Despite calls from Kyiv residents to establish a landscape reserve on the Dnipro spit at the Sobache Hirlo estuary, the matter has still not moved forward. Instead, more and more new construction projects are springing up near the site, whilst controversial developers are being granted planning permission for plots on the spit itself. At the same time, the relevant department of the Kyiv City State Administration, in contravention of the law, is delaying consideration of the application to establish the nature reserve.
This was reported by the civic initiative ‘Holka’ in its article.
Ignored appeals
A petition calling for the creation of a nature reserve had previously secured the required 6,000 signatures. At the time, the environmental and scientific justification for the nature reserve was prepared by experts from the “Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group” (UNCG).
"The entire Dnipro riverfront in Kyiv is of high ecological value in terms of preserving bird migration routes. Ukraine has committed to protect them. At the same time, due to construction, Kyiv is currently the most problematic area along one of the main migratory paths. Therefore, from the standpoint of environmental preservation and fulfilling international commitments, it is important to prevent development of this territory on the Dnipro's bank," said UNCG head Oleksii Vasiliuk.
Supporting the petition, a similar motion was also endorsed by WWF-Ukraine.
The threat of development
The intentions to develop the spit near Sobache Hyro were quite clear. Initially, there were plans for a parking lot with 700 spaces near the location, followed by yet another, already the third bridge.
The dispute centers on 33 hectares of recreational land on the Dnipro River. Notably, there is already a private plot there. Additionally, a company connected to developer Ihor Mazepa has received a permit to design a residential and administrative complex on one of the parcels.
Previously, the "Khvylia Azovu" bridge had already been built near the spit. This was implemented with the support of "Stolytsia Group," which the article links to Vladyslava Molchanova, a sponsor of Batkivshchyna and a figure frequently involved in controversial stories about Kyiv development.
People suspect that the construction of such facilities is preparatory work designed to make future real estate on the spit more expensive
The department violates the law
The KCSA did not completely ignore residents' appeals regarding the landscape reserve, but simply issued a response inconsistent with legal requirements.
There were no objections to the scientific justification or the form of the appeal. However, the Environmental Protection Department stated it intended to conduct a survey on the "Kyiv Digital" platform rather than forwarding the application to the city council.
This is a direct violation of the Kyiv City Council’s decision regarding such applications. In fact, the department had two options-either to reject the approval or to endorse and submit the application to the Kyiv City Council. Preliminary public discussions or voting are not stipulated.
Formally, the environmental department was only required to check whether the application met formal requirements. Until 2024, this interim barrier for applications did not exist at all-residents could apply directly to the Kyiv City Council.
Was it really necessary to conduct the survey? Activists received a response only after appealing to the Secretariat of the Ukrainian Ombudsman. Later, after official proceedings were opened, officials sent a letter concerning plans to conduct the survey.
Did they carry it out? No. A small fact: eleven months have passed since the response to the initial inquiry.
For the past six months, the Department of Environmental Protection has been headed by Pavlo Ivanov. Under his management, neither the survey nor a reconsideration of the petition has taken place.
Moreover, in response to Holka’s inquiry, the department stated that the survey was not conducted because there was no coordinated position regarding the survey from the public organisation “Prychichna Park.” In other words, the department’s own idea to conduct a survey formally allowed it to suspend the petition’s review. This point was ignored by the officials.
Meanwhile, representatives of “Prychichna Park” were notably surprised by such a response, as last year they were essentially informed post factum that the survey would take place. Their position was not requested. According to the activists, this appears to be an attempt to delay the review process.
“This shows the department’s real attitude towards establishing nature reserve sites. Receiving such a response from an official who has worked for many years on nature preservation and biodiversity issues at the Ministry of Environmental Protection is unexpected. This position contradicts the law and demonstrates disrespect toward leading environmental organisations,” emphasised Hlib Antonenko, head of the public organisation “Prychichna Park.”
Now activists are trying to get officials to forward the petition for the creation of the “Zatoka Sobache Hyrolo” reserve to the Kyiv City Council for review.
EcoPolitic previously reported that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the developer, who plans to build the “H2O” residential complex in Kyiv’s “Osokorky EcoPark.”
