Перспективи розвитку законодавства про Червону книгу України
The principal legislative document regulating the protection of the plants and animal species in Ukraine is the Law of Ukraine “On the Red Book of Ukraine”. However, Ukrainian legislation related to the Red Book of Ukraine (RBU) is not agile. It does not react to the modern challenges and does not o...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2020 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden of the NAS of Ukraine
2020
|
| Online Zugang: | https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/article/view/1580 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Plant Introduction |
| Завантажити файл: |  |
Institution
Plant Introduction| _version_ | 1860145102086733824 |
|---|---|
| author | Vasyliuk, Olexiy |
| author_facet | Vasyliuk, Olexiy |
| author_sort | Vasyliuk, Olexiy |
| baseUrl_str | https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| datestamp_date | 2023-08-26T20:39:33Z |
| description | The principal legislative document regulating the protection of the plants and animal species in Ukraine is the Law of Ukraine “On the Red Book of Ukraine”. However, Ukrainian legislation related to the Red Book of Ukraine (RBU) is not agile. It does not react to the modern challenges and does not operate by new opportunities provided, for example, through the Law “On Environmental Impact Assessment”. Environmental impact assessments (EIA) are required for many management activities, including woodcutting, mining, and melioration, and should protect the environment. On the other side, unfortunately, the section “Impact on flora and fauna” in EIA reports often prepared superficially and formally. This section usually does not contain real research results and does not offer real measures for the protection of endangered species. Since today, there are no known cases when the EIA report was issued considering the real conservation needs of the species listed in the RBU.This letter proposes introducing several amendments to the legislation on the RBU, which are required for its integration into the EIA. First, it is proposed to introduce individual protection requirements for each species included in the RBU, which will allow the implementation of appropriate environmental conditions in the EIA conclusions. Secondly, it is proposed to introduce the responsibility for conserving species for users and owners of sites where coenopopulations, individuals (for plants), or permanent habitats (for animals) of the RBU species are located. Third, it is proposed to introduce a mechanism for documenting the location of the RBU species. These changes would make it possible to identify specific legal entities and individuals for whom species protection obligations and the penalties for disturbance will be imposed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.46341/PI2020033 |
| first_indexed | 2025-07-17T12:53:52Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
Plant Introduction, 87/88, 115–118 (2020)
© The Authors. This content is provided under CC BY 4.0 license.
CORRESPONDENCE
Perspectives of the legislation on the Red Book of Ukraine development
The Red Book of Ukraine (RBU) is the principal
list of protective species in Ukraine. Only for
the species listed in the RBU the Ukrainian
legislation provides a wide range of protection
options, as well as fees and methods of
calculating the damages caused to the state
by the destruction of such species or their
habitats.
At the same time, environmental impact
assessment (EIA), which integrates the
European mechanism for the preliminary
assessment of the possible impact of planned
activities on the environment’s components,
including rare species, has recently become
widespread. Unfortunately, the section “Impact
on flora and fauna” in the EIA reports usually
is superficial and formal. It lacks the results
of real research and does not propose real
measures to protect specific species that may
be adversely affected. This EIA is obligatory
for many activities, including woodcutting,
mining, melioration, and other managements,
which together represent the vast majority
of anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity.
Olexiy Vasyliuk 1, 2
1 Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, Gogol str. 40, 08600 Vasylkiv, Kyiv region, Ukraine; vasyliuk@gmail.com
2 Department of Monitoring and Protection of the Animal World, I. I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, Bohdana Khmelnytskoho str. 15, 01030 Kyiv, Ukraine
Received: 20.10.2020 | Accepted: 12.11.2020 | Published: 30.12.2020
Abstract
The principal legislative document regulating the protection of the plants and animal species in
Ukraine is the Law of Ukraine “On the Red Book of Ukraine”. However, Ukrainian legislation related to
the Red Book of Ukraine (RBU) is not agile. It does not react to the modern challenges and does not
operate by new opportunities provided, for example, through the Law “On Environmental Impact
Assessment”. Environmental impact assessments (EIA) are required for many management activities,
including woodcutting, mining, and melioration, and should protect the environment. On the other side,
unfortunately, the section “Impact on flora and fauna” in EIA reports often prepared superficially and
formally. This section usually does not contain real research results and does not offer real measures for
the protection of endangered species. Since today, there are no known cases when the EIA report was
issued considering the real conservation needs of the species listed in the RBU.
This letter proposes introducing several amendments to the legislation on the RBU, which are required for
its integration into the EIA. First, it is proposed to introduce individual protection requirements for each
species included in the RBU, which will allow the implementation of appropriate environmental conditions
in the EIA conclusions. Secondly, it is proposed to introduce the responsibility for conserving species for
users and owners of sites where coenopopulations, individuals (for plants), or permanent habitats (for
animals) of the RBU species are located. Third, it is proposed to introduce a mechanism for documenting
the location of the RBU species. These changes would make it possible to identify specific legal entities and
individuals for whom species protection obligations and the penalties for disturbance will be imposed.
Keywords: Red Book of Ukraine, environmental impact assessments, biodiversity protection, ecological legislation
https://doi.org/10.46341/PI2020033
UDC 502.7
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1067-6827
116 Plant Introduction • 87/88
O. Vasyliuk
EIA’s requirement could increase biodiversity
studies and promote local conservation
measures, at least for RBU species. However,
many legislation imperfections make the real
protection of RBU species ineffective.
1. The lack of protection requirements
The principal law regulating the protection of
the plants and animal species in Ukraine is the
Law of Ukraine “On the Red Book of Ukraine”.
Basing on this law, the species are included
in the RBU gain their protective status and
specific penalties for their destruction. From
the 70,000 living organism known to Ukraine,
the RBU comprises 826 plant and fungi species
and 542 animal species in total.
According to Art. 12 of the Law “On
Environmental Protection”, Ukraine citizens are
obliged to care for, protect, and rationally use
natural resources. However, in context of the
protective measures for the RBU species, they
are mentioned only in the RBU. For example, in
the RBU, it is indicated that Lilium martagon
L. disappears due to deforestation, as it needs
partial shading; hence, it is forbidden to collect
the plants and cut down forests (Andriyenko,
2009). Similarly, RBU says that all types of
reclamation works, peat development are
prohibited for the conservation of Lycopodium
inundatum L. (Priadko, 2009). Individual
protective requirements are also indicated for
all other species listed in the RBU. However,
they are not mentioned in any legislation
document, and therefore are not obligatory. In
other words, Ukrainian legislation says that it
is necessary to protect the species listed in the
RBU but does not say how exactly. Similarly,
the activity restrictions required for the RBU
species preservation are also not legislated.
The protection requirements for RBU
species should be differentiated, as they
inhabit different habitats and biotopes, are
unequally exposed to negative influences
in different seasons, and have different
suppression factors. Along with general
protection measures, such requirements
should also embrace particular threats, certain
plants’ growth conditions, conservation
regimes, and regional nature peculiarities.
It is also essential to protect RBU species
integrally to their habitats since most cases,
especially the plant species, require complex
habitat preservation. Such concept of
species protection, taking into account their
peculiarities and habitats, should significantly
improve the RBU legislation and bring it
close to the international environmental
legislative acts such as the Convention on
the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats (Berne Convention), as well
as to the principles of forest certification
according to FSC standards. Moreover, in case
of the introduction of individual requirements
for protecting certain species to Ukrainian
legislation, it will be possible to include such
requirements in EIA.
2. Protection objects and subjects
The Law of Ukraine “On the Red Book of
Ukraine” makes provision for protecting
the rare species. However, it does not state
who exactly should protect them. The
service, which would continuously protect
the RBU species, is absent. The law does not
provide any mechanism of protection of such
species. As a result, many natural areas are
managed without considering the presence
of endangered species and without paying
attention to the restrictions. Moreover,
if considering that information about the
presence of the RBU species on certain areas
is absent, any activity can potentially harm
them, and we even will not know about this.
Nevertheless, it is not easy to imagine the
whole country’s biota survey and inventory by
specialists from all taxonomic groups. Similarly,
it looks not possible to create some institution
that could regularly monitor the condition of
all sites with RBU species (Kostushin, 1993).
Thus, if not possible to create a superior
authority for the protection and monitoring of
RBU species, the solution will probably impose
this responsibility on the landowners and users.
This can be achieved by implementing the
protection obligations similar to those for the
nature conservation areas. It is also important
to introduce mandatory surveys of the area by
scientists in the area’s management changes
and before new activities on the area with the
RBU species’ known presence. The land users
are the main subjects influencing flora and
fauna (including RBU species), and therefore,
the introduction of protection obligations
would be a logical and practical mechanism
of nature conservation. Among other things,
such protection obligations should become a
Plant Introduction • 87/88 117
Perspectives of the legislation on the Red Book of Ukraine development
limiting factor for changes in the land purpose
and should be inherited by the new land user
in case of change. Considering that in most
cases the subject of EIA is a land user, the
protection obligations could become a part of
the environmental requirements for the EIA
conclusions. Moreover, the legislation basis of
the introduction of the protection obligations
is explained in Art. 34 of the Law of Ukraine
“On the animal world”.
3. Registering the species findings
RBU is the only protection list in Ukraine,
stipulating penalties in case of harm caused
to the RBU species. However, there is no
procedure for detecting and registering such
species, according to which such penalties
could be implemented. Even scientific articles
in academic journals are not legal proof (e.g.,
in the court) of RBU species’ presence on
particular territory before it was destroyed.
Hence, it is expedient to introduce detection
and registration of the RBU species before
possible negative influence, at the stage of
approval of documentation on land allocation,
provision of plots for use or sale, change of
their, construction and approval of other
measures and actions that may adversely affect
RBU species, such as forestry, felling, etc. Such
an idea is argued by a) the inability to quickly
inventory the entire Ukraine territory; b) the
priority given to the areas where negative
impacts are predicted; c) the inventory of
RBU species by scientists can be included as a
required part of the EIA procedure.
An example of applying the information
on the distribution of RBU species is the EIA
procedure at the Boyarka Forest Research
Station (Kyiv region), which took place in
2020. The EIA report allowed continuous
and selective felling in old forests on more
than 8,000 hectares. However, the local
organization “Development and Landscaping”
and the Homilsha Woods National Nature Park
invited scientists who mapped RBU species on
this area. After that, the survey report showing
that only limited wood cuttings can be realized
in this territory was submitted to the Ministry
of Environment of Ukraine and the land user.
As a result, the Ministry of Environment of
Ukraine did not consider the EIA report and
did not allow felling activities in this area.
During its existence, since 2009, the Law of
Ukraine “On the Red Book of Ukraine” has only
been amended five times (and changes mostly
concerned only some parts of it). For example,
during the same period, the Law of Ukraine
“On Nature Reserves Fund” has been amended
15 times, and the volume of these changes is
close to the entire law “On the Red Book of
Ukraine”. This illustrates the sluggishness
of the RBU legislation. It is non-dynamic,
does not respond to modern challenges, and
does not use new opportunities, such as the
introduction of EIA. We believe that the RBU
legislation needs to be changed, and here only
some of the priority changes were outlined.
References
Andriyenko, T. L. (2009). Lisova liliya. Lilium
martagon L. (p. 141). In Y. P. Didukh (Ed.), Red
Book of Ukraine. Kyiv: Globalconsulting.
Priadko, O. I. (2009). Plaunets zaplavniy.
Lycopodiella inundata (L.) Holub. (p. 17). In
Y. P. Didukh (Ed.), Red Book of Ukraine. Kyiv:
Globalconsulting.
Kostushin, V. A. (1993). About the project of the
state service for monitoring the species of
fauna and flora of Ukraine, which are under the
protection of the law. Oikumena, 3, 69–70.
Перспективи розвитку законодавства про Червону книгу України
Олексій Василюк 1, 2
1 Українська природоохоронна група, вул. Гоголя, 40, Васильків, Київська область, 08600, Україна;
vasyliuk@gmail.com
2 Відділ моніторингу та охорони тваринного світу, Інститут зоології ім. І.І. Шмальгаузена НАН України,
вул. Богдана Хмельницького, 15, Київ, 01030, Україна
118 Plant Introduction • 87/88
O. Vasyliuk
Базовим законом, що врегульовує в Україні питання охорони видів як рослинного, так і тваринного
світу, є Закон України “Про Червону книгу України”. Але законодавство про Червону книгу України
(ЧКУ) є нединамічним та не реагує на сучасні виклики, а також не використовує нові можливості,
такі як, наприклад, появу Закону “Про оцінку впливу на довкілля” (ОВД). ОВД стосується багатьох
сфер діяльності, зокрема рубок лісів, видобування корисних копалин, меліорації та інших видів
діяльності. На жаль, зазвичай розділи “вплив на флору і фауну” в звітах з ОВД також пишуть
поверхнево і формально. У них відсутні результати реальних досліджень, а також не пропонуються
реальні заходи з охорони конкретних загрожуваних видів. На сьогодні практично не відомо, щоб
висновки ОВД видавались із урахуванням потреб збереження видів, внесених до ЧКУ.
У статті пропонується запровадити низку змін до законодавства про ЧКУ, необхідних у зв’язку
із необхідністю інтегрувати ЧКУ у процес оцінки впливу на довкілля. По-перше, пропонується
запровадити індивідуальні вимоги охорони для кожного з видів ЧКУ, що дасть змогу передбачати
відповідні екологічні умови у висновках ОВД. По-друге, пропонується передбачити відповідальність
за збереження видів для користувачів і власників ділянок, на яких розташовані ценопопуляції,
особини (для рослин) або постійні оселища (для тварин) видів ЧКУ. По-третє, пропонується
запровадити механізм документування місцезнаходжень видів ЧКУ. Ці зміни дозволять
ідентифікувати конкретних юридичних і фізичних осіб, щодо яких будуть передбачені зобов’язання
охорони видів і відповідальність за недотримання умов їх охорони.
Ключові слова: Червона книга України, оцінка впливу на довкілля, охорона біорізноманіття, екологічне законодавство
|
| id | oai:ojs2.plantintroduction.org:article-1580 |
| institution | Plant Introduction |
| keywords_txt_mv | keywords |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-07-17T12:53:52Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden of the NAS of Ukraine |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | wwwplantintroductionorg/21/c42041547ac0561012e9e7969cf6d621.pdf |
| spelling | oai:ojs2.plantintroduction.org:article-15802023-08-26T20:39:33Z Perspectives of the legislation on the Red Book of Ukraine development Перспективи розвитку законодавства про Червону книгу України Vasyliuk, Olexiy The principal legislative document regulating the protection of the plants and animal species in Ukraine is the Law of Ukraine “On the Red Book of Ukraine”. However, Ukrainian legislation related to the Red Book of Ukraine (RBU) is not agile. It does not react to the modern challenges and does not operate by new opportunities provided, for example, through the Law “On Environmental Impact Assessment”. Environmental impact assessments (EIA) are required for many management activities, including woodcutting, mining, and melioration, and should protect the environment. On the other side, unfortunately, the section “Impact on flora and fauna” in EIA reports often prepared superficially and formally. This section usually does not contain real research results and does not offer real measures for the protection of endangered species. Since today, there are no known cases when the EIA report was issued considering the real conservation needs of the species listed in the RBU.This letter proposes introducing several amendments to the legislation on the RBU, which are required for its integration into the EIA. First, it is proposed to introduce individual protection requirements for each species included in the RBU, which will allow the implementation of appropriate environmental conditions in the EIA conclusions. Secondly, it is proposed to introduce the responsibility for conserving species for users and owners of sites where coenopopulations, individuals (for plants), or permanent habitats (for animals) of the RBU species are located. Third, it is proposed to introduce a mechanism for documenting the location of the RBU species. These changes would make it possible to identify specific legal entities and individuals for whom species protection obligations and the penalties for disturbance will be imposed. Базовим законом, що врегульовує в Україні питання охорони видів як рослинного, так і тваринного світу, є Закон України “Про Червону книгу України”. Але законодавство про Червону книгу України (ЧКУ) є нединамічним та не реагує на сучасні виклики, а також не використовує нові можливості, такі як, наприклад, появу Закону “Про оцінку впливу на довкілля” (ОВД). ОВД стосується багатьох сфер діяльності, зокрема рубок лісів, видобування корисних копалин, меліорації та інших видів діяльності. На жаль, зазвичай розділи “вплив на флору і фауну” в звітах з ОВД також пишуть поверхнево і формально. У них відсутні результати реальних досліджень, а також не пропонуються реальні заходи з охорони конкретних загрожуваних видів. На сьогодні практично не відомо, щоб висновки ОВД видавались із урахуванням потреб збереження видів, внесених до ЧКУ.У статті пропонується запровадити низку змін до законодавства про ЧКУ, необхідних у зв’язку із необхідністю інтегрувати ЧКУ у процес оцінки впливу на довкілля. По-перше, пропонується запровадити індивідуальні вимоги охорони для кожного з видів ЧКУ, що дасть змогу передбачати відповідні екологічні умови у висновках ОВД. По-друге, пропонується передбачити відповідальність за збереження видів для користувачів і власників ділянок, на яких розташовані ценопопуляції, особини (для рослин) або постійні оселища (для тварин) видів ЧКУ. По-третє, пропонується запровадити механізм документування місцезнаходжень видів ЧКУ. Ці зміни дозволять ідентифікувати конкретних юридичних і фізичних осіб, щодо яких будуть передбачені зобов’язання охорони видів і відповідальність за недотримання умов їх охорони. M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden of the NAS of Ukraine 2020-12-30 Article Article application/pdf https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/article/view/1580 10.46341/PI2020033 Plant Introduction; No 87/88 (2020); 115-118 Інтродукція Рослин; № 87/88 (2020); 115-118 2663-290X 1605-6574 10.46341/PI87-88 en https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/article/view/1580/1506 Copyright (c) 2020 Olexiy Vasyliuk http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
| spellingShingle | Vasyliuk, Olexiy Перспективи розвитку законодавства про Червону книгу України |
| title | Перспективи розвитку законодавства про Червону книгу України |
| title_alt | Perspectives of the legislation on the Red Book of Ukraine development |
| title_full | Перспективи розвитку законодавства про Червону книгу України |
| title_fullStr | Перспективи розвитку законодавства про Червону книгу України |
| title_full_unstemmed | Перспективи розвитку законодавства про Червону книгу України |
| title_short | Перспективи розвитку законодавства про Червону книгу України |
| title_sort | перспективи розвитку законодавства про червону книгу україни |
| url | https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/article/view/1580 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT vasyliukolexiy perspectivesofthelegislationontheredbookofukrainedevelopment AT vasyliukolexiy perspektivirozvitkuzakonodavstvapročervonukniguukraíni |