risks for the environment:
“They propose to remove bureaucratic approval for construction on water fund lands, they say, only design documentation is enough. But for a sufficient amount of money there will always be certified designers who will design whatever the customer wants. For example, construction in the coastal strip under the guise of “reconstruction of a hydraulic structure” or interference in the riverbed for the development of private beaches and ponds under the guise of “hydraulic work”. And it is coordination that can stop such projects. Therefore, if this “deregulation” takes place, chaotic and uncontrolled construction awaits us here too.”
The State Agency for Water Resources of Ukraine has already noted that the proposal will entail “uncontrolled processes of various kinds of construction on the lands of the water fund, coastal protective strips, right of way, sanitary protection zones, which will affect the ecological state of surface water bodies.”
At a meeting of the environmental committee, Igor Gopchak, a representative of the State Agency for Water Resources, said about the alternative project:
“There were no comments, we wrote that there were no proposals. There the State Water Agency agrees.”
The Ministry of Natural Resources in its proposals notes that Shulyak’s bill does not take into account the fact that the lands of the water fund are not only the sea, but also rivers and other bodies of water of communities.
Meanwhile, a representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources emphasized that the document creates legal uncertainty regarding the mandatory/non-mandatory approval of projects with central and local authorities and can lead to uncontrolled construction.
The head of the environmental committee, Oleg Bondarenko (“Servant of the People”), noted that he agrees with the conclusions of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the State Water Agency. Such legislation could arise because the authors did not communicate with specialists in the water protection industry:
“This revision can lead to large-scale negative consequences for all water bodies and the environment of Ukraine. My principled position is to exclude from the bill all other water bodies, except sea ones, for the second reading. And we will fight for this, submit amendments and ensure that they are taken into account.”
People's Deputy Yulia Klimenko notes that there is corruption in the environmental inspection, but this does not mean that the agency should not act and control:
“For the European model, ecology is filter No. 1. We all drink water from the Dnieper, we all swim in the rivers and the sea where the rivers flow. If there is no clear, non-corrupt regulation, this is a threat to the environment, a threat to chaotic development on the water. The port is the tip of the iceberg. It will be connected to railways, roads, wastewater treatment plants, and other infrastructure, which provides not only logistics, but also noise, emissions, and pollution, if not designed or built correctly. It's a big organism."
“The community should at least know what will happen on the river or by the sea, and speak out about it. Do they want, say, a new port on the Kyiv slopes? If, for example, there is an industrial port, then there will no longer be recreation and tourism,” notes Klimenko.
Involve business in the discussion, but not environmentalists
On October 20, the project was supposed to be considered directly by the committee headed by Shulyak. It was on the agenda along with Klimenko's project and could have been voted on.
But MP Roman Lozinsky (“Voice”) asked to remove them from consideration because the legislative initiative did not pass consideration at the subcommittee:
“Bills 9664 and 9664-1 are important. But the subcommittee meeting did not take place. We did not hear the parties in order to do a quality work. Of course, the committee has the right to make a decision. But my proposal is to be considered at the next meeting. And maybe someone will say why there were no subcommittee meetings? “In our country, 98% of bills go through this procedure.”
Oleg Dunda (“Servant of the People”) noted that he asked Shulyak to send a letter to the NACP with a request to appoint an anti-corruption examination:
“Why didn’t the subcommittee take place? The findings arrived only yesterday evening. Working through them in two hours is not very good. And secondly, there is an appeal to the NAPC - and it considers these bills. Let me remind you that we had the experience of not taking into account the opinion of the NAPC when we considered project 5655 (urban planning “reform” - Author). Therefore, so that history does not repeat itself, I ask you to listen to the proposal of Mr. Roman Lozinsky. Many business associations called that they want to be at the review, we need to invite business representatives, they have warnings. Therefore, at the next committee we will carry this out transparently, taking into account the proposals of the NAPC.”
Shulyak confirmed that she had received a letter from Dunda, and added that he himself could have sent the bills for anti-correction review and not delayed the process. But a member of the committee explained that the experience of urban planning “reform” indicates the opposite.
“5655 is supported by the NACP and is the basis for the state anti-corruption strategy that the government is currently implementing,” Shulyak emphasized.
Environmentalists are surprised why MPs only talk about attracting business when the initiative directly concerns the impact on the environment:
“It looks strange. The bill makes major changes to environmental legislation. But for some reason it is discussed only with specialized businesses, and environmentalists and the public find out about it after the fact, when everything is ready,” notes UPG biologist Yegor Grinnik.
Yulia Klimenko emphasizes: the topic of ports should have been considered not in the committee, where Shulyak chairs, but in the transport committee, of which Klimenko is a member:
“Shulyak, Deputy Prime Minister Kubrakov, Deputy Minister Vaskov understand that they will ask questions from us, but Shulyak has a more passable situation for them. Therefore, this committee is considering this, which does not have expertise in transport and logistics. Our committee would invite the entire sector: owners of port infrastructure, business, logistics, environmentalists. In general, everyone who participates in the grain corridor.”
“I submitted an alternative project. He's imperfect. But my task is to have a discussion around this. So that it doesn’t happen like with the urban planning “reform”, where lobbying interests operated. Everyone should be included in the discussion. There is a lot of corruption in the maritime industry. Ports account for up to 70% of the country's economy. If we do not carry out this legislative process efficiently, the investor will not come. We have risks that this could preserve the current corruption system at the level of government bodies and the Ministry of Infrastructure,” Klimenko added.
The Transportation Committee is scheduled to review the project Oct. 25. A response from NAPC should arrive in approximately a week.
