Еcological tax, which is paid by polluting enterprises, was supposed to become an effective tool for solving local environmental problems. However, it is almost never allocated for measures that actually reduce industrial emissions and often only disguises the impact. Sometimes, as in the case of Zakarpattia region, it is even forgotten as a source of funding for environmental protection activities.
In the continuation of its series of articles on the use of the environmental tax in the regions, EcoPolitic analyzed the situation in Zakarpattia. In short, it is a champion of generalizations and avoidance of specifics.
The region's environmental program
The current environmental protection program in Zakarpattia region was approved back in 2023. It sets forth environmental plans for 2024–2027 and has already been revised several times.
Regarding funding, the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) is not mentioned at all in the program. All measures are planned to be implemented at the expense of the regional budget, with nearly 45 million UAH allocated for this purpose. Whether any environmental tax funds will be included is not specified.
Now to the measures themselves. They lack special detail – only general wording and references to paragraphs of the Cabinet of Ministers' Resolution No. 1147 of 1996, which defines types of environmental activities.
The most expensive item for Zakarpattia will be “Balanced use of natural resources in the regions” – 20 million UAH over four years. This section involves the construction and reconstruction of hydraulic engineering, anti-landslide, bank protection and other similar structures intended to contain negative geological processes. Other measures include reclamation of solid household waste landfills and riverbed cleaning.
The second largest item by cost is the “Efficient waste management” section. The total estimate is 19.3 million UAH, however, there are no specific activities. Exactly which projects are hidden behind the phrase “Ensuring environmentally safe collection, transportation, storage, processing, utilization, disposal, neutralization and burial of waste” is unknown.
The third largest expenditure section is “Effective state management in the field of environmental protection.” Here, over 2.8 million UAH is planned for conferences and seminars, equipping environmental organizations, implementing an environmental monitoring system, and organizing environmental impact assessments.
Smaller communities
The city of Chop also decided not to mention the EPF as a funding source for its environmental protection program. As we can see, its activities were planned to be implemented with community, regional, and national funds, as well as funds from other sources – from enterprises to grants.
It is noteworthy that in the first version of Chop's environmental program, the annual budget for 2024–2026 ranged from 200,000 to 220,000 UAH per year. At the same time, during 2025, 222,000 UAH of environmental tax was received into the special fund of the territorial community budget.
Initially, the city planned to fund only three activities:
- maintenance of sanitary conditions and improvement of a water body within the city;
- preparation of green space registers;
- reconstruction of the sewage treatment plant, which is the costliest of the measures.
However, according to the latest updates, the eco-program has been expanded and supplemented with measures for developing household waste management service standards and for reconstruction of sewage treatment facilities, amounting to over UAH 1.2 million.
In smaller communities, there are some challenges related to transparent information disclosure. For example, in the decision to approve the environmental protection program of Verkhnokoropetska community for 2026–2027, the program itself is missing.
Meanwhile, on the website of the Drahiv Village Council, only the version of the natural environment protection program for 2021–2025 is available. Furthermore, in the latest draft decision regarding the update of the list of its measures, the actual list is also missing.
Initially, the village council planned, among other things, the following:
- to purchase seedlings and create flowerbeds, as well as maintain the community’s green spaces;
- to buy tools and equipment for the maintenance of lawns and parks;
- to clean coastal zones of water bodies;
- to eliminate illegal dumpsites, windthrows, and forest fires;
- to organize waste collection sites, ensure timely waste removal, and purchase a vehicle for waste transport.
The main source of funding, at least here, is indicated as the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF).
