Urban planning scandal.
The government may one of these days consider a draft resolution that clones the urban planning reform that has not been signed by the president. This document was made public on December 13 and the author is listed as the namesake of a person close to the people’s deputy from the ex-OPPL Dmitry Isaenko.
The draft resolution appeared officially after a loud scandal, when the media learned that it could be considered without a vote on the eve of a meeting of the European Council in Brussels. There, the start of negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the EU was eventually agreed upon. Voting for the mentioned resolution could give opponents of Ukraine’s European integration additional arguments and negatively affect the situation at a decisive moment.
Urban planning reform is a bill by the chairman of the Servant of the People party, Elena Shulyak (5655), which was supported by the Verkhovna Rada a year ago and on which our international partners, in particular the European Parliament and the European Commission, criticized their comments.
Deputy Prime Ministers Alexander Kubrakov and Mikhail Fedorov, who is also the Minister of Digital Transformation, constantly emphasized to Western partners that thanks to digitalization and automation, which is embedded in Project 5655, it will supposedly be possible to overcome corruption.
Considering that the government can openly violate the law and, in fact, introduce scandalous norms through the already mentioned draft government decree, it is worth finding out what kind of “digitalization” and “automation” the authors of the “reform” actually envisaged.
Digitalization VS an attempt to kill the instruments of democracy?
When the draft was being prepared for the second reading a year ago, the public was not allowed to attend the Zoom meeting of the relevant committee, which is now headed by Elena Shulyak, and its proposals were not taken into account. The transcripts of these secret meetings have not yet been made public. So, the preachers of “digitalization” are not going to use it to ensure that citizens have access to information and influence on the formation of recovery policies.
True, one of the two transcripts was received from sources by the People's Power party. And it became clear that parliamentarians were offered to support, in essence, a pig in a poke, which is why even the “servants of the people” were indignant.
“How should I vote? How can you comment on the fact that at 19:00 you sent only these tables, and today we have Monday, 16:00, and when we had to do this - two thousand pages? That is, I don’t know, I don’t know the abbreviation, as they say,” said Alexander Kachura (“Servant of the People”) during the discussion.
But the initiative was supported in parliament, and the votes of the OPZH became decisive.
On the same day, citizens collected enough votes on a petition to the president to veto 5655. At that time, this was a record-breaking collection. But the lobbyists of the scandalous project were determined: they not only created a unique website pro5655.gov.ua on the government domain, but also held a series of implementation meetings with the public sector. Only at these meetings, 5655 supporters sat in the hall with Kubrkov, and the public was like a “petting zoo” on Zoom. Digitalization in action.
And in the government, Kubarkov, along with his deputy Natalya Kozlovskaya, are not the only ones who supported this reform. In addition to them, the Minister of Digital Transformation Mikhail Fedorov actively advocated for the bill. And at the same time, he mentioned the TAPAS USAID project, which also publicly supported digitalization in 5655.
Moreover, in order to convince Western partners, they even brought in the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Ruslan Stefanchuk.
“We are launching new services that will eliminate corruption. In addition, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada and relevant ministries appealed to the European Parliament. The goal is to discuss project 5655 together and determine a roadmap for changes that will make the construction industry more transparent,” Fedorov wrote.
Indeed, as Fedorov wrote, TAPAS reported on its official page that it supports digitalization in this bill.
TAPAS has not yet responded to questions about Bill 5655. They just clarified why we need the names of the experts who prepared the organization’s public position and whether it is possible to get acquainted with the text before it is published, which contradicts the standards of journalism. If a comment is received, the organization’s position will certainly be made public.
Both Kubrakov and Shulyak actively used TAPAS’s positive feedback about 5655 to shape the media field: they say international partners give the green light to this reform.
Kubrakov himself noted: “We worked on this together with the USAID/UKaid project Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration TAPAS.”
Eventually, after Stefanchuk’s letter and government communications, a meeting with international partners took place. When the public sector tried to get to a meeting with European colleagues to explain the risks of 5655, at one of these events, after a few minutes, representatives of public organizations and even people’s deputy Anna Bondar “Servant of the People” were simply disconnected from Zoom. This is how digitalization is used to block opponents.
But Minister for Digitalization Fedorov had no problems with access to this meeting on Zoom, who emphasized that he supports 5655.
In addition to digitalization and digitalization, reform lobbyists have repeatedly praised automation, saying that there will be no illegal construction.
“You know, the computer doesn’t take bribes,” Shulyak emphasized.
But is what the main author and officials are talking about really included in the bill? Over the course of this year, it was possible to analyze these two thousand pages of the bill and understand what mines were laid under “digitalization” and “digitalization” by those who presented this as one of the key achievements.
Computer instead of corrupt officials?
When we talk about construction, the basis for corruption is urban planning conditions and restrictions. They are issued by local governments manually and local officials calmly write there everything that the developer’s soul desires.
Of course, this problem must be solved, because local corruption causes the same harm as corruption at the central level. Elena Shulyak has emphasized more than once that there will be automation and the fight against corruption in local authorities. But in fact, the bill voted in the second reading continues to provide for the issuance of such documents manually on the ground (Article 29, hereinafter articles - the Law of Ukraine “On the Regulation of Urban Development Activities”).
In Ukraine, three years ago they launched a system that has already completely digitalized and made public the entire process of issuing permits in construction. This system is called the Unified State Electronic System in the Construction Industry.
In Shulyak’s initiative No. 5655, the word “automation” or its equivalents are used many times. But in fact, we are not talking about automation here. And therefore the slogan “the computer does not take bribes” is not about simple checks by the computer, but about its decision-making. So what happens next with the automated verification data?
For example, here is the thesis that was included in the bill: “an automatic verification protocol is automatically generated by the software of the electronic system.” The word “automatically” appears here twice, but the following must be entered into the already mentioned electronic system: land documents, architect’s certificate, etc. No matter how many violations are included in the construction project, the system should automatically detect them all, but will block the submission of such a project only in the only one case - when the height of the building is violated. All other violations will be recorded, but there will be no reaction.
What kind of violations could these be? This may be a violation of monument protection requirements that threaten cultural heritage, or a violation of urban planning documentation, which should reflect the interests of society. If this is a small construction project (CC1 is the official class of responsibility for small construction projects) and the computer has detected the above-mentioned violations, then the architect who enters this documentation can personally tick the box that there are no violations and the computer made a mistake.
As for large objects (CC2, CC3 - compliance classes for large construction projects), the project then goes to be checked by experts hired by the developer himself. And this examination may be private. How this examination will take place is determined by the norms of the article proposed by the urban planning reform (Article 31-3). Here there are even more words “automation”: “automatically, using the software of an electronic system, an automatic verification protocol is generated, including the information specified in the protocol for automatic verification of construction design documentation.”
If during the automatic check violations were identified, then the registration of the examination in the system is blocked only in two cases: when a package of documents with the appropriate approvals is missing or if the dismantling of a monument or a newly discovered cultural heritage object is envisaged. But it is not a fact that this electronic system will contain information about all cultural heritage objects. At least now they are all not there, and a year has already passed since the Verkhovna Rada supported 5655 in the second reading.
For all other violations, the expert hired by the developer for large projects does the same as the architect for small ones - he puts a mark that all comments can be ignored. And no one checks what is written.
Well, then the construction customer submits an application for state registration of the right to carry out construction work, indicating the project and examination numbers, which were previously “automatically verified” (Articles 35 and 36 of the Law “On the Regulation of Urban Development Activity”).
As you might guess, the application is automatically processed through automatic analysis to make an automatic decision, about which an automatic verification protocol is automatically generated.
But the grounds for automatic refusal are the same - so that the monument is not demolished and there is a full package of necessary documents.
This is such courtly automation in 5655 - the “famous” computer automatically checks a bunch of construction parameters, automatically identifies various violations, and then automatically registers the right to build with automatically identified violations, because any architect or expert has the right to manually check the box that the computer is wrong and there are no violations.
No less interesting “automation” is provided for when objects are put into operation. When commissioning buildings, it is very important that all standards are met. So that it doesn’t happen like with houses during the earthquake in Turkey, where the state removed its control function and held a series of construction amnesties.
In Ukraine, lobbyists for urban planning “reform” give the developer the right to hire private control. That is, our state also agrees to transfer safety issues during construction into private hands.
If now the developer who violated the project will not be able to put the house into operation until the new project passes the examination, then 5655 proposes to undergo the examination only when the height is violated. And even then the designer’s supervision can check the box that it is possible to violate the project anyway (Article 371).
It is clear that no amount of “automation” will check the quality of what is built.
The term “automation” was replaced at the very end. Then, when the developer must obtain state registration that the object has been accepted for operation. And nothing really changes here. Before this, the inspector also signed everything in the electronic system.
Someone will argue that thanks to 5655, automation still appears and, albeit little, some violations will be blocked automatically.
However, it is not. Automatic checks and blocking of documents with violations have already been provided for by current legislation since the summer of 2021, but they are detailed not at the level of the Law, but in the Procedure for maintaining an electronic system, approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 681, in particular paragraphs 28-36. And the list of violations that allow automatic blocking of violations by developers is much broader than that provided for by 5655.
That is, the urban planning reform authored by Deputy Shulyak, in comparison with the current legislation, provides for a reduction in the number of violations, the automatic detection of which automatically blocks the registration of rights. This means an increasing role for manual checks and the growing influence of the human factor. This is some kind of negative “automation”.
And therefore, there are questions, first of all, to the relevant Deputy Prime Minister Fedorov and TAPAS, who were supposed to ensure the automation of these processes and convinced the public for a year that they had coped with this task. There are questions for Fedorov not only regarding “automation” or “digitalization,” but also because he personally lobbied for the bill, which, as our international partners have already pointed out to us, is unacceptable due to corruption risks.
The Ministry of Culture proposed creating a working group when 5655 was considered, but this did not happen. Acting Minister of Culture Rostislav Karandeev notes that the government decree was developed without the involvement of the professional environment of monument guards and the relevant ministry: “That is why the project contains inconsistencies with the current monument protection legislation and norms that carry risks for the preservation of Ukrainian cultural heritage. The Ministry of Culture advocates minimizing the subjective human factor when making management decisions. However, the “automation” of processes in the field of cultural heritage should not deprive cultural heritage objects of their special history. The draft resolution has been published for public discussion, that is, now experts and the public have the opportunity to submit their proposals. After completion of the public discussion, the draft resolution will be submitted to the Ministry of Culture for approval. We will immediately provide our professional opinion, because we already have specific proposals and comments.”
And since the order is in order to pass through the regulation the norms of the bill not signed by the president, then the law will be violated, as people’s deputy Ganna Bondar (“Servant of the People”) says: “The role of local self-government and community cannot be reduced. It seems that the Ministry of Infrastructure is playing with thimbles: what will the European Commission close for a regulatory decision? Lawmakers are also serious. Here there is a violation of at least three points of Article 92 of the Constitution, which refers to those that such norms may be established by law, and not by regulation. This document also states “ The procedure for carrying out an experimental project to improve the efficiency of the organization of planning processes for the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”, which is the basis of the law that establishes the possibility of implementation “experimental procedures.”
The closest meeting is the need to monitor and follow the draft resolution presented by Prime Minister Denis Shmigal.
