In an ideal world, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process would serve as a safeguard against environmental damage and a reliable tool for environmental oversight. However, in Ukraine, this system has a number of fundamental flaws that create room for maneuver for corrupt officials. Most experts consider the system’s corruption to be the main problem with the EIA.
EcoPolitic reported on this in its article.
Too much discretion
The evaluation of EIA reports lacks transparent criteria that officials should use as a guide. Consequently, approval or rejection often depends on the subjective opinion of a specific individual. What that opinion will be, and whether the official will display bias or a self-serving interest, is always a matter of individual judgment.
“It [the EIA procedure] does not provide clear and understandable criteria, does not establish predictable rules, and in fact shifts the risk of uncertainty onto the applicant. This is a sign not of strict control but of weak institutional capability,” stated Lyudmyla Tsyhanok, President of the Professional Association of Environmentalists (PAEW), to the publication.
According to specialists, EcoPolitic notes that for businesses, the passage of the EIA procedure is always unpredictable. At the same time, officials involved in this process are sometimes caught in acts of illicit enrichment and served with notices of suspicion.
Ambiguity in legislation
Experts believe that current legislation does not establish rules but rather dilutes them. Certain provisions can be interpreted in the way that is most convenient for the official.
Andriy Hlushchenko, analyst at GMK Center, gave the following example: the law does not define the degree of environmental impact nor specify the list of evidence sufficient to refute or confirm such an impact.
“This enables broad interpretation of existing provisions, which ultimately leads to prohibitions on activity on formal grounds. It is always easier to prohibit than to take responsibility for granting permission for new activities,” the expert added.
State regulations in the EIA field can sometimes contradict themselves. Officials often exploit these contradictions when issuing conclusions. As an example of this fragile legislative architecture, EcoPolitics described the approval procedure for sanitary protection zone projects. The law requires that these be approved by the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection. However, this authority does not have the power to carry out such actions.
