Make a donation
Укр / Eng
07.04.22

We are pleased to introduce to you the fifth paper in a series within the course of the project “Reducing Disaster Risk Vulnerability in Eastern Ukraine – Phase II” dedicated to the analysis of what should be done at the political and managerial levels today in order to launch country’s recovery based on sustainable development approaches, as well as on the “build back better” principle. And even more – to strengthen the organizational, security and economic resilience of the state to future risks and reduce the number of losses and casualties.

War is always a big stress for the country. This is a test of all state institutions for the effectiveness of ensuring security. Although war is not a thing to be under full control, it nevertheless reveals areas of development in the field of public administration, and also gives an impetus for the search for new political and practical solutions that will be aimed at protecting the country and people from the devastating consequences of war. And most of these decisions will be laid down in the process of reconstruction. 

What basic principle should be the basis for the reconstruction of the state?

What should a new infrastructure (including the critical) be like? What issues should be taken into account?

This short article attempts to provide at least an overview of these questions – more precise and specific answers will still require additional work in this direction. However, some general conclusions can already be outlined.

An overview of the legislative framework – what risks were we prepared for?

Here are some examples of legislative acts that show that Ukraine had war threats covered on its agenda, took them into account and evaluated potential war risks in order to identify high-risk facilities. In accordance with this agenda, measures are being taken to maximize the protection of the civilian population and economy from the negative consequences of war.

For instance, the Classification of Emergency Situations defines the following characteristics of man-caused emergencies: 

  • destruction, fires and explosions of arsenals of bases and warehouses where military weapons are stored, including obsolete ones; 
  • poisoning of people with chemical or toxic substances of military origin.

Characteristics of a Social emergency:

  •  an armed attack on military facilities.

Methodology for Identifying Potentially Hazardous Facilities under the number 30700 mentions “accidents at arsenals, ammunition depots and other military facilities with the release of splinters, rocket and conventional shells.” The risk is also associated with the production and storage of explosive materials used in production processes, as well as military equipment containing explosive materials that are manufactured, stored or disposed of.

Methodology for Assessing Risks and Their Acceptable Levels to Declare the Safety of High-risk Facilities among the rough list of external influences that can lead to the occurrence of dangerous events, under number 36 indicates “sabotage, war, rebellion that can lead to destruction, make a threat of accidents or such an accident itself.” Number 37 indicates “Sabotage, a terrorist act that can be carried out either accidentally or by order of competitors, extortionists, criminal groups, etc.”. So, as we can see, the main risks that the state faced in February 2022 were formulated and listed in legislative acts. 

An overview of strategic documents – do they mention risks?

For example, in national-level strategic documents you can often find information about the negative consequences of the war and the corresponding risks for the economic and other areas of development in the context of describing the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. All local Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies that were developed for local communities with international partners’ support also considered the risks of military conflict and its consequences. However, is it possible to manage the risks of military threats? Probably, the answer to this question is a military and political issue, which goes far beyond the scope of this article.

However, according to UNDRR, risk management is becoming an increasingly complex task, given the complexity of causal relationships involved. War and conflict are integral parts of such assessment and the life of humanity.

Current context
The ability of ecosystems to self-renovation is slowly decreasing (for example, population growth contributes to the development of the agro-industry)
Environmental pollution and climate changePopulation growth in some places and depopulation in othersGrowth of the agro-industrial complex and weakening requirements for themUneven incomeMapping complex correlations and feedback loops
Environmental stressors that accompany constructionLoss of biodiversity

Droughts

Heat waves
Complexity of international trade
Market speculation
Sudden and gradual tipping pointsA large-scale event or multiple failures at the same time may suddenly exceed the entire remaining capacityMoving (production)



Market instability
Price spikes
Crop failuresProblems with access to water 
Multiple bread basket failures
System failure
Currency destabilization

Migration
Political destabilization
Civil disorder
War
Food security
Food riots

Table is based on UNDRR materials

From 1946 to 2001 there were about 220 armed conflicts in the world (Panić, 2008) resulting in more than 20 million casualties and 67 million refugees. According to the UNHCR data as of 30th of March 2022, over 4 million refugees estimated to have fled to neighbouring countries since 24 February and rising.

According to the UN analytical report on post-war reconstruction, there are four risk factors contributing to provoking conflict.

  1. Low income per capita.
  2. Weak economic growth. 
  3. The presence of socio-economic horizontal inequality.
  4. A large number of valuable natural resources.

These risk factors are even more acute when there is high unemployment, especially among young people. We find it important to take them into account when developing a Recovery Program for the country, as well as strategic documents at all levels (local, regional, national) that will outline the way for the post-war development of the state.

How to transform risk awareness into sustainable recovery?

How to rebuild the country? What should be done at the political and managerial level now in order to strengthen the organizational, security and economic resilience of the state to future risks and reduce the number of losses and casualties?

The answers to these questions are appearing step-by-step in legislative acts. In particular, on March 20, 2022, the President signed the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning Environmental Activities and Civil Protection For The Period of Martial Law”. This Law was adopted pursuant to the Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Articles 12-1, 20 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”, Presidential Decree No. 64 of February 24, 2022 “On the Introduction of Martial Law in Ukraine”. An analysis of the provisions of this Law demonstrates an attempt to restore the country as quickly as possible. In particular, amendments to the Civil Protection Code of Ukraine (Article 8) have expanded the tasks of the Unified State System of Civil Protection (USSCP) in order to:

– restore the country after the war to carry out targeted mobilization aiming at elimination of the consequences of military operations and emergency situations;

– eliminate the consequences of military operations in the settlements and territories affected by weapons of destruction; 

– restore critical infrastructure facilities in the sphere of life support of the population; 

– identify areas requiring humanitarian mine clearance, marking of dangerous areas, and clearance (demining) of territories; 

– involve international assistance to the elimination of the consequences of military operations and emergency situations.

It should be mentioned that such actions will bring the territory of the country into a state suitable for further living and conducting economic activities, but they will not guarantee the implementation of the fourth priority of the Sendai Framework Program for Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai Framework) – “Build Back Better”, as these issues go beyond the scope of civil protection issues and the competence of the State Emergency Service. It is worth mentioning that since December 2022, Ukraine has been operating a program for the recovery of Ukraine (financial agreement between Ukraine and the European Investment Bank), however, this program does not apply to actions necessary for the recovery of Ukraine after the war. (1)

In addition, on March 16, 2022 the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine introduced amendments to the institutional component. For example, in the structure of the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine the “Government Commissioner for investments” was replaced with “Government Commissioner for investments, attracting financial assistance under martial law, forming a fund for economic recovery and transformation, a fund to support small and medium enterprises, a fund to restore the property and destroyed infrastructure, a fund to service and repay public debt, an Army Support Fund, a Humanitarian Fund“. It is a good idea for the new Commissioner together with the Directorate for coordination of state policies and strategic planning to work jointly to develop the state Ukraine Recovery Programme “Ukraine 2050”. To create an efficient and realistic program, coordination and cooperation of all members and structural units of the Government of Ukraine are necessary. The need for such a program is determined by the creation of funds for the restoration of Ukraine (which we fully support)

However, we believe that in this context there is still some room for development and opportunities for more actions. Now we should think about a Ukraine Recovery Program and take into account all previous plans to implement the principles of sustainable development in Ukraine, as well as lessons of this war. In particular, we should think about the procedure for using resources from these funds, fundraising, etc.

The key to this strategy should be to define the criteria of the concept of “Build Back Better”. After all, the experience of the war shows a large number of logistical issues – the transport system needs to be radically improved. Increase the number of routes and roads, including railways and underground ones. Large cities that have become traps for a large number of people can be partially restored. There should be focus on the restoration and expansion of small villages and towns. A special issue is further economic development. Today the idea of a “Marshall Plan” for Ukraine is being discussed in the media, but in addition to it, Ukraine needs new vision of reforms, reconstruction and sustainable development. Financial assistance will contribute to rapid development only if there is a well-developed Recovery Programme and a clear action plan. Currently, Ukraine does not have such a program and plan, but right now the need for its development has become more acute.

As we mentioned before, taking into account the issues of civil protection, human safety during man-caused hazards, and environmental safety as components of national security is possible if all stakeholders involved strictly comply with standards for all types of safety. Moreover, it is the civil and human safety during man-caused hazards, and environmental safety that contribute to the continuous search for the best solutions to achieve goals, and one of the tools for ensuring safety is control (including environmental control).

We would like to remind you that due to the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, the constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and citizen provided for in the Articles 30–34, 38, 39, 41–44, 53 of the Constitution of Ukraine may be restricted temporarily for the duration of the legal regime of martial law. There are also temporary restrictions on the rights and legitimate interests of legal entities within the limits and to the extent necessary to ensure the possibility of introducing and implementing measures of the legal regime of martial law, which are provided for in Part one of Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law”. As we can see, Articles 66, 50, and 16 of the Constitution of Ukraine have not been changed. Ensuring the right to a safe environment is still relevant and should become the cornerstone issue, as well as the obligation not to cause harm to the environment. 

Therefore, the termination of scheduled and unscheduled measures of state supervision (control) and state market supervision for the period of martial law, introduced by Presidential Decree No. 64 of February 24, 2022 “On the Introduction of Martial Law in Ukraine” can only be a temporary measure necessary in an emergency. After all, the results of scheduled control are a tool for identifying sensitive issues and finding the best solutions. In addition, the control actions of official authorities will be able to properly create evidence for recording violations of war crimes, losses and damage caused. In its turn, the information and data collected during the control activities will be taken into account for the planning of reconstruction activities.

Unfortunately, we have no experience in planning the reconstruction of a country. But there is no doubt that the state should take the leadership in this process and ensure proper coordination. And here are the first steps. In particular, Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 326 of March 20, 2022, approved the Procedure for assessing damage and losses caused to Ukraine as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. Analysis of the content of this Resolution confirms that without being aware of the scale and the need for restoration, it will be difficult to estimate losses, and as a result, there will be difficulties in planning recovery, defining the approach to this process and its principles.

What basic principle should be the basis for the restoration of the state? We suggest considering the principle “Build Back Better”, which is laid down in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, as the basic one. This principle comprehensively reflects the idea of sustainable development and a risk-based approach to recovery. It should become the main value and methodological guidance in the development of the Ukraine Recovery Program and the respective action plan. It is reasonable to start developing these documents now at the level of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine with the broad involvement of all stakeholders. We would like to add that a compulsory stage in elaboration of such documents should be their strategic environmental assessment.

So, the general algorithm of actions suggested:

  1. Creation of a national system for recording and documenting the facts of destruction (primarily critical infrastructure facilities), movement of businesses and people, etc. It is advisable to provide such recording by creating a) an organizational and legal component of such a system – strengthening the role of regulatory authorities, providing them with security guarantees, adjusting the forms of inspections and methods of fixing violations, and b) an information and technical component – creating an online database that should be administered by the State Emergency Service, but which would be accessible by other state authorities (first of all, the Ministry of Communities and Territories Development and Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Ukraine) and international partners;
  2. Legal and regulatory adoption of the “Build Back Better” principle as the key principle of recovery;
  3. Conducting an assessment of the damages caused and making decisions on the feasibility of restoring facilities;
  4. Determining financial sources and material resources for recovery based on the “Build Back Better” principle;
  5. Coordination and unification of civil and human safety requirements in the context of man-caused hazards, as well as environmental safety demands to take into account the principles of sustainable development in decision-making;
  6. Elaboration (based on scientific outcomes) of state programs for the application of the best available technologies considering available local resources (National State Academy of Ukraine together with Ukrainian scientists should be involved).

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the reconstruction process should be implemented with broad discussion and the involvement of the international community and the general public.

“The principle “Build Back Better” should become the main value and methodological guidance in the development of the Ukraine Recovery Programme and the respective action plan.”

Sofia Shutyak, Strategic Analyst of the project “Reducing Disaster Risk Vulnerability in Eastern Ukraine (Phase II)”

This study was possible with the final support of the European Union through its Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations.

This document highlights humanitarian assistance activities funded by the European Union. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the European Commission’s official position, the European Commission is not responsible for the use of information in the document.

  1. The project is aimed at supporting multi-industry investment sub-projects in the field of municipal and social infrastructure aiming at overcoming the consequences of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, which devastated parts of this region between March and early September 2014 and continues to this day.

#RiskReduction #Resilience #PreparePreventProtect #3PConsortium #ACTED #ECHO EU Civil Protection & Humanitarian Aid – ECHO

18.02.22

How to reduce the risk of emergencies in eastern Ukraine?

Members of SHIFT Project know how!

The International NGO ACTED has partnered with IMPACT Initiatives, Right to Protection (R2P), and the Danish Red Cross and Ukrainian Red Cross Society (URCS) to implement a 12-month Sustainable Humanitarian Interventions for Transition (SHIFT) project, funded by the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund (UHF).

This project provides humanitarian assistance and access to essential services in three frontline hromadas of Volnovakha raion in eastern Ukraine (Volnovakha, Olhynka, and Myrne), as well as supports strengthened government ownership and response capacity in coordination with development actors. Moreover, it is a pilot project and an important step for the humanitarian system. It shifts away from direct service delivery by external NGOs, who have been implementing the humanitarian response for the past 7 years, and moves toward sustainable and cost-effective response managed by ocal authorities.

DONWLOAD THE NEWSLETTER:

IN ENGLISH

IN UKRAINIAN

#SHIFTConsortium #SustainableHumanitarianTransition #UkraineNotForgotten #InvestInHumanity

ALSO READ:

17.02.22

One of the key objectives of the Decentralization Reform is to make social services as close as possible to the people who live in the amalgamated territorial communities (hromadas). The process of transferring the authority to provide social services to the local communities is not that easy. At first, the communities will have many questions and face a few difficulties. To help the hromadas, the Charitable Fund “Right to Protection” (R2P) has already been providing expert support for a long time.

In 2021, within the framework of the Project “Support of the Amalgamated Territorial Communities along the contact line in the Reorganization of the Social and Administrative Services with the Decentralization Reform” the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P) has organized preliminary consultations, meetings with hromada representatives to identify the possible solutions to the problems with access to social services.

The measures were aimed at implementing and supporting changes in governance resulting from the process of decentralization while strengthening local governments, accountability, and response capacity in coordination with participants. The implementation of initiatives in communities is a logical continuation of the systematic work on expert support of communities to establish a system of social services in target communities.

In 2022, the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P) continues to support community development initiatives aimed at improving access to social services.

communities захист

«In 2022, we will be able to help the hromadas establish the financial base to be able to improve the access to social services. The Project envisages the implementation of 5 initiatives in each community, the budget of each initiative is equivalent to 5000 US dollars in hryvnias. It is also planned to provide social workers with tablets, laptops, and uniforms so that they will become more recognizable so that people in the community will be able to recognize them,»


– tells Volodymyr Oleksenko, IDP Protection Coordinator at the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P).
Олег Любімов

«Recently we have held meetings with all the communities participating in the Project in eastern Ukraine. We have discussed the results of last year’s work, and outlined the plans for our future cooperation,»

— says Oleh Lyubimov, Decentralization Coordinator at the R2P.
захист

“As the employees and managers of the CMA’s receive more powers, the more they feel responsible for the fulfillment of the functions these powers are related to. Yet, at the same time, they lack certain qualifications and special skills. We have seen their need for professional support, including assistance that our experts can provide. Therefore, the R2P’s task is to help them organize a functioning social services system, to be able to provide aid to all residents of their communities.”


– adds Oleh.

In total, five communities are participating in the Project. In the Donetsk region it is Marinska, Svitlodarska, Sartanska hromadas, and in the Luhansk region – Hirska and Nizhnyoteplivska.

захист

«In the Luhansk region, we have specially selected those communities where elections did not take place, where there were no district centers before. From the very beginning, these communities did not have a social service network. They had to start from scratch,»,


– said Olena Hrekova, head of the Severodonetsk office of the Charitable Fund “Right to Protection” (R2P).

For example, in 2021 the experts of the R2P have been actively involved in the establishment of the Department of Social Protection of the Population in the Svitlodarska Civil-Military Administration (CMA). As a result, the Center for Social Services has been reformed. In the Nyzhnyoteplivska village hromada, the Department of Social Protection and the Center for Social Services have also been created. Employees of the community needed assistance in drafting legal and organizational documents.

«Further work will be focused on determining the hromada’s social needs – this will be a completely new work area. Based on this information, communities can apply for subsidies for the development of these social services, as well as to determine further activities to expand the new ones.»,


told Natalia Gubareva, a lawyer of the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P).
захист

During the meetings, our experts have also told the community leaders about the most important instruments of financial support in 2022 from the Government of Ukraine.

Alina Hubar, the Deputy Head of the Nyzhnyoteplivska village hromada, shared her impressions about the cooperation:

«At first, we did not believe in ourselves, that we would find funds, that we would find specialists, without the help of the R2P it would have been difficult for us to even take the first step – to start the registration of the Department of Social Protection and the Center for Social Services. We are very grateful because you have opened our eyes to what we can do, you gave us confidence. Cause one man does not make a team. And most importantly, you have provided us with extremely effective tools!»,

ALSO READ:

  1. Helping the communities with the preparation of documents for participation in government programs
  2. Social services and welfare. How R2P helps to determine the needs of the population from the communities along the contact line
  3. Communities development = Ukraine development. How R2P helps ATCs and CMAs along the contact line to create a system of social services
15.02.22

Today we present the January 2022 report on the conditions for crossing the Entry-Exit Checkpoints (EECPs) and International/Interstate Border Crossing Points (IBCPs). The report is based on the data collected during the monitoring of the situation at the EECPs in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (eastern Ukraine), as well as on the IBCPs “Milove” and “Hoptivka” on the border with Russia.

The purpose of the survey is to gather information on the difficulties and problems faced by the citizens, who are traveling across the Non-Government Controlled Areas (NGCA) and Government-Controlled Areas through EECPs on the contact line in eastern Ukraine, and IBCPs on the border with Russia.

More statistical data is available on the Online Dashboard.

CROSSING THE CONTACT LINE:

January 2022 EECP Survey Snapshot

  • As in previous months, crossing the contact line remained possible only through two of the seven Exit-Entry Crossing Points (EECPs): Novotroitske EECP in Donetsk Oblast and Stanytsia Luhanska EECP in Luhansk Oblast . 94 per cent of all people crossing between the GCA and the NGCA in January did so through Stanytsia Luhanska EECP. This is due to the fact that Novotroitske EECP operates only two days a week, with additional permits required by de facto authorities for crossing.
REPORT: “Survey on the conditions of crossing the EECPs and IBCPs in eastern Ukraine”. January 2022
  • As in January 2021, the number of people crossing the contact line reached a low point in January 2022. The low level of crossing is most explained by the winter holidays.
  • On 24 January 2022, the SSU website has been revamped and is ready to register new crossing permits. From November 2021, people without prior registration on the SSU website were unable to register to obtain permits to cross the contact line.
  • The resumption of the SSU website and abolition of the requirement to install the Vdoma app on 29 December 2021 for people crossing EECPs to GCA considerably made the process easier and less stressful.
  • COVID-19 vaccination has become one of the reasons to cross EECPs since February 2021. A vaccination centre opened at Novotroitske EECP on 21 January. As a result, people crossing the contact line can be vaccinated at both of the EECPs operating, free of charge.

GOING AROUND THE CONTACT LINE:

January 2022 IBCP Survey Snapshot

  • In January, the R2P team identified that some people were not informed that the Vdoma app still needs to be downloaded by people crossing through IBCPs. At Hoptivka IBCP, people carried out PCR tests on their own in the neutral zone in order to avoid observation or other measures. 28 per cent of the people interviewed by R2P at Milove and Hoptivka IBCPs were over the age of 60, who often face difficulties installing the Vdoma app or paying for Covid-19 tests. Thus, from Milove IBCP, 15 older people were sent for observation. UNHCR and R2P will seek solutions to strengthen the dissemination of information on existing requirements.
REPORT: “Survey on the conditions of crossing the EECPs and IBCPs in eastern Ukraine”. January 2022
  • In January, most respondents were residents of Donetsk NGCA (51 per cent), compared to 16 per cent who were residents of Luhansk NGCA. Furthermore, for the third consecutive month, there were no residents of Luhanska NGCA among respondents at Hoptivka IBCP. The reason for the higher number of residents from Donetsk NGCA is that Novotroitske EECP in Donetsk oblast is only open two times per week.
REPORT: “Survey on the conditions of crossing the EECPs and IBCPs in eastern Ukraine”. January 2022
  • The construction of reception and sanitary facilities for people crossing the border through IBCP in Milove has been completed with UNHCR support.
REPORT: “Survey on the conditions of crossing the EECPs and IBCPs in eastern Ukraine”. January 2022
R2P LOGO ENGLISH

The report is available in:

ENGLISH and

UKRAINIAN

The report is based on the results of a survey, regularly conducted by the specialists of the Charitable Fund “Right to Protection” (R2P) since June 2017 at Entry-Exit Checkpoints in the Donetsk (Mayorske, Marinka, Hnutove and Novotroitske) and Luhansk (Stanytsia Luhanska) oblasts. Since August 2021 the survey is also conducted at the “Milove” IBCP (Luhansk oblast) and the “Hoptivka” IBCP (Kharkiv oblast).

The survey is part of the monitoring of violations of the rights of the population affected by the conflict and is conducted within the project “Advocacy, Protection and Legal Assistance to the Internally Displaced Population” implemented by the R2P with the support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The purpose of a survey is to explore the reasons and concerns of those traveling from the NGCA to the GCA, as well as conditions and risks associated with crossing the ‘contact line’ and state border through EECPs and IBCPs. The information collected in the survey helps identify protection needs, gaps, and trends, and provides an evidentiary basis for the advocacy efforts.

ALSO READ:

27.01.22

We continue the series of long reads related to the search for applicable solutions for implementing a risk-oriented approach in the routine daily practice of all government authorities. This approach is based on the need to raise awareness that the main objectives of civil protection measures are identifying the risks of emergencies, preventing emergencies, reducing the likelihood of their occurrence, minimizing their consequences and strengthening the readiness of a unified state civil protection system to such consequences.

By analyzing the Civil Protection Code of Ukraine we can draw the conclusion that the legal norms of civil protection regulate relations associated with the protection of population, territories, environment and property from emergencies. The also regulate response to these emergencies, the functioning of a Unified State Civil Protection System (hereinafter – USCPS), and determines the powers of the governmental authorities, the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local governments, the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of Ukraine, foreigners and stateless persons, enterprises, establishments and organizations regardless of the ownership form.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE UNIFIED STATE CIVIL PROTECTION SYSTEM: WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED? Управління ризиками та єдина державна система цивільного захисту: що потребує удосконалення?

Thus, it can be assumed that the USCPS should facilitate protection of population, territories, environment and property from emergencies and respond to them. It consists of a set of governing bodies and forces of central and local executive bodies, the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, executive bodies of councils, enterprises, establishments and organizations that ensure the implementation of the state policy in the field of civil protection. It is necessary to point out that this system, by definition, does not include local governments.

The unified state system of civil protection consists of functional and territorial subsystems and their links.

Regulations on the unified state system of civil protection, standard provisions on the functional and territorial subsystems are approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

The main tasks of the USCPS include:

1) ensuring the readiness of ministries and other central and local executive bodies, local governments, their subordinate forces and means to take actions aimed at preventing and responding to emergencies;

2) providing implementation of measures to prevent emergencies;

3) training population how to behave and act in the event of an emergency;

4) implementation of the state targeted programs aimed at preventing emergencies, ensuring the sustainable operation of enterprises, establishments and organizations, reducing possible material losses;

5) processing of information on emergencies, publication of information materials on the protection of population and territories from the consequences of emergencies;

6) forecasting and assessment of social and economic consequences of emergencies, determination based on the forecast of the need for forces, means, material and financial resources;

7) creation, rational preservation and use of the reserve of material and financial resources necessary for prevention and response to emergencies;

8) informing population about the threat and occurrence of emergencies, timely and reliable informing about the actual situation and measures taken;

9) protection of population in case of emergencies;

10) carrying out rescue and other urgent works on liquidation of consequences of emergency situations, life support of affected population;

11) mitigation of possible consequences of emergencies in case of their occurrence;

12) implementation of measures for social protection of affected population;

13) realization of the rights defined by the law in the field of protection of population from consequences of emergency situations, including the persons (or their families) who directly took part in liquidation of these situations;

14) other tasks specified by law.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE UNIFIED STATE CIVIL PROTECTION SYSTEM: WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED? Управління ризиками та єдина державна система цивільного захисту: що потребує удосконалення?

Functional subsystems of the unified state civil protection system (hereinafter – functional subsystems) are created by the central executive bodies in the relevant sphere of public life. According to the Law of Ukraine “On Central Governmental Authorities” [1], the central executive body is a body of executive power that participates in the formation and ensures implementation of state policy in the relevant spheres of public and state life.

The Central Executive Body (hereinafter – CEB) is responsible to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, accountable and controlled by it. The system of central executive bodies consists of: 1) ministries; 2) other central executive bodies: state committees and other bodies whose status is equated to a state committee (hereinafter – state committees); central executive bodies with special status.

Therefore, taking into consideration the system of central governmental bodies, the USCPS should cover all ministries, other CEBs, including state committees and CEBs with special status.

Territorial subsystems of the unified state civil protection system (hereinafter – territorial subsystems) operate in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, oblasts, Kyiv and Sevastopol cities. There are no territorial USCPS subsystems at the level lower than the regional and district cities, therefore, they do not exist at the level of territorial communities (local self-government bodies).

The unified state system, depending on the rank and features of the emergency, either forecasted or the one that is already occurred, operates in the following regimes: day-to-day operation; increased readiness; emergency situation; state of emergency. The analysis of the regimes allows to conclude that they are not aimed at identifying the risks of emergencies.

The regime of daily functioning of the unified state civil protection system is established under normal industrial, radiation, chemical, seismic, hydrogeological, hydrometeorological, man-made and fire conditions and in the absence of epidemics, epizootics, epiphytotic.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE UNIFIED STATE CIVIL PROTECTION SYSTEM: WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED? Управління ризиками та єдина державна система цивільного захисту: що потребує удосконалення?

In case of emergency risk, by the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, regional, Kyiv or Sevastopol city state administrations high alert regimes are temporarily established for the unified state civil protection system in full or in part for some of its territorial subsystems.

In case of emergency, by decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, regional, Kyiv or Sevastopol city state administrations emergency situation regime is temporarily established for the unified state civil protection system in full or in part for some of its territorial subsystems.

The state of emergency for the unified state civil protection system, in full or in part for some of its territorial subsystems, is temporarily established within the territory where the legal regime of emergency state was introduced in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the legal regime of emergency state” [2].

By analysing the Regulation on the Unified State Civil Protection System approved by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as of January 9, 2014 No 11 [3] we can draw the conclusion that the existing USCPD does not meet the requirements and powers imposed on it by the Civil Protection Code, as at the present time it does not cover all spheres of public life.

The Unified State Civil Protection System is governed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The Unified State Civil Protection System is directly governed by the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SESU).

It should be noted that according to official data on the list of existing governmental authorities there are 20 ministries, 25 services, 16 agencies, 5 inspections, 8 CEBs with special status, 3 collegial bodies, 5 other CEBs (including the National Police) in Ukraine – 82 fields of public life and 27 local authorities [4] in total.

However, according to the Regulation on the USCPS, the existence of functional subsystems is provided only in 11 ministries, 2 services, 4 agencies, 2 inspections, 1 special status body and two committees. The analysis of the approved provisions on subsystems also indicates that these subsystems exist in 20 fields of public life, which is 62 less than the existing ones.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE UNIFIED STATE CIVIL PROTECTION SYSTEM: WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED? Управління ризиками та єдина державна система цивільного захисту: що потребує удосконалення?

In the context of environmental security – the Ministry of Environment has not created a subsystem for environmental monitoring since 2014. SESU has planned to organise four subsystems before 2022. For the full operation of the USCPS, the existing subsystems should be significantly expanded.

They should be orginised in the field of natural resources and environmental security, as well as in other fields. Criteria for the approach and definition of functional subsystems can be the Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Strategic Environmental Assessment”, which defines the fields of implementation for state planning documents that require assessment of the consequences of their implementation, which requires finding and identifying risks.

It is also advisable to organize the functional systems of the USCPS at the level of communities, local governments, in order to give them the opportunity to participate in relations in the field of civil protection.

In addition to functional systems, there are also civil protection forces, which in particular provide specialized civil protection services. Specialized civil protection services have the right to:

1) receiving the information necessary for civil protection works from local state administrations, local governments and business entities;

2) unimpeded access to the objects of business entities and their territory for the implementation of rescue and other urgent works, elimination the consequences of emergencies;

3) establishing requirements for compliance with security measures for all persons in the emergency zone.

Regulations on specialized civil protection services and the procedure for their creation are determined by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No 469 [5].

R2P LOGO ENGLISH

Taking into consideration the importance of environmental security in organization of civil security, which was described in the article (available at: https://r2p.org.ua/en/risk-reduction-vs-civil-protection-long/), we propose some changes and additions to the current Unified State Civil Protection System, approved by the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers as of January 9, 2014 No 11.

These changes are based on the need for including local governments in the USCPS, which will allow them to become active parties in civil protection relations and develop the type and strategy of prevention of various kinds of emergencies. The need for changes in the detailed prescribing of functional systems in the field of environmental safety and use of resources is based on the relationship between natural and man-made causes of emergencies.

As the result, risk assessment is possible in close collaboration and providing resources of such public life spheres as subsoil use, forest use, water use, land use and environmental protection, protection of biodiversity, protection of natural ecosystems, as well as the drawing up of urban planning documents which according to the article 45 of the Civil Protection Code should be subject to examination, and hence to risk assessment and taking measures to prepare for their adoption.

All propositions are shown in the table below.

The Annex 1 of the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers
as of January 9, 2014 No 11 should be amended
and supplemented with the following information:

RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE UNIFIED STATE CIVIL PROTECTION SYSTEM: WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED?

The Annex 2 of the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers
as of January 9, 2014 No 11 should be ameneded
and supplemented with the following information:

RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE UNIFIED STATE CIVIL PROTECTION SYSTEM: WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED?

Conclusion

Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, as well as ensuring a safe and healthy for life environment, is possible in case of systematic efforts and changes in order to improve coordination, cooperation and communication between all participants of the Unified State Civil Protection System.


Sofiya Shutyak,
the strategic analyst of the project
“Reducing vulnerability to disaster risks in Eastern Ukraine (Phase II)”.

This study is made possible with the final support of the European Union through its Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations Department.

This document covers humanitarian aid activities implemented with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of the European Union, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Why do we need to deal with disaster risk reduction when there is a civil protection system? Навіщо займатись зменшенням ризиків лих, якщо є система цивільного захисту?

[1]  https://ips.ligazakon.net/document/JF0WX00A?an=7

[2] State of emergency is the special legal regime that may be temporarily imposed in Ukraine or its certain territories in the case of man-made or natural emergencies with the level which is not lower than the national level, and in case these emergencies have led or may lead to human and material losses, pose a threat to life and health of citizen. Also it can be imposed in case of attempt to seize the state power or change the constitutional order in Ukraine by force. The state of emergency provides the relevant state authorities, military command and local governments with powers necessary to prevent threats and ensure the securement of citizens, normal functioning of the national economy, governmental  authorities and local governments, protection of the constitutional order, as well as allows temporary restrictions (in case of threat) in realization of constitutional human and civil rights and freedoms, the rights and legitimate interests of legal entities, with the indication of time in force for all the restrictions.

[3] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/223-2018-%D0%BF#n11

[4] https://www.kmu.gov.ua/catalog

[5] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/469-2015-%D0%BF#Text

[6] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0479-18#Text

ЧИТАЙТЕ ТАКОЖ:

17.01.22

Today we present the December 2021 report on the conditions for crossing the Entry-Exit Checkpoints (EECPs) and International/Interstate Border Crossing Points (IBCPs). The report is based on the data collected during the monitoring of the situation at the EECPs in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (eastern Ukraine), as well as on the IBCPs “Milove” and “Hoptivka” on the border with Russia.

The purpose of the survey is to gather information on the difficulties and problems faced by the citizens, who are traveling across the Non-Government Controlled Areas (NGCA) and Government-Controlled Areas through EECPs on the contact line in eastern Ukraine, and IBCPs on the border with Russia.

More statistical data is available on the Online Dashboard.

CROSSING THE CONTACT LINE:

December 2021 EECP Survey Snapshot

  • In 2021, only two of seven Entry-Exit Checkpoints (EECPs) were open on both sides on the contact line: Novotroitske, in Donetsk Oblast, two days a week and Stanytsia Luhanska, in Luhansk Oblast, seven days a week. The number of crossings in 2021 was at a level considerably below the pre-COVID period. In December 2021, the number of crossings at Novotroitske EECP was 3,163, which is only 1,3 per cent of that in December 2019. The same can be deduced from the number of crossings at Stanytsia Luhanska EECP where the number was 55,010 in December 2021, which is 16,7 per cent of that in December 2019. COVID-19 preventative measures are cited by the de facto authorities as their reason to keep the other EECPs closed.
REPORT: "Survey on the conditions of crossing the EECPs and IBCPs in eastern Ukraine". December 2021
  • On 29 December, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine eliminated the requirement to install the Vdoma location-aware app and self-isolation for people crossing EECPs to GCA. This also means that isolation in a state-run observation facility is no longer obligatory as it was for people who could not install the Vdoma app. However, restrictions on crossing EECPs on the NGCA side are still being applied.
  • Infrastructure rehabilitation works began at Novotroitske EECP: a new module to support pedestrian crossings is already operational and another should arrive soon. Recently, infrastructure improvements at Stanytsia Luhanska EECP were completed, including the installation of new modules and delivery of required equipment, and baggage scanners. In addition, a new administrative service centre will be built at Marinka EECP.
  • Since November, people who want to cross the contact line have been unable to register at the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) website. Only already existing accounts are able to make submissions. This problematic situation for people crossing the contact line reinforces the urgency of the request R2P sent on 30 December 2021 to the CMU to amend order № 815 by revoking the requirement to obtain a permit to cross the contact line as excessively restrictive and hence unconstitutional.
REPORT: "Survey on the conditions of crossing the EECPs and IBCPs in eastern Ukraine". December 2021

GOING AROUND THE CONTACT LINE:

December 2021 IBCP Survey Snapshot

  • In December, most respondents at Milove and Hoptivka IBCPs were residents of Donetsk NGCA (48%) compared to the number of residents of Luhansk NGCA (24%). The remaining 28% were residents of Donetsk and Luhansk GCA and other Ukraine oblasts. According to SBGS statistics, the number of crossings at Milove IBCP in 2021 doubled compared to 2020, whilst at Hoptivka IBCP the situation remained the same. Thus, the number of crossings at Milove IBCP was 277,000 in 2020, against 548,964 in 2021. At Hoptivka IBCP, 960,880 crossings were recorded in 2020, against 925,705 in 2021.
  • Installation of the Vdoma app is no longer required for people crossing through EECPs, however, it still remains a requirement for those crossing through IBCPs. The lack of free COVID-19 tests at both IBCPs makes the process of crossing more complicated. Thus, in December, at Milove IBCP, 39 people were sent for observation. Most were older persons, who could neither install the Vdoma app nor afford COVID-19 tests.
REPORT: "Survey on the conditions of crossing the EECPs and IBCPs in eastern Ukraine". December 2021
  • On 21 December, UNHCR successfully finalized rehabilitation works at Milove IBCP to enhance the safety and dignity of crossing and reception conditions. The project was launched thanks to cooperation between UNHCR Ukraine and the Luhansk Region Civil Military Administration. The project will improve the reception conditions at Milove IBCP to enhance the safety and dignity of the people crossing.
R2P LOGO ENGLISH

The report is available in:

ENGLISH

and

UKRAINIAN

The report is based on the results of a survey, regularly conducted by the specialists of the Charitable Fund “Right to Protection” (R2P) since June 2017 at Entry-Exit Checkpoints in the Donetsk (Mayorske, Marinka, Hnutove and Novotroitske) and Luhansk (Stanytsia Luhanska) oblasts. Since August 2021 the survey is also conducted at the “Milove” IBCP (Luhansk oblast) and the “Hoptivka” IBCP (Kharkiv oblast).

The survey is part of the monitoring of violations of the rights of the population affected by the conflict and is conducted within the project “Advocacy, Protection and Legal Assistance to the Internally Displaced Population” implemented by the R2P with the support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The purpose of a survey is to explore the reasons and concerns of those traveling from the NGCA to the GCA, as well as conditions and risks associated with crossing the ‘contact line’ and state border through EECPs and IBCPs. The information collected in the survey helps identify protection needs, gaps, and trends, and provides an evidentiary basis for the advocacy efforts.

UNHCR and R2P are grateful for the critical financial support provided by donors who have contributed to the Ukraine operation, as well as those who have contributed to UNHCR programs with broadly earmarked and unearmarked funds.

ALSO READ:

24.12.21

The current legal framework for disaster risk reduction (natural and technogenic emergencies) is not perfect. It is required to fill gaps and improve understanding of the complexity of disaster risk management. The Civil Protection Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the CPCU) does not regulate state management mechanisms in this area adequately, as it does not apply to environmental safety settings, in particular, the extremely urgent issues of climate change.

Analysis and assessment of the existing regulatory practice shows a neglect of the legally established requirements in the field of safe environment, which is the primary duty of the state. A lack of relevant legal regulation is caused by lack of strategic and policy documents, which would contribute to the development and implementation of the principles of Sendai Framework Program for Disaster Risk Reduction [1] in the legal field of Ukraine.

It should be noted though that disaster risk reduction issues are not ignored in Ukraine, as the risk-based approach is recognized as an important tool for sustainable development and environmental safety. However, due to the lack of coordination, cooperation and communication among public authorities (both at horizontal and vertical levels), significant progress in the implementation of international commitments on disaster risk reduction and proper disaster risk management has not been achieved yet [2].

Importantly, environmental issues are an integral part of good disaster risk management. This situation is driven, in particular, by climate change, which is manifested by more frequent natural disasters – floods, hurricanes, etc. It is assumed that the financial consequences of natural disasters caused by climate change will increase 15-fold in the near future [3].

Why do we need to deal with disaster risk reduction when there is a civil protection system? Навіщо займатись зменшенням ризиків лих, якщо є система цивільного захисту?

In 2009, a Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation on Natural Disaster Risk Reduction and Rapid Recovery [4] was concluded between the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine (hereinafter – the UNDP). According to this Memorandum, the cooperation was to facilitate implementation of key priorities of the Hyogo Framework for Action (the predecessor of the Sendai Framework). In particular, the memorandum envisaged development of the policy and elaboration of a national strategy, a national platform and an intra-sectoral forum for disaster risk reduction [5].

According to the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU countries [6], Section 6 Environment contains Article 364 defining cooperation in the field of civil protection.

Despite the fact that Section 6 of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU countries emphasizes the need for environmental protection measures, coordination of efforts of all authorities, and cooperation, the implementation of Article 364 of the Agreement is the sole responsibility of the State Service of Ukraine for Emergencies [7].

Such an approach looks misbalanced, as it precludes the planning of relevant actions in coordination with operations of the other public authorities. This issue needs to be addressed, and bringing international cooperation under Sendai Framework in the field of responsibility of TESE Commission (Technical and Environmental Safety and Emergencies Commission) [8] might be one of the possible solutions. Besides, we believe that the composition of the Commission should be expanded.

Civil and environmental safety are those markers, which indicate that the right to a safe environment for life and health has been ensured. The Civil Protection Code of Ukraine does not contain such a concept as “civil safety”. It defines “fire safety” and “technogenic safety”. At the same time, the definition of environmental safety is contained in the Law of Ukraine “On Environmental Protection”.

Environmental safety is a state of natural environment preventing the deterioration of environmental conditions and health hazards. Article 16 of the Constitution of Ukraine specifies that it is the duty of the state to ensure environmental safety, to maintain environmental balance within the territory of Ukraine, to prevent the consequences of Chornobyl catastrophe, a global disaster, and to preserve the gene pool of the Ukrainian people.

There is no definition of environmental balance in the legislation. However, in view of the definition of environmental safety, it follows that the environmental situation is deteriorated upon occurrence of an emergency, which is accompanied by loss of environmental equilibrium and deterioration of environmental situation.

At the same time, environmental rights are guaranteed through the obligation of central executive authorities, enterprises, institutions, and organizations to implement technical and other safeguards to prevent harmful effects of economic and other activities on the environment, to comply with environmental requirements in planning, allocation of productive forces, construction and operation of economic facilities [9].

Why do we need to deal with disaster risk reduction when there is a civil protection system? Навіщо займатись зменшенням ризиків лих, якщо є система цивільного захисту?

Therefore, it can be assumed that the occurrence of an emergency is accompanied by violation of environmental rights.

Article 66 of the same law stipulates that during the design and operation of economic and other facilities, the activities of which may have a harmful effect on the environment, safeguards to prevent accidents, as well as to eliminate their harmful environmental consequences, shall be developed and implemented. In other words, these safeguards reduce disaster risks and ensure taking of actions to mitigate and reduce vulnerability if such safeguards fail, regardless of the causes of the disaster (natural or technogenic).

In the case of an accident, which caused the environment pollution, enterprises, institutions, organizations shall immediately proceed with the liquidation of its consequences.

At the same time, officials or owners of enterprises, as well as heads of institutions and organizations shall report about accidents and actions taken to liquidate their consequences to the executive committee of village, settlement, city council, central executive authority in charge of the implementation of state policy in the sphere of sanitary and epidemic welfare of population (MOH of Ukraine and State Service of Ukraine for Food Safety and Consumer Protection) of a corresponding regional, Kyiv, Sevastopol city state administration, and in the territory of Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol – to the body of executive power of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea for environmental protection, as well as to the general public.

The Code of Civil Protection of Ukraine defines the prevention of emergencies as a set of legal, socio-economic, political, organizational and technical, sanitary and hygienic and other actions aimed at ensuring the technogenic and natural safety, conducting an assessment of risk levels, proactive responding to the threat of emergency on the basis of monitoring, expertise, research and forecasts on the possible course of events to prevent them from escalating into an emergency in compliance with paragraph 11 of Article 1 of the CPCU.

Thus, the issue of disaster prevention or disaster risk reduction necessitates the implementation of procedures, such as environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment, as these are the procedures aimed at assessing risks.

Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Environmental Impact Assessment” states that environmental impact assessment (EIA) shall be performed in compliance with the environmental protection laws, taking into account environmental conditions in the location of the planned activity, environmental risks and forecasts, prospects for socio-economic development of the region, capacity and types of cumulative impact (direct and indirect) on the environment, including the impact of the existing facilities, planned activities and facilities in respect of which a decision on the planned activities has been received or the issue of making such decisions is being considered.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Report for a particular proposed activity shall describe risks to human health, cultural heritage sites and the environment, including those due to the possibility of emergencies, as well as a description of the expected significant adverse environmental impacts of the activity due to the project vulnerability to the risks of emergencies, actions to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts of emergencies and actions to respond to emergencies.

Thus, the legislator has integrated some requirements of the Sendai Framework into the environmental impact assessment procedure when planning the activities, a list of which is contained in Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine on Environmental Impact Assessment.

When issuing a conclusion on the environmental impact assessment, the authorized body, i.e. the Ministry of Environment or the relevant department, or the Department of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Regional State Administration, shall specify in the conclusion the environmental conditions to be met, which, in particular, shall address such issues as conditions for prevention of emergency situations and elimination of their consequences; prevention, avoidance, reduction (mitigation), elimination, limitation and monitoring of the proposed activity impact on the environment, as well as conduct of the post-project monitoring.

Thus, the Ministry of Environmental Safety, as well as relevant departments and divisions of the regional state administration manage disaster risks during environmental impact assessments.

Why do we need to deal with disaster risk reduction when there is a civil protection system?
SEA – Strategic Environmental Assessment
Source – UNDP Eurasia

The Law of Ukraine “On Strategic Environmental Assessment” in its Article 3 defines that SEA is conducted with the aim to promote sustainable development by way of ensuring the environmental protection, life safety of population and public health, integration of environmental requirements in development and approval of state planning documents.

A report on SEA must describe environmental issues, including risks of impact on public health, related to the state planning document, in particular in relation to areas holding a special nature protection status (according to administrative data, statistical information, and research findings). It should also assess the impact on the environment, including public health, namely any possible effects on flora, fauna, biodiversity, soil, subsoil, climate, air, water, landscape, natural areas and sites, population safety and health.

Moreover, the SEA must identify, describe and assess the consequences of the implementation of the state planning documents for the environment, including public health, justified alternatives, develop actions for the prevention, reduction and mitigation of eventual adverse effects. Definitely, like the EIA, the SEA is of limited effect and applies only to the activities defined in Article 2 of the Law. It should be noted that both the EIA and the SEA may be used for a wider range of issues than those provided for in the relevant laws.

Despite the fact that the law is improving continuously and it can be argued that it covers such a concept as environmental risks that determine environmental safety, Prof. V. Andreytsev’s [10] statement that “the ensuring of environmental safety in practice is hampered by the presence of different approaches to the application of environmental legislation”, remains relevant.

We find confirmation of these thoughts in the Concept of Risk Management of Technogenic and Natural Emergencies [11]. The purpose of the Concept is to introduce modern risk management methods to reduce the number and minimize the social and economic consequences of emergencies, ensuring the achievement of a guaranteed level of safety of citizens and society.

The achievement of acceptable risk levels throughout Ukraine must be implemented using a stage-wise approach. The first stage is to identify risk levels in all sectors of the economy, as well as the most dangerous sources of emergencies and ensure that they are reduced to the values of accepted risk levels. The second stage must ensure that the risk levels throughout Ukraine will be consistent with those used in economically developed countries [12]. Unfortunately, the issue of environmental protection and environmental risks is not raised by this Concept.

The national standard for overall risk management [13] specifies that there are certain standards for dealing with the risk, regardless of its setting. In particular, the purpose of the overall risk assessment is to ensure that evidence-based information is obtained and analyzed in order to make informed decisions on how to handle specific risks and how to choose their management option.

Why do we need to deal with disaster risk reduction when there is a civil protection system?

Picture 1. The contribution of overall risk assessment to the risk management process

According to the Sendai Framework, disaster risk reduction aims to prevent the occurrence of new and reduce the existing disaster risk, as well as manage the residual risk, which contributes to building resilience and hence achieving sustainable development. Disaster risk reduction is a policy goal of disaster risk management; its goals and objectives are defined in disaster risk reduction strategies and plans.

Environmental protection function of the state should be focused on prevention of consequences of cataclysms irrespective of their cause – natural reasons or human recklessness [14].

In view of the above, the duty of the state of Ukraine to guarantee to its citizens the right to a safe environment for life and health may be fulfilled only through deep coordination, cooperation and communication of all authorities regardless of their business and territory of operation. After all, as noted above, security risks are inherent in all areas of economic activity, because even in the absence of technogenic threats, natural disasters may occur, and they should be monitored, analyzed, predicted, and prevented.

“Civil and environmental safety are those markers, which indicate that the right to a safe environment for life and health has been ensured.”

Sofia Shutiak, Strategic Analyst of the R2P Project Reducing Disaster Risk Vulnerability in Eastern Ukraine – Phase II

This study is made possible with the final support of the European Union through its Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations Department.

This document covers humanitarian aid activities implemented with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of the European Union, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Why do we need to deal with disaster risk reduction when there is a civil protection system? Навіщо займатись зменшенням ризиків лих, якщо є система цивільного захисту?

[1] On March 8, 2015, in Sendai, Japan, the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction adopted the Sendai Framework (2015-2030), a 15-year voluntary non-binding agreement outlining complex, human-oriented measures to reduce the risk of disasters.

The Sendai Program focuses on various kinds of disasters, more and less large, frequent and infrequent, sudden and gradual, regardless of the cause, whether natural or anthropogenic, as well as related natural, biological and technological losses and risks. The program provides for multilevel risk management. The program is expected to significantly reduce the risks of disasters, human losses, deterioration of health, living conditions, economic, physical, social, cultural and natural assets of individuals, businesses, communities and countries.

[2] https://www.undrr.org/news/ministers-across-europe-and-central-asia-endorse-new-roadmap-reduce-risk-disasters-amid-covid

[3] https://efdrr.undrr.org/

[4] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_i43#Text

[5] https://disasterscharter.org/web/guest/activations/-/article/potential-collapse-of-a-tailing-pit-dam-ukraine

[6] Annex XXX of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement contains a list of 29 environmental Directives that need to be implemented.

[7] The action plan for the implementation of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU countries, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated October 25, 2017 (N 1106) involves State Service of Ukraine for Emergencies in the implementation of most measures for improvement of environmental safety, in particular, the organization of air monitoring, control of hazardous substances lists, basin management principle, as well as combat flooding.

[8] On the State Commission on Technogenic and Ecological Safety and Emergencies https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/18-2015-%D0%BF#Text

Prime Minister of Ukraine, Chairman of the State Commission, Minister of Communities and Territories Development, First Deputy Chairman of the State Commission, Minister of Internal Affairs, Deputy Chairman of the State Commission, Minister of Health, Deputy Chairman of the State Commission, Chairman of the State Service of Ukraine for Emergencies, Deputy Chairman of the State Commission,

Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Minister of Defense, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Justice, Minister of Finance, Minister of Infrastructure, Minister of Energy, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Minister of Education and Science, Minister of Social Policy, Deputy Minister of Health – Chief State Sanitary Doctor of Ukraine, Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Agriculture, Head of the State Border Service, Head of the State Food and Consumer Service, Head of the National Police, Head of the Security Service of Ukraine (by agreement), Chairman of the National Bank (by agreement), Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (by agreement), President of the Ukrainian Red Cross Society (by agreement).

[9] Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine “On Environmental Protection”.

[10] Ecological risk in the system of legal relations of ecological safety: problems of practical theory,  “Law of Ukraine”, 1999, № 1.

[11] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/37-2014-%D1%80#Text

[12] Action Plan for the implementation of the Concept of risk management of technogenic and natural disasters for 2015-2020 https://www.kmu.gov.ua/npas/248135163

[13] https://khoda.gov.ua/image/catalog/files/dstu%2031010.pdf

[14] O. Plotnikov, Ecological and legal norms in social systems, “Law of Ukraine”, 1999, № 1.

22.12.21

Today we present the report ‘Crossing the contact line’ for November 2021, prepared by the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P). The report is based on data collected during the monitoring of the situation at the EECPs in eastern Ukraine, as well as on the IBCPs “Milove” and “Hoptivka” on the border with Russia.

More statistical data is available on the Online Dashboard.

EECP Observations

  • On 5 November, for several hours no one could cross the contact line in  Luhansk oblast due to shelling near the Stanytsa Luhanska checkpoint, only one of two EECPs still open on both the GCA and the NGCA sides of the line. Then on 24 November the Marinka checkpoint was also shelled. Only exceptional crossings are authorized by NGCA side at Marinka EECP, with 14 crossings reported in November (SBGS statistics).
Crossing the Contact Line:  November 2021 EECP & IBCP Survey Snapshot
  • Last month for the first time, travellers crossing Stanytsa Luhanska showed a higher percentage of respondents reporting concerns than those crossing Novotroitske EECP in Donetsk oblast. The proportion in Stanytsa Luhanska jumped from one eighth in September to one quarter in October and November. Raised levels of concern in Luhansk oblast appear to correlate with the temporary anti-Covid restrictions imposed by the Luhansk NGCA from 9 October to 11 November and will probably fall back to September levels from December.
  • Stanytsa Luhanska EECP is usually open seven days a week. By contrast movement in Donetsk Oblast is more restricted. Novotroitske EECP is only open two days per week, and residents must seek permisson from Donetsk NGCA two weeks in advance, giving a humanitarian justification for their request.
  • In November, 737 persons, 55 per centof those who entered the GCA through Novotroitske EECP, were tested for COVID-19 as were 2,312 persons, 14 per centof those who entered GCAvia Stanytsa Luhanska EECP.  They were tested because they could not install the Vdoma location-aware app on their phones, an acute problem for people crossing the contact line to GCA, especially people aged 60+ and people with serious illnesses.
‘Crossing the contact line’, October, 2021 (REPORT) ‘Crossing the contact line’, October, 2021 (REPORT) Перетин лінії розмежування через КПВВ, жовтень–2021 (ЗВІТ)

IBCP Observations

  • To reach the GCA, many NGCA residents prefer to make arduous journeys to reach international border crossing points than cross the contact line. They enter or exit Russia through Milove IBCP in Luhansk oblast or Hoptivka IBCP in Kharkiv oblast, because crossing the contact line is now possible only through two EECPs, Novotroitske in Donetsk oblast and Stanytsa Luhanska in Luhansk oblast, both with varying restrictions.
  • The survey indicates that in November, more residents of Donetsk NGCA crossed both Hoptivka and Milove IBCPs than Luhansk NGCA residents did. Although only a sample was surveyed, tentative inferences can be drawn. Larger numbers from Donetsk NGCA correlate with the tighter restrictions for crossing the Novotroitske EECP in Donetsk oblast.
  • The travel distances are sometimes enormous. Some respondents said that to travel between the GCA and the NGCA via an IBCP, they had to travel 1,300 km, about same the distance as from Donetsk to Lviv.
Crossing the Contact Line:  November 2021 EECP & IBCP Survey Snapshot
  • Due to the lack of transport at Hoptivka IBCP, between the Russian and Ukranian border gates, people have to walk 1.2 km on foot. This is especially challenging for the elderly, the sick, and those with heavy luggage.
  • Nearly all respondents (95%) reported that a typical journey costs from 1,000 to 2,000 UAH (34-68 USD) one way. Others said they spent 3,000 and even up to 4,000 UAH (109-143 USD) for their journey.
  • Hoptivka IBCP still lacks shelters and places for people to sit while waiting for buses for up to three hours.
  • UNHCR continued the installation of the shelters and prefabricated modules at Milove IBCP in November.
R2P LOGO ENGLISH

The report is available in:

English

Ukrainian

The report is based on the results of a survey, regularly conducted by the specialists of the Charitable Fund “Right to Protection” (R2P) at the five EECPs in the Government-Controlled Areas (GCA) and administered regularly since June 2017. The survey is a part of the monitoring of violations of the rights of a conflict-affected population within the framework of the project “Advocacy, Protection and Legal Assistance to the Internally Displaced Population” implemented by the R2P with the support of UNHCR.

The purpose of a survey is to explore the reasons and concerns of those traveling from the NGCA to the GCA, as well as conditions and risks associated with crossing the ‘contact line’ through EECPs. The information collected in the survey helps identify protection needs, gaps, and trends, and provides an evidentiary basis for the advocacy efforts.

UNHCR and R2P are grateful for the critical financial support provided by donors who have contributed to the Ukraine operation, as well as those who have contributed to UNHCR programs with broadly earmarked and unearmarked funds.

ALSO READ:

30.11.21

Today we present the report ‘Crossing the contact line’ for October 2021, prepared by the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P). The report is based on data collected during the monitoring of the situation at the EECPs in eastern Ukraine, as well as on the IBCPs “Milove” and “Hoptivka” on the border with Russia.

More statistical data is available on the Online Dashboard.

  • During October, crossing the contact line remained possible only through two of the seven EECPs: Novotroitskein Donetska Oblast and Stanytsia Luhanskain Luhanska Oblast. The numbers of people crossing the EECPs are still being affected by COVID-19. The restrictions on the other five EECPs are imposed by de facto authorities as a measure to limit the spread of COVID-19. The number of crossings in October fell by half that of the previous month. According to State Border Guard Service (SBGS) statistics, 28,205 people crossed the contact line in October, compared with 70,000 in September.
‘Crossing the contact line’, October, 2021 (REPORT) Перетин лінії розмежування через КПВВ, жовтень–2021 (ЗВІТ)

On 9 October, the de facto authorities in the Luhansk NGCA temporarily imposed further restrictions on people crossing Stanytsia Luhanska EECP*, in response to a rise in COVID-19 cases. For one month, they only allowed people to cross the contact line who were registered as permanent residents in their place of destination (GCA residents could return to the GCA and NGCA residents to the NGCA). All others needed permission from the de facto authorities for one or more of the following reasons:

  • treatment and rehabilitation;
  • education;
  • caring for a relative;
  • burial of a relative.

These restrictions, which led to a significant reduction in the number of people crossing, were lifted on 11 November.

  • In October, 4,375 vulnerable elderly persons were transported across the Stanytsia Luhanska EECP by an electric vehicle run by the NGO Proliska in cooperation with UNHCR.
‘Crossing the contact line’, October, 2021 (REPORT) ‘Crossing the contact line’, October, 2021 (REPORT) Перетин лінії розмежування через КПВВ, жовтень–2021 (ЗВІТ)
  • According to the data obtained from the laboratories located at the EECPs, 1,115 persons, 78 per centof those who entered GCA via Novotroitske EECP, took antigen tests for COVID-19 during October, as did 2,226 persons, 22 per centof those who entered GCAvia Stanytsia Luhanska EECP. Meanwhile, in Donetska Oblast, 24 people were referred to the observation facility because they had no compatible smartphone to install the Vdoma app. There were still no state-run observation facilities in Luhanska Oblast.
  • Visiting relatives remains NGCA residents’ top reason given for crossing the EECPs since October 2020. Seeking access to banking facilities and administrative/social services (including pension funds) are the other most commonly cited reasons for crossing from the NGCA to GCA areas, as before the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The requirement to download the Vdoma app continues to be a problem for half those who were asked, especially people aged 60+ (18 per cent of all respondents).
‘Crossing the contact line’, August, 2021 (REPORT) Перетин лінії розмежування через КПВВ, серпень–2021 (ЗВІТ)

IBCP Observations

  • Crossings through the international border crossing point (IBCP) at Milove in Luhanska Oblast have risen by about 4,000 per month since August. R2P monitors in October noticed more cars with Luhansk number plates, which may indicate that some NGCA residents were there to get round the temporary restrictions at Stanytsia Luhanska EECP after 9 October. R2P monitors also observe very few NGCA residents being fined. NB: Numbers of those crossing the IBCP include all Ukrainians, including those unconnected to the NGCA.
  • Reconstruction work (new asphalt and street lights) continued at Milove IBCP. In addition, UNHCR installed shelters and prefabricated modules.
  • Lack of shelters, severe weather conditions and infrequent bus services at Hoptivka IBCP make the trip for pedestrians there arduous. Yet, Hoptivka has more crossings than Milove because it is near to Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city.
  • 278 people were sent to the observation facility in October at Milove, compared with 98 people in September.
R2P LOGO ENGLISH

The report is available in:

English

Ukrainian

The report is based on the results of a survey, regularly conducted by the specialists of the Charitable Fund “Right to Protection” (R2P) at the five EECPs in the Government-Controlled Areas (GCA) and administered regularly since June 2017. The survey is a part of the monitoring of violations of the rights of a conflict-affected population within the framework of the project “Advocacy, Protection and Legal Assistance to the Internally Displaced Population” implemented by the R2P with the support of UNHCR.

The purpose of a survey is to explore the reasons and concerns of those traveling from the NGCA to the GCA, as well as conditions and risks associated with crossing the ‘contact line’ through EECPs. The information collected in the survey helps identify protection needs, gaps, and trends, and provides an evidentiary basis for the advocacy efforts.

UNHCR and R2P are grateful for the critical financial support provided by donors who have contributed to the Ukraine operation, as well as those who have contributed to UNHCR programs with broadly earmarked and unearmarked funds.

ALSO READ: