Stefanchuk Tops MPs' Anti-Ranking for Environmental Harm

The list also included Fris, Marchuk, Haidu, and Hryshchenko due to a number of controversial legislative initiatives.

Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Ruslan Stefanchuk topped an anti-ranking of MPs whose lawmaking most harms the environment. The occasion was the seventh anniversary of the ninth convocation of parliament. The anti-ranking was prepared by the civic initiatives Holka and Ecology — Law — People with expert assessments from WWF-Ukraine, Greenpeace Ukraine, Ecoaction, the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, and Teren.

In second place in the ranking were four deputies from the Servant of the People faction at once: Ihor Fris, Ihor Marchuk, Oleksandr Haidu, and Tetyana Hryshchenko. The list included both bills that are still under consideration and those the Rada has already adopted.

The main reason Stefanchuk took first place is the draft new Civil Code he prepared, which is now being readied for a second reading. Holka leader Iryna Fedoriv explains: “Adopting the new Civil Code, which is the second document after the Constitution, will nullify the quality case law already developed by the Supreme Court. A petition against the draft code collected more than 25 000 signatures, and deputies submitted more than 15 000 amendments — a record for seven years of parliament. The Ministry of Justice also recommended removing the ninth book of the draft, which contains the provisions most harmful to the environment.”

According to Fedoriv, the assault on the current Civil Code began last year with the so‑called “Ihor Mazepa law,” which was submitted by Ihor Fris, whom the media link politically to Ihor Kolomoyskyi’s group.

Within the anti-ranking, three deputies (Fris, Marchuk, and Haidu) are cited under a common item: creating territories for VIP hunting and the extermination of wild fauna. Marchuk and Haidu are also accused of exempting industrial parks from the scope of the law on environmental impact assessment, and Haidu separately — of a law on fish and a draft to weaken mechanisms for protecting water resources. Marchuk and Hryshchenko are co‑authors of the draft “On the Timber Market,” which EPL calls one of the most harmful initiatives. Hryshchenko is also accused of causing environmental harm through deregulation of subsoil use, forest logging and cancellation of environmental impact assessment, as well as weakening mechanisms for protecting water resources.

EPL Executive Director Olena Kravchenko emphasizes that attempts to destroy environmental impact assessment as a safeguard are systemic among several parliamentarians: “Lobbyists are trying to push through the changes they want via amendments to laws, doing so in violation of the Rules of Procedure and the Constitution.”

As an example she cited the draft law on the Eastern Mining and Processing Plant (No.15122), which attempted to allow developers to lay access roads and destroy biodiversity even before conducting an environmental impact assessment. According to Kravchenko, after public pressure the amendment was corrected, so that project did not make the anti‑ranking: “We appreciate when parliamentarians are ready for dialogue.”

Separately in the ranking is the initiative for VIP safaris on wild animals, submitted by Ihor Marchuk (draft law No.15431). WWF‑Ukraine notes: “The draft law provides changes to the rules of hunting management which, in the view of the conservation community, could weaken existing mechanisms for protecting wildlife. In particular, the initiative would allow use of certain technical means during hunting and expands possibilities for conducting hunts during periods sensitive for population reproduction.” The organization called on the Rada not to support the draft law and urged its authors to withdraw the document.

Holka also reported that, within the same study for the parliament’s seventh anniversary, the Batkivshchyna faction most often sabotages votes on bills from the Ukraine Facility Plan list, including on environmental issues.

Stefanchuk registered the draft new Civil Code together with a group of deputies back in spring, and the document immediately provoked a wave of criticism. A petition on the president’s website against its adoption gathered the 25 thousand signatures required for consideration within a day.

Holka analysts at that time already analyzed in detail the provisions of the draft which, in their view, legalize the raiding of state property — land and monuments — the return of which to the state would later be impossible.