Right to Protection is an NGO dedicatedto protecting the rights of asylum seekers, refugees, stateless andundocumented persons, as well as internally displaced and conflict affected persons.
Category: Analytics
17.01.22
Today we present the December 2021report 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.
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.
On 29 December, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine eliminated the requirement to install the Vdoma location-aware appandself-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.
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 MiloveIBCP in 2021 doubled compared to 2020, whilst at HoptivkaIBCP the situation remained the same. Thus, the number of crossings at MiloveIBCP was 277,000 in 2020, against 548,964 in 2021. At HoptivkaIBCP, 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 MiloveIBCP, 39 people were sent for observation. Most were older persons, who could neither install the Vdoma app nor afford COVID-19 tests.
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 MiloveIBCP to enhance the safety and dignity of the people crossing.
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.
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].
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].
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 thatduring 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.
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.
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 theR2P Project “Reducing Disaster Risk Vulnerability in Eastern Ukraine – Phase II“
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.
[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.
[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.
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.
[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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 11November.
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.
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).
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.
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.
As stipulated by the Constitution of Ukraine, the right to a safe and healthy environment is guaranteed by the state[1]. The occurrence of a disaster, or any emergency or set of emergencies, as well as the risk of their occurrence, represent the factors that violate the right to a safe environment for life and health. In this context, a necessary condition for guaranteeing the right to a safe environment for life and health is a determination about the possibility of risk control and risk management through disaster risk reduction.
The level of security is mainly characterized by uncertainty. Provided there is enough information about the actual state of the environment, then we understand what is happening now and what changes may appear, and it gives us an opportunity to respond appropriately, and therefore, feel more or less safe. Thus, the skillful identification of the causes of disasters or other phenomena that may threaten the citizens’ life or health and their management will ensure the possibility of human life in an environment that does not cause harm to health.
First of all, people want to use safe natural goods to satisfy their vital needs. Most of these needs require a certain organization of the efforts of a certain community. The state, and in particular, communities, as well as individuals and legal entities, unite to implement all necessary methods and measures to achieve environmental safety.
According to Article 293 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (CCU),an individual has the right to a safe environment for life and health, the right to accurate information about the environment, the quality of food and household items, as well as the right to collect and distribute it. Part 4 of this article stipulates that an individual has the right to appropriate, safe and healthy working, living, studying, etc.
The environmental safety issue is considered in Art. 50 of the Law of Ukraine on Environmental Protection. According to this standard, ecological safety is a state of the environment in which the deterioration of the ecological situation and the emergence of danger to human health is prevented. To the citizens of Ukraine, environmental safety is guaranteed by implementing a wide range of interrelated political, economic, technical, organizational, state and legal, and other measures. As stipulated by Article 31 of the same law, environmental safety is achieved through environmental regulation (establishment of a set of mandatory standards, rules, requirements for environmental protection, use of natural resources, and environmental safety).
Also, environmental safety is achieved through assessment that includes the requirements of environmental legislation, the ecological capacity of a certain territory, the state of the environment in the area where it has been planned to place objects, environmental forecasts, prospects for the social and economic development of the region, capacity and types of the cumulative impact of harmful factors and objects on the environment.
Pursuant to Article 25 of the Law of Ukraine on Environmental Protection, environmental information includes information that can be generated only if it is processed through forecasts and risk assessment. For example, “sources, factors, materials, substances, products, energy, physical factors (noise, vibration, electromagnetic radiation, radiation) that affect or may affect the state of the environment and human health;” can be established through the data analysis, monitoring, and evaluation, database maintenance, the formation of an information system.
The same applies to the information on the threats and causes of environmental emergencies, the results of the elimination of these phenomena, recommendations for measures to reduce their negative impact on natural objects and human health; ecological forecasts, plans, and programs, measures, including administrative, state environmental policy, legislation on environmental protection.
As for the information on the costs associated with the implementation of environmental measures through environmental funds, other sources of funding, economic analysis conducted within the decision-making process with relation to environmental issues, this information can be collected post factum. However, the analysis of these data helps to formulate the size of environmental funds, as well as explain the feasibility of financing preventive measures.
Engineering protection of technologies is what allows to protect the population and territories from emergencies and presents measures to ensure environmental safety, which includes man-made safety as well.
One of the signs of guaranteeing environmental safety is the degree of determination of certain social processes based on the activity of external factors. To accomplish this, let us appeal to riskology – a science that studies risks, namely, the reasons for their occurrence, possible consequences, systematizes, evaluates, and analyzes them, determines minimization ways, and risk management methods.
The simplest but most effective way to identify risks is causal; its basics are shown in the diagram.
Risk management requires an understanding of their classification that contributes to better identification of the uncertainties to be addressed. There are several classifications. For example, in the context of a dangerous type, there are man-made (anthropogenic), natural, and mixed risks. The risks of the relevant management sphere, in particular, energy, transport, resources, investment, etc. are determined proceeding from the activity nature. Risks may be assessed depending on the objects, such as risks to health, housing, environment, property, etc.
There is also a qualitative characteristic of assessments, which depends on the qualification features of risks. For instance, according to the entity’s country of operation, internal and external risks are distinguished. According to the level of origin, there are branded, industry, regional, national, and international risks. According to the areas of coordination, risks are distinguished as a social, political, administrative, legislative, financial, resource, environmental, demographic, and geopolitical. Uncertainties of the future, insufficient information, subjective influence risks are distinguished by the cause. According to the degree of validity of risk acceptance, risks are distinguished as reasonable, partially justified, and adventurous.
The degree of systematization determines systemic and non-systemic risks. Based on the permissible limits, permissible, critical, and catastrophic risks are distinguished. The risk realization provides for realized and unrealized risks. According to the adequacy of the time for decision-making on responding to the risk implementation, there are warning, current, and late risks. As for the influence scale – single and multi-person risks. Predicted and partially predicted risks may be identified on the basis of the possible prediction. According to the degree of influence on the activity – negative, zero, and positive risks.
Currently, there is no unified interpretation of the ‘risk’ concept. Different authors present various definitions. Thus, according to American researchers M. Mescon, M. Albert, F. Hedouri, the risk is treated as a level of uncertainty in predicting the outcome. N. Nikbakht, A. Groppelli interpret risk as instability, uncertainty in the future, as the level of uncertainty associated with a project or investment.
In doing so, they relate it to financial transactions and identify the risk associated with exchange rates when future foreign exchange earnings are depreciated. Another definition of risk is given by N.V. Khokhlov; he suggests that risk is an event or set of related accidental events that cause damage to the object possessing this risk. Risks include the following components: losses, and uncertainty/probability element, choice.
Risks can be managed by predicting the occurrence of a risky event and taking measures to reduce its degree.
The decentralization reform has provided local self-government bodies (LSGBs) with significant areas including a large number of different objects that may suffer losses due to various events, namely risks. At the same time, LSGBs are obliged to guarantee the safety of individuals who are in their territory and properly plan the system of engineering measures and activities of enterprises, institutions, and organizations. To help LSGBs, statutory regulations are used; they provide for planning LSGBs’ activities through strategies, in particular, through disaster risk management strategies. Such strategies can be both separate documents that list the main risks within communities (as well as methods for best analyzing the causes and consequences that help reduce disaster risk) and sections in other documents.
The most logical here are the documents that must be assessed from the strategic environmental point of view. Specifically, comprehensive plans for the development of territories in the form of urban planning documentation, according to the law, at the local level and land management documentation that determines the planning organization, the functional purpose of the territory.
It also defines the basic principles and directions of formation of a unified system of public services, road network, engineering, and transport infrastructure, engineering preparation and improvement, civil protection of the territory and population from dangerous natural and man-made processes, protection of land and other components of the environment, eco-network formation, protection and preservation of cultural heritage and the traditional nature of the environment of settlements, as well as the sequence of implementation of decisions, including phased development of the territory.
The source material for forecasting assessments can be generalized information about past situations or developed technical solutions and expert knowledge. The obligatory nature of such scientific developments is determined by Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine on Environmental Protection. It is this standard that introduces the systematic comprehensive scientific study of the environment and natural resources in order to develop the scientific basis for their protection and rational use, ensuring environmental safety.
The algorithm for predicting the impact of any activity on the environment can be illustrated as follows:
Analysis of the initial state (baseline);
Analysis of the achieved state;
Analysis of changes when achieving the planned level;
Predicted transformation and neutralization of harmful influence;
Economic assessment of direct and indirect impact on the environment;
Analysis of hydrometeorological conditions and prediction of possible trends;
Analysis of the obtained results, comparison with the initial state (baseline).
To implement each component, different methods of estimation and modulation are used (M-optimal solution models, methods of stochastic programming, special EIA methods, such as the Leopold matrix, combined map analysis, etc.).
Efficiency in dealing with environmental risks is ensured by supplementing the risk analysis with a system of measures for their management and minimization. Among them, the leading place is occupied by monitoring, multivariate planning based on multifactor prediction and environmental insurance [3].
Example, analysis of the causes and consequences of natural and environmental risks in agricultural management of natural resources [4].
To summarize, it should be noted that with the use of this scheme, as well as the scientifically established typical areas of risk occurrence, a risk management system may be formed in any area.
«Risk analysis, as well as risk-oriented planning, should become a key tool for communities when developing core strategic documents, especially in the field of disaster risk reduction».
Sofia Shutiak, Project Strategic Analyst, Reducing Disaster Risk Vulnerability in Eastern Ukraine – Phase II
[2] Kostrychenko, V. M. Riskology and agricultural management of natural resources / V.M. Kostrychenko, Yu.V. Tkach; Scientific Bulletin. (in Ukrainian) – 1999. – Issue 9.11. – P.253-258. – Bibliography: 6 names.
[3] Risk and its classification, associate professor I.I. Didovich Candidate of Economic Sciences
[4] Riskology and agricultural management of natural resources / V.M. Kostrychenko, Yu.V. Tkach; Scientific Bulletin; collection of scientific and technical proceedings of the Ukrainian State Forestry University. (in Ukrainian) – Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, USFU. – Lviv, 1999. – Issue 9.11. Modern ecology and the problems of the society’s sustainable development. – P.253-258. – Bibliography: p. 257-258.
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 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.
Today we present the report ‘Crossing the contact line’ for September 2021, prepared by the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P). The report is based on data collected during the monitoring of the situation on EECPs.
Only two of seven Exit-Entry Crossing Points (EECPs) remained open for crossing the contact line: Novotroitske in Donetska Oblast and Stanytsia Luhanska in Luhanska Oblast. COVID-19 measures continue to have an impact on the number of persons crossing the EECPs. In September less people crossed than in previous months. According to SBGS statistics, about 70,000 people crossed the contact line in September, while the figure was 91,000 for August. Anti-COVID-19 measures are cited by the de facto authorities as their reason to keep the other EECPs closed.
On 17 and 24 September, NGCA side of Novotroitske EECP was closed by the de facto authorities citing technical problems without any further explanations. Meanwhile, Novotroitske EECP on GCA side was open on those days. This closure prevented people crossing for purposes such as obtaining necessary medical treatment, visiting relatives or attending funerals of relatives on time. Such closures may in some cases lead to the deterioration of health of sick people and those who need special care.
In September, it has become possible to obtain a printable Covid-19 vaccination certificate at the Diya website. It means that people can get the certificate without visiting a medical facility even while being in the NGCA. However, a smartphone with Diya app or an electronic digital signature is needed.
During September, 10,159 vulnerable elderly persons were transported across the Stanytsia Luhanska EECP by an electric vehicle provided by the NGO Proliska.
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 (currently – two) 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.
Natalia was only 39. In early 2021 she was diagnosed with cancer, yet due to the lack of identity documents, she could not receive vital treatment: she could have neither undergo chemotherapy nor surgery.
Undocumented persons and even people who have applied for the Stateless Determination Procedure (SDP) are not entitled to free medical treatment under the medical guarantee program. Natalia was hospitalized several times in critical conditions, but she did not receive proper treatment, despite the fact that in August 2021, with the help of a lawyer from the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P), she applied for an SDP.
In the spring, Volodymyr Kohan died at the age of 69. This happened before the SDP was established. The lawyer of the R2P has been assisting the man in obtaining Ukrainian citizenship since 2018, but it has not been possible to confirm his citizenship – the legal connection with the Ukrainian state has been lost. The man suffered for many years due to vision loss and other diseases. He did not receive treatment due to a lack of a passport, as well as did not have money to be able to undergo treatment. The man made an appointment to apply for the Stateless Determination Procedure, but unfortunately, he was never able to obtain this document…
Recently, a 59-year-old woman, a beneficiary of the Fund, died. For more than 20 years, she struggled and waited for the introduction of the Stateless Determination Procedure to be adopted, all that while living without any documents, because no country recognized her as a citizen. For a long time, the woman suffered from diabetes, but could not receive medical care and proper examination due to a lack of identity documents. In May 2021, the woman already had the necessary package of documents to apply for an SDP but was never able to apply for the long-awaited procedure.
Due to the lack of citizenship, thousands of people living in Ukraine also do not have identity documents.
Since April 2021, Ukraine has introduced the Stateless Determination Procedure (SDP). Finally, undocumented persons got a chance to change their lives for the better and live without any obstacles.
According to the survey, conducted by the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P) in 2020, 17% of undocumented and/or stateless persons have serious chronic diseases or disabilities. These people are not entitled to free treatment, free examinations, disability, vaccinations, or any other free medical services under the medical guarantee program.
Why can’t stateless applicants be treated free of charge?
Only citizens of Ukraine, foreigners, and stateless persons permanently residing in Ukraine, as well as the refugees and persons in need of complementary protection, can receive free medical care within the framework of the medical guarantee program.
This applies to the following types of medical care:
emergency care;
primary care;
secondary (specialized) medical care;
tertiary (highly specialized) medical care;
palliative care;
medical rehabilitation;
medical care for children under 16;
medical care in connection with pregnancy and childbirth.
Persons with uncertain legal status and/or citizenship, without any identity documents, do not have access to free medical care. Such people can count only on emergency medical care with the subsequent reimbursement of the cost of the provided services. The same applies to people who have applied for an SDP, as well as to the officially recognized stateless persons without a temporary residence permit.
In the context of the implementation of an SDP, it should be noted that the Human Rights Strategy aims to ensure that persons who have applied for the Procedure have the right to work, health care, and social protection. The implementation of this task is impossible without making the required changes in the legislation on financial guarantees of medical care. However, the relevant measures proposed by the public, unfortunately, were not included in the Action Plan of the National Strategy for Human Rights for 2021-2023.
Under the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, the Contracting States shall provide the stateless persons with the same status as nationals within their territories. This includes the same rights in the following areas: social protection, employment, job rights, occupational diseases, maternity, illness, disability, age of retirement, death, unemployment, family responsibilities, and other cases that, in accordance with domestic laws or other regulations, fall within the scope of the social security system.
Charitable Fund “Right to Protection” (R2P) has repeatedly expressed its position on the vulnerability of the undocumented persons who have difficulty proving citizenship or whose citizenship is uncertain. In particular, we have informed the Ministry of Health of Ukraine and the National Health Service of Ukraine about the status of these categories of persons and asked for an appropriate dialogue on that matter. Yet, the issue of legislative provision of access to medical services for these groups still remains unresolved.
«For years the undocumented and stateless persons have been suffering due to a complete lack of access to the medical services. A person is not entitled to free medical care even after filling the Stateless Determination Procedure application and even after being recognized as such and until the moment of obtaining a permanent residence permit. For Ukraine in order to comply with its international obligations, lawmakers need to review legislation on financial health care guarantees and provide people with adequate protection.»
Based on the results of the review of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (hereinafter – the Committee), a decision was made, the main points of which can be summarized as follows:
The Government of Ukraine was reminded of its obligation to fully address the multifaceted problem of non-compliance or delays in the execution of national court decisions, as well as Ukraine’s obligation to comply with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 46 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. At the same time, the Committee noted that currently, the Government is far from properly fulfilling this obligation;
The Committee noted Ukraine’s implementation of individual measures in 18 cases from the Zhovner / Ivanov group, and removed these cases from control by a relevant resolution; at the same time, the Government of Ukraine must provide information on the implementation of the other 31 decisions from this group;
The Committee expressed concern about the lack of progress in the implementation of the Action Plan and National Strategy (hereinafter – the National Strategy) for Resolving the Problem of Non-Enforcement of the Court Decisions which must be implemented by the state body, state enterprise, institution, or organization until 2022. These actions do not require the necessary budget allocations to implement and enforce the solution.
The Committee noted that reforming the institution of private performers does not solve the problems of enforcing national court decisions.
The Committee expressed interest in the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (approved by the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 18 September 2020) to review the constitutionality of moratorium laws and their compliance with the rule of law.
The Committee has called on the Government to finally establish a data accounting system that reflects the enforcement of national court rulings against the state.
The need to implement the package of legislative and institutional reforms set out in the National Strategy and Action Plan, as well as to provide sufficient budget allocations was also noted by the Committee.
The Committee instructed the Secretariat to prepare a detailed memorandum for the next hearing of the case on financial and budgetary allocations to ensure the automatic execution of decisions and on moratorium issues that impede the execution of decisions not in favor of the state-owned enterprises.
Also, given the urgent need to resolve the urgent issue, the Committee of Ministers of the CoE called on the Government of Ukraine to provide information on these issues by January 1, 2022, in particular on the progress in implementing the necessary reform package and decided to continue consideration of these groups at the March 2022 meeting. The Committee also instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft interim resolution for consideration at the meeting if the Government of Ukraine will not show any progress, in particular in the implementation of the National Strategy and Action Plan.
Thus, following Rule 16 of the Committee of Ministers Procedure, in the process of monitoring the implementation of a resolution or amicable settlement, the Committee of Ministers may adopt interim resolutions, including information on the implementation process or, if necessary, concerns and/or proposals for the implementation.
In this context, the CoE has already issued 8 interim resolutions. The last one was issued in October 2020, which states that Ukraine has not fulfilled its obligations and has not made progress in implementing the decisions of the ECtHR by the deadline, in particular in the case of Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (more information about this is available here).
There are concerns that in March 2022, Ukraine will again face a negative interim resolution. The government will not have time to radically change the situation in the legal and institutional spheres in such a short time.
However, significant changes can be achieved in at least one aspect. In the coming months, the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget for 2022” will be considered, and the amount of funds allocated to cover debts by decisions of national courts, including in the social sphere, will be important. At the same time, given the pandemic and the economic crisis it is contributing to, it would be too bold to predict significant budget allocations for such purposes.
Given the above, the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P) calls on the Government of Ukraine to take decisive and coordinated actions to address the systemic problem of non-compliance with national court decisions and will welcome all effective steps taken by the state in this direction.
Because of the restrictions on crossing the ‘contact line’ through the Entry-Exit Checkpoints (EECPs), thousands of people have been deprived of their basic needs: pensions and social benefits, birth and death certificates, ability to visit and communicating with family members, access to their own property or to their permanent residence at all.
As a result, many residents of the Non-Government Controlled Areas (NGCA) decide to go to Government-Controlled Areas (GCA) through the Russian Federation and cross the Russian-Ukrainian International Border Crossing Points (IBCP) in Milove and Hoptivka. This trip necessarily takes much longer than crossing the ‘contact line’, and incurs additional expenses, for transportation, and, in many cases, the payment of a fine for illegally crossing the border.
The team of the CF “Right to Protection” (R2P) jointly with the UNHCR prepared a note “Going around the contact line. Information on movements of NGCA residents through the Russian Federation”.
This note is based on information collected by R2P at the two IBCP, SBGS statistic and observation, during monitoring visits from June till August 2021.
UNHCR and the NGO Right to Protection (R2P) are grateful for the generous support provided by donors, including the European Union’s Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO); the Govern- ments of Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom (DFID), the United States of America (PRM) as well as private citizens who are contributing funds through different UNHCR private associations such as España con ACNUR of Spain and the UNO Flüchtlingshilfe of Germany.
