war crimes in Ukraine

The Tribunal for Putin (T4P) global initiative was set up in response to the all-out war launched by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022.

19. Environmental rights



1.   Right to safe environment

Delayed information on environmental safety and lack of objectivity has become quite common over the recent years. Under these circumstances well-grounded conclusions on the adherence to the right to safe environment and adequate system of environmental policy to respond to environmental and technogenic hazards can hardly be expected. 

The new facts proving that the governmental structures responsible for conducting environmental monitoring have lost control over the situation are constantly revealed. Thus an environmental organization “Zelenyi svit” sent a request to the Ministry of Environment concerning the disposal of the toxic component of the rocket “melange” fuel, 16 thousand tons of which are stored in the military bases located in different regions of Ukraine.  It has been one of the most successful projects over the recent years, implemented with the help of OSCE coordinator for economic and environmental activity – optimistic information with respect to the removal of hazardous matter from the military bases sites has appeared more than once in the official publications and media.[2] The answer provided by the Ministry of Environment demonstrated that the chief department in charge of environmental issues does not possess reliable information on the implementation of this well-known project. “Zelenyi svit” had to submit more requests, including requests to the Ministry of Defense and local administrations, in order to obtain the needed information.[3]

The Ministry of Environment has lost control over situation at the regional level due to consistent ruination of the state environmental policy system, which has been going on over the recent years. The year 2013 was characterized by rapid deterioration in the system. Governmental decree adopted in response to the presidential administrative reform and one of the outlandish “deputy Miroshnichenko’s laws”[4], on May18 disbanded all the territorial subdivisions of the Ministry.[5] Some of the former competences of the departments were delegated to the newly formed ecological departments under the oblast’ state administrations. In real life the newly formed departments have not become the heirs of the liquidated departments of the Ministry of Environment; many specialists have left; the list of official positions does not include that of a specialist in charge of environmental policy.

It means that over a year an unprecedented loss of information, professional potential and experience, accumulated over the decades of environmental has occurred. According to the National environmental center of Ukraine[6], this step became an apotheosis of alleged “improvement” in environmental policy, which can result in its total collapse.

The only sensible argument voiced by the advocates of the expanding administrative reform to the territorial subdivisions of the Ministry of Environment was the request for the INTEGRATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY into the operation of the local self-governments. In fact, the law on environmental policy strategy of Ukraine till 2020[7] envisages the INTEGRATION of the strategy provisions into the regional programs of social-economic development and their inclusion into the regional action plans for the environmental protection. So what was the outcome of the reforming? How can one familiarize oneself with the aforementioned programs and plans? Over the year not a single oblast’ administration has published a report on the implementation of the environmental protection program in the official mass media; neither has it presented it at its plenary meeting, although it is its constitutional obligation (article 119). Not a SINGLE official portal of oblast’ state administrations offers a valid oblast’ environmental protection program or a draft for such program, or a project for a regional action plan, or call for public participation in the discussion over a draft project. The programs for social and economic development of the oblast’s (i.e. the available ones), this year, like in former years, do not reflect the characteristics of transition to the principles of sustainable development, which stipulates INTEGRATED evaluation of economic, social and ecological factors and anticipated outcomes of the strategic planning.  On top of everything the Cabinet of Ministers[8] liquidated the National council for sustainable development of Ukraine.

Almost no information on environmental issues dynamics, scope of use of natural resources, operation of the new environmental departments under oblast’ state administrations is available. For example, the official sites of Dnipropetrovsk[9], Donetsk[10], Kharkiv[11] and many other oblasts’ state administrations contained only information on procedural steps and contact data of the officials. 

As the environmental policy has lost its priority position in the governmental operation the whole areas of the environmental protection activity have become frozen. Thus, the analytical review of natural reserves situation, prepared by renowned ecological organizations (NECU, “Ekologia.Pravo.Lyudyna” Foundation,”Pechenehy” etc.) pointed out that following a short period of time between  2008 and 2010, when the development of the natural reserves’ territories has been on the rise, a dramatic decline in this area, dubbed “the ice age” started and still continues.    As one of the outcomes of the land reform, the amount of territories with environmental potential and reserves in public property, decreased dramatically. The creation of the new national reserves is vehemently opposed at all levels. The documents for many newly created natural preserves are lost. The natural preserves are protected only by the NGOs, conscious scientists, and a few public servants who are still performing their duties by force of habit.[12] The consequences of the process for the environmental safety at the nationwide level, public health and exercising of environmental rights are unpredictable.

The neglect of environmental policy in Ukraine was noted by the international experts. Thus, according to the EPI, Environmental Performance Index, calculated in який 2012 by the Yale Center for environmental law and policy together with Columbia University and World economic Forum, Ukraine ranked  102nd out of 132 countries of the world.[13].

The experts of the National institute of the strategic research under the President are certain that under the energy- and resource-consuming developmental structure in Ukraine the GDP resource consumption is 3-4 times higher than the respective mean value for Europe, which has a negative impact on environment and public health. Further development under this model can lead to the further decrease in efficiency of the use of nature and increase of the threat of large scope of environmental hazards.[14]

2.     Right of access to environmental information

Over the year the Ministry of Environment has failed to make public the National report on the condition of the natural environment. The latest report which contained summarized  information on environmental situation in Ukraine, appeared in  2011.[15] Publications of information and analytical reviews on environmental situation stopped even earlier.[16]

The Ministry of Environment started posting results of state environmental inspections for the years 2009 – 2011 only when obliged to do so by the court decision on the claim of “Ekologia.Pravo.Lyudyna” NGO. After a year some information posted earlier was removed from the ministerial site in the course of its “updating”; the conclusions of the inspections have not been publicized since. Currently the results of the state environmental inspections are not available on the web-portal of the Ministry.[17] Looks like fundamental provisions of the law “On environmental inspections” concerning the transparency of the said inspections are forgotten completely by the Ministry. What, if not corruptive interests, could cause such short memory?

The State Committee for Statistics of Ukraine also is lagging behind with its information. [18] Its statistical bulletin “Ukrainian environment” was not published this year. Yearly report of the Ministry of Health on the public health of the Ukrainian population and sanitary/epidemiological situation in 2013 was not published either. No up-to-date information on the environmental factors’ impact on public health can be found on the official web-portals of the Ministry of Health and its offices, although the Ministry should monitor environmental situation within its terms of reference. [19] The web-portal of the Ministry of Environment contains the information of natural environment and technogenic safety in 2012[20]. Under the article 2 of the law “On the Prosecutor’s office” the Prosecutor General Office shared the information on rate of legality in the country for 2012 with the Supreme Rada,[21] but the quality of this information was, as usual, rather poor.

3.    Right of participation in decision-making on the environmental issues

The protests against the irresponsible actions of power in the accelerated implementation of the projects related to the exploration of non-traditional gases (fracturing) without due assessment of the environmental impact of such projects. On September 22 the “Big anti-fracturing march” was held in Kharkiv. The activists collected signatures under the petition to the Supreme Rada, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Kharkiv oblast’ council, in which they demanded the banning of the decision of oblast’ council of January 17 concerning the contract with “Shell” company on distribution of carbon hydrates extracted in “Yuzivska” field; the publicizing of the  text of the contract with “Shell” and taking into account the recommendations made at the hearing of the parliamentary committee on environmental policy of  July 4, etc.[22]

Environmental NGOs kept criticizing the official stand of M.Azarov and the Supreme Rada with respect to the decision on the construction of units # 3 і 4 of Khmelnitsky NPP without any heed of the public opinion. They pointed out, among other things, the further deepening of the power dependence on Russia, direct negative impacts, violation of the national law and international treaties, in particular, of Aarhus convention and Espoo convention. The problems engendered by the construction of units # 3 and 4 of Khmelnitsky NPP were formulated in a special analytical report prepared by NECU and “Ekoklub” NGO.[23]

The violations of the Espoo convention provisions in the course of the construction of blocks # 3 and 4 of Khmelnitsky NPP obviously are considered by the convention Committee on the implementation following a petition submitted by a Byelorussian NGO.[24] The consultations with the concerned parties to the Espoo convention can help in enforcing their recommendations. Some observations can still be considered at the designing stage. At the same time, observations concerning the nuclear unit or chosen technology cannot be taken into account. Complete adherence to the convention requirements is not considered either, as the decision on location, design and construction was made as long ago as 2012, while the convention requests environmental assessment in the trans-boundary context and international consultations with public participation prior to any decision-making.[25]

Noteworthy, the development of the “ecological democracy” is among the prerequisites in Ukraine’s signing of association agreement with the EU. An entire section of draft Agreement (#6) is dedicated to the environmental protection and sustainable development.  In particular, article 366 of the Agreement stipulates permanent dialogue with public at large on the issues of environmental protection. Currently the experts from the Ukrainian NGOs have assessed the rate of public participation in environmental decision-making as “satisfactory” only – they believe that the Ukrainian citizens are involved in the process only sporadically[26].

4.    Right of access to justice with respect to environmental issues

While the state systematically neglects its constitutional obligation, i.e. being the guarantor of environmental safety and ecological balance in the whole territory of Ukraine, the issue of court protection of the environmental rights becomes especially relevant. Despite a relatively small a number of the cases won in courts, non-governmental organizations could have boasted of a range of successful precedents over the past year.  

Lviv appellation economic court passed a decision sustaining the decision of the first instance court on the claim of the EPL to “Sorensen and Haar” concerning access to the environmental information, having obliged the defendant to provide the claimant with the documents justifying the discharge of the polluting materials into the atmosphere.[27] So far it is one of the few court cases in Ukrainian practice, when the court obliged a private company polluting the environment to ensure access to information on the basis of the Law “On access to public information”. The Center for political and legal reforms in its rating of the most significant court decisions related to human rights protection quoted this success of the EPL[28].

Many natural protection non-governmental organizations have pointed out that M.Azarov’s government had never made public the results of the research studying environmental impacts of the implementation of the projects for exploration of non-traditional gases or provided the opportunity for public discussion in compliance with Aarhus convention provisions.[29] That is why on May 23, 2013 EPL approached the Circuit administrative court of Kiev filing the claim against the Cabinet of Ministers on restrictions of public access to the information concerning the distribution of the carbohydrates    under the contract between Ukraine and “Shell” company.[30]

The confrontation between human rights activists and Sebastopol city council, which had lasted for 6 years, ended with overwhelming victory in the highest administrative court of Ukraine on September 24, 2013. The contention point was the preservation of the grove of Stankevych pine trees listed in the Red Book. A businessman I.Kharchenko (the former head of the land use commission of the city council, and currently the head of the technical inventory bureau of Sebastopol) intended to raise a multi-storey residential building.   M. Lytvynenko, the head of the Council of environmental NGOs in Sebastopol, was the claimant in the case. The Highest administrative court of Ukraine ruled that the city council had to terminate the contract with the businessman on the lease of land, obliging the said businessman to plant at least 50 Stankevych pine trees to replace the 5, which he had managed to cut down.[31]

Kiev ecological and cultural center and “Ekopravo-Kiev” won the case on banning the state registration of the toxic pesticide zinc phosphate and all its preparations both in the court of the first instance and in the appellation court.[32] Another court victory was achieved by”Ekopravo-Kiev” attorney G.Levina. It became the final outcome of the two-years’ nationwide public campaign for banning of the zinc phosphide, coordinated by  Kiev ecological and cultural center together with “Zelene maybutne” organization, “Pechenehy”, “Zelenei front”, Ukrainian society for birds’ protection, All-Ukrainian environmental league, Association of zoo-protection organizations of Ukraine.  

To serve the court decision the Minister of environment O.Proskuryakov on December 5 signed an order to remove zinc phosphide from the state registration list.[33]

5. Normative and legal acts regulating environmental policy and environmental rights protection, registered and passed over the year 2013

Over the year 2013 parliamentary activity aimed at environmental rights protection has been neither consistent nor active. On the other hand, the new acts restricting the rights were passed immediately.  

Thus, in February deputies M.Tomenko and A.Avakov registered a draft law[34], regulating the procedure for the exploration of the shale gas to minimize the negative environmental impact. The draft law was positively assessed by the specialized committee, but it had not been submitted to the Supreme Rada till the end of the year. Meanwhile two transnational companies -”Chevron” and “Shell” are actively preparing to the non-traditional gas extraction by fracturing at Olesk and Yuzivka geological fields.

In September a draft law on amending existing laws on animals and vegetation protection was introduced. (#2503). It was also approved by the Committee[35], but not considered at the plenary meeting. More draft laws (#3236-1 and #3236-2) on changes to the administrative infringements Code specifying the increase in fines for polluting the environment were also introduced in September. In October a draft law #3362 on changes to the same Code authorizing the militia officials to compile protocols of violations alongside with the environmental inspectors was submitted. As of early 2014 the deliberations over these draft laws have not started yet.  

The government registered with the Supreme Rada a draft law on introducing amendments to the laws on drinking water and water supply, allegedly aimed at the guaranteed safe drinking water supply for the population (2013). The draft law was not accepted unanimously by the environmental committee,[36]as its authors tried to legalize the practice of issuing licenses for temporary deviations from the established governmental standards for drinking water quality.  

In January the Cabinet of Ministers adopted the concept of the national program for handling of waste.[37] In April the presidential decree ordered the actors in charge to submit the draft law on approving the said program to the Supreme Rada within one-month’s period.[38] The experts from the institute of the strategic studies under the president classified this step as urgent.[39] The Ministry of Environment, doing its bit, prepared the draft law.[40] A month had passed and a year had passed – for the reasons unknown the law was never passed. Instead, the government, faking active operation which rather reminds us of stationary run, keeps telling tall stories about the implementation of European standards for waste handling in Ukraine, and claiming that it had adopted the concept of the national program as far back as October 2013 – just in case…[41]

The Cabinet of Ministers resolution containing an extended list of types of operation and objects representing a heightened environmental risk, which require obligatory state environmental inspection in line with article 13 of the law “On environmental inspections” is among positive steps taken by the government[42]. Another governmental document [43] has finally made possible the transfer of 53 thousand hectares of forestry lands to the entities in charge of the natural reserves. Another positive feature can be traced in the resolution defining standard lease agreement with respect to water reservoirs, i.e. that the lease does not restrict the right of public water use.[44] These isolated positive examples, however, are rather exceptional at the general background of the systematic ruination of the state environmental policy.  

6. Assessment of adherence to the international natural protection agreements.

6.1. Aarhus convention.  This year the Ministry of Environment made public the comprehensive national Report on the implementation of the Aarhus convention – in Russian.[45] The authors of the Report provide a long list of ungrounded reasons for Ukraine’s systematic failure to fulfill its obligations undertaken within the convention framework: complicated social and political situation, coming elections and change in the ministerial management. The Report does not provide any answers to the question why Ukraine still had not ratified the Protocol on the registries of the emissions and transfer of pollutants (Kiev protocol) and amendment of GMO to the Aarhus convention and time framework.

The recommendations of three latest meetings of the Aarhus convention parties, where Ukraine was defined as a party that fails to fulfill its obligations, were not fulfilled either – so, one can only anticipate the promised sanctions.

Unfortunately the Ombudsman of the Supreme Rada of Ukraine does not pay due attention to the problems of the environmental rights. In his Annual report on the state of adherence to rights and freedoms [46] he mentions that over a year number of citizens’ complaints on violations of the right to safe environment has grown four times. However, no information as to the Ombudsman actions aimed at the protection of this right is available. Over the year 2013 only two postings referring to the environmental rights have appeared on his site.  In the aforementioned Annual report the Ombudsman demonstrated lacking capacity to systemic vision of the problem and efficient management of the situation with respect to environmental rights.

It is well known that in 2012 an expert group on environmental rights was set up within the framework of the Advisory council under the Ombudsman. The group brought together representatives of ten public organizations. At the Advisory council meeting on December 21, 2012 the expert group presented the “Analytical note on Ukraine’s adherence to the main international treaties on environmental rights: Aarhus convention and Espoo convention”[47]. The conclusions to this document contain 15 specific proposals on possible ways of Ombudsman involvement. According to the Ombudsman’s response to the “Zelenyi svit” NGO request, none of these proposals has been realized in the course of the year.[48]

6.2. Espoo convention. In May another draft law on introducing changes into the law regulating the fulfillment of Espoo convention provisions was registered in parliament.[49] The law proposes, a twofold approach to innovations: on one hand, the revival of the state environmental inspection, destroyed in the previous years, and the introduction of the European procedures for the assessment of environmental impact, on the other.  Over the year the draft law has been considered at the first reading. Some methods proposed by the authors are put in doubt by the experts.[50] The main problem, however, does not consist in legal or terminological detail. Obviously it is predetermined by the lack of political will among higher officials governing the state, their complete lack of understanding and reluctance to introduce the European standards and approaches to the evaluation of environmental impact. Under these circumstances environmental criteria of acceptability of any activity, potentially hazardous for the environment, remain outside the scope of interests of the decision-makers, while positive attitude of the officials is ensured through lobbying conducted by the financial and political groups concerned and by satisfying corruptive anticipations. By early January 2014 the long-anticipated law has not been passed.

The protocol to Espoo convention on strategic environmental assessment has not been ratified either[51].

6.3 Framework UN convention on climate change. Like in the former years, the government has manifested its firm reluctance to undertake any obligations concerning the reduction of emission of green-house gases and to make efforts aimed at signing legally-binding post-Kioto agreement. The latest round of UN negotiations on climate change in Warsaw (СОР19) did not result in significant progress on the key issues of emissions reduction. The meeting did not notice any active steps on the part of the Ukrainian delegation, aimed at acceleration of the signing of new agreement on climate. Ukrainian NGOS systematically criticize Ukrainian government for its inertia. The officially proclaimed goal of reducing the emissions by 20% by the year 2020 in fact will mean the increase in emissions of the green-house gas by 70% as opposed to current level. It signifies that Ukraine is planning to increase the emissions of the green-house gases, while other countries are trying to reduce their amounts.[52]

6.4 Environmental safety issues in the focus of Ukraine chairing the OSCE.

The relevance of the Ukrainian leadership in the OSCE was determined by the fact that the prolonged economic crisis has made the “green” economy a priority lever of economic growth and of overcoming a broad range of political, social and humanitarian problems. Besides, the due attention to the issues of environmental safety and environmental rights could become a viable factor in resolving an acute polemics between the EU countries and the Russian Federation as to what should become the first priority in the Organization operation: human rights or military/political collaboration and economy.

Unfortunately, the list of priorities of OSCE, presented by the Minister of the foreign affairs of Ukraine L.Kozhara, from the very beginning did not specify the issues of environmental safety as first priority. The environmental problems were ignored altogether in defining the ways of overcoming transnational threats.  The OSCE priorities under Ukrainian chairing did not reflect modern concepts of sustainable development, which defines environmental safety, environmental protection and non-exhaustive use of natural resources as significant components of stability, security and development.

The concept of environmental rights was never mentioned over the year 2013 in the context of OSCE activity aimed at monitoring the adherence to human rights.

With all that in view we can conclude that Ukraine as the head of the OSCE failed to take into due account:

·                 Monaco declaration provisions and OSCE PA Resolution of July 5 – 9, 2012, which recommended OSCE as the leading international organization in the promotion of cooperation in the areas of economy, science, technologies, environmental protection and called the governments to regard economic/ environmental area of OSCE operation as one with the highest potential from the point of view of its long-term interests.   

·                 Evaluation and proposals of the “Positioning document on the agenda of Ukraine chairmanship in OSCE”[53], compiled by several Ukrainian civil society organizations and independent analytical centers in 2012.

6.5 Implementation of the environmental component of the “Ukraine-EU association agenda”.

No significant progress has been noted over the year in the practical implementation of the environmental component of the “Ukraine-EU association agenda for preparation and promotion of implementation of association agreement”.[54] Similarly to the last year idle declarations on devising various concepts, programs and plans within the framework of the said document were made in 2013. At the end of the day the government only managed to formulate general intentions on the institutional reforms for the implementation of the coming agreement by late 2012.[55] As to the real steps aimed at harmonizing legislation and sector policies with the EU standards, including environmental area and protection of human rights, they were left outside the scope of operation of higher state officials.    

The process of “implementation” of the “Agenda” was being simulated from the moment of its coming in force in 2009, while the nationwide program of adjustment to the EU legislation has been allegedly in operation since its approval by the Parliament in 2004[56]. The relevant fundamental plan for the adjustment of the environmental legislation in accordance with the EU directives was adopted by the Ministry of Environment only 9 years later, by late 2012[57]. By early 2014 the majority items of the plan was not fulfilled.

The authors of the analytical report prepared within the framework of the project “Evaluation of the environmental component of the bilateral cooperation between Ukraine and EU” summarized the state of things as follows: “the Ukrainian activities in this area are not systematic, but predominantly designing and orientation by their nature. For example, Ukraine never set up legal, organizational and institutional frame for the implementation of multi-faced tasks of the road-map for the Eastern cooperation; in fact there is no accountability of the central executive bodies with respect to this area of operation”.

The wrapping up of Euro-integration process formally announced by the odious order of the Cabinet of Ministers,[58] once again testified to the lack of understanding in the higher echelons of power both of the need of Ukrainian integration into the European political, economic and legal space and of the guiding values and principles of the European community.

Paradoxically, the aforementioned decision was made when the majority of Ukrainian experts’ observations pointed out the expediency of further Euro-integration in almost all the areas of the state policy. For example, the analytical reports of the National institute for the social research, which is, by definition, the main institution to support the operation of the President of Ukraine contained persistent recommendations on the further development of cooperation with EU in the area of environmental protection, including: institutional reforms for the introduction and enforcement of the environmental legislation, distribution of competences of the environmental bodies at the national, regional and municipal levels, modernization of decision-making procedures and control over their realization, promotion of integration of environmental policy into the other areas of the state policy. According to their forecasts the real improvement of environmental situation in Ukraine can be possible only with the implementation of the positive expertise of the European countries in the optimization of the parameters of the use of natural resources by decreasing the volumes of exploration and immediate implementation of the European approaches and standards of the environmental safety.[59]

The motives of the high officials for ignoring the recommendations of their own experts still remain unfathomable for us. But evidently the very secrecy of power decisions, pointless breach of Euro-integration plans and total neglect of the “vox populi” triggered an unprecedented wave of protests in the late   2013 and finally led to the most large-scale social and political crisis in the history of the independent Ukraine.


[1] “Environmental rights” section was prepared by O.Stepanenko, board member of UHGHR, executive director of “Zelenyi svit”, head of “Helsinki intiative -– XXI» group.


[3] Request for information from “Zelenyi svit” # 06 – 11 of November 21,  2013 to the Minister of environment and natural resources of Ukraine O.Proskuryakov,


[5] Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of  March 13,  2013 # 159 “On disbanding of territorial units of the Ministry of environment”–


[7] Law of Ukraine “On main principles (strategy) of the state environmental policy of Ukraine till 2020” –

[8] Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution of March 13,  2013 # 180 “On liquidation of some consultative, advisory and other auxiliary bodies set up by the  Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”





[13] EPI – method of quantitative method and comparative analysis of the environmental policy of the world states, based on the goals of millennium declaration of   2000 and calculated on the basis of natural resources indicators, viability of ecosystems,  environmental safety and environmental impacts on public health.    

[14] “Analysis of tendencies and nature of changes in the Ukrainian natural environment within the context of European integration” Analytical note of the National institute of the strategic research– December 2013.  –






[20] National report on the state of technogenic and natural safety in Ukraine in 2012

[21] #

[22] #more-11776

[23] Analytical paper “Construction of units 3 and 4 at Khmelnitsky NPP: the Supreme Rada position”.,4.pdf.

[24] Information form submitted by non-governmental organization, Ecohome, of Belarus, to the Committee on 5 November 2012 regarding the construction of two nuclear reactors in Ukraine –

[25] “How the adherence to the Espoo provisions in the nuclear area in Ukraine can be achieved” Analytical note of the Resources and analysis center  “Society and environment”

[26] Evaluation of adjustment of environmental standards to the EU standards. Analytical note of the Resources and analysis center  “Society and environment” within the framework of the project “Evaluation of  environmental component of the bilateral cooperation between Ukraine and the EU”.



[29] ttp://


[31] M.Lytvynenko: We won the case in the highest administrative court of  Ukraine and save the grove of Red-book Stankevych pine trees  –

[32] Resolution of the circuit administrative court of Kiev of  12.06.2013 and Decision of Kiev appellation administrative court of 24.09.2013 on case # /6195/13-а

[33] Order # 500 of  05.12.2013 “On  cancelling the state registration of zinc  phosphide pesticide and all its preparations”  –

[34] Draft law “”On introducing changes into laws of Ukraine concerning environmental safety, prevention and elimination of the negative impact of the non-traditional carbohydrates exploration on environment with respect to the initial contracts and agreements on sharing of the final product”–



[37] “Concept of the National program for the waste disposal for the years  2013‑2020” –

[38] Decree of the President of Ukraine # 572/2013 “On the decision of the National Security and Defense of Ukraine of April 25,  2013 “On complex of measures for the improvement of environmental monitoring and state regulations for the waste disposal in Ukraine” -

[39] “Problems of state regulations for the waste disposal and possible solutions” Analytical note of the National institute for strategic research under the President of Ukraine  –



[42] Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of August 28,  2013 #808 “On approval of the list of activities and objects represented heightened environmental hazard”

[43] Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 9.10.13 р. # 796-р “On solving the issue of alienation and transfer of land plots to the natural reserves with the goal of their targeted use for the long-term use”–

[44] Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of May 29,  2013  # 420 “On approval of the Standard contract on the lease of water objects”–

[45]Consolidated national report of   2013 on the implementation of Aarhus convention in Ukraine

[46] Annual report of the Ombudsman of Ukraine on adherence to the human rights and freedoms of citizens  –



[49] Draft law on introducing changes into the laws of Ukraine on implementation of convention provisions on the assessment of environmental impacts in the trans-boundary context–






[55] Some issues of the institutional reform in the implementation of the future association agreement between Ukraine and the EU–


[57] Basic plan for harmonization of the environmental legislation of Ukraine with the EU (basic plan for approximation) approved by the Ministry of Environment order of  17.12.2012 # 659

[58] Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of  21.11.2013 р. “Entering into association agreement between Ukraine, on the one hand and the EU and European community on the nuclear energy and their member parties, on the other”–

[59] “Analysis of tendencies and nature of changes in the Ukrainian environment in the context of the European integration” Analytical note of the national institute for strategic research  – December 2013 –



 Share this