Kubrakov appealed to the US ambassador, and the funding for the development of the urban planning code was put on hold

After the scandalous resignation of former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Kubrakov, the government introduced a draft law “On Restoration” that carries corruption risks. It was followed by the head of the Servant of the People party, Olena Shulyak, who published her own column, “Outright delay and new corruption schemes. How the Urban Development Code is being leaked”.

The Urban Planning Code is currently the only alternative to the urban planning “reform” 5655, which was criticized by the European Parliament and the European Commission for its corruption risks and in which the Royal Chatham House Institute saw favorable conditions for a cartel of developers.

“The reconstruction of Ukraine means billions of dollars of our partners’ funds. They should be distributed according to transparent rules, and corruption risks should be minimized as much as possible. Otherwise, the country risks losing the trust of its partners and, consequently, their assistance.

What progress is being made on the Code? Who is trying to hinder this work, and how? The Holka civic initiative talked about these and other issues with MP Hanna Bondar (Servant of the People), the chair of the working group.

On the photo: Hanna Bondar in her reception in Podil during the blackout. 

– The Institute of Civil Society recently reported informal pressure from the Ministry of Infrastructure, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Kubrakov. At that time, the USAID program Hoverla withdrew funding from the Institute. The same “Hoverla” financially supported the development of the Urban Planning Code, which was definitely not approved by the lobbyists of the urban planning “reform” 5655. Do you also feel this pressure?

– The working group might have already had a concept, but, in fact, we also lost funding for experts, without whom it is much more difficult to work. No one officially told us the reasons, but I had communication with the former head of Hoverla, Abraham Gabriel. I attribute his resignation to these financial stories and pressure. We have information that Kubrakov appealed to the US ambassador, and the funding for 4 projects was put on hold. These are not only the already mentioned Urban Planning Code and the project of the Civil Society Institute. These are two more projects of the Association of Ukrainian Cities.

I understand that the ambassador took note of Kubrakov’s arguments and agreed to do so. Abraham said he was sorry, and that was the reason for his dismissal. Moreover, Mr. Abraham emphasized that our work on the Urban Planning Code was exemplary for him and that we really acted according to the standards of a democratic society and involved citizens.

– As far as we know, Kubrakov may cooperate with USAID after his resignation. So, what were Mr. Abraham’s working group’s approaches?  

– I would like to point out here that if Kubrakov is involved in making decisions on who to allocate international aid, i.e. grants, this will have an immediate impact not only on the quality of policy formulation but also on the public sector, which receives funding from partners and has already reported informal pressure.

If we go back to the approaches we use in the working group, the bottom-up principle applies here. And no matter what anyone says about who should or should not be involved in policy-making, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is a representative body of the entire people of Ukraine. And our country is developing democratically. We do not devalue any participant or their position. Of course, there are some marginal proposals, but they are not rejected because the authorities say so. The working group comes to this conclusion through discussions and comparisons.  

In total, the number of working group members and experts involved in the work on the Code is about 300. This is a unique example in the history of citizen engagement and is worthy of emulation. While the adopted Law on Public Consultations states that consultations at the parliamentary level are not mandatory, we conduct them and engage citizens both during live and Zoom events. All developments are publicly available. You can leave your comments and write to us by e-mail. The Ministry of Digital Transformation was also invited. Besides, we send them notifications about each meeting, but unfortunately, they do not attend the events.

– How long has the working group been working, who has been involved, and what are the interim results?

We started our work exactly one year ago, in June. I remind everyone that the Code is a much larger amount of work than just a draft law. We had been working on the electoral code for 10 years and voted for it only because the elections were coming up, and there were still questions about it.

Our society has seriously changed after the full-scale second election. Citizens don’t want anything imposed on them, they want to be involved, which is the case in the best democracies in the world. We have engaged 11 experts from different countries. We need to understand how the Anglo-Saxon law system works and what is going on with their urban planning. I advise everyone to watch these lectures, it is a very interesting experience. Nowadays, more and more mayors are realizing that they need to fight to attract not only tourists but also residents. Low birth rates, deaths during the war, internally displaced persons, and those seeking asylum abroad are all factors that are rapidly changing approaches to urban planning.

We cannot simply eliminate the human factor in urban planning and digitize everything, as some suggest. Each city has the right to create its own development rules and requirements for buildings. Then, they will have individuality. When you go to London, it’s not Paris, and when you go to Paris, it’s not Venice. Therefore, it is the individuality of cities, that is their right to fight for their residents, and the mayor of Mykolaiv is a good example. He is well aware of how difficult it is for him to keep his residents, let alone attract new ones.

The copyright of architects is also extremely important worldwide, as they help cities acquire their identity and individuality. In general, our partners have repeatedly emphasized to us that we should even have a specialized court that would consider copyright disputes. This is important for investment and economic development. Speaking of urban planning, the Supreme Court is currently considering a case regarding the destruction of the Flowers of Ukraine. It may be that copyright will be leveled here. How can the Code help us here?

– Copyright protection is the key to scientific and technological progress. If the state does not protect it, then architects will indeed be disenfranchised. What is happening now is nonsense. At the start of the contract, the developer prescribes all property rights for themselves, although the object has not yet been created. That is, the object does not yet exist, but they already have the right. Why not let them draw it themselves? What kind of copyright should an architect have in this case scenario? Changes to the project will have to be coordinated with him or her in the future. For example, we built the Flowers of Ukraine, a monument created in the modernist style. But the owner came in and mutilated it, destroyed the facade, cut down the grapes, and thus destroyed the concept of the greenhouse building, which won the architectural competition, i.e. was the best among the others. The developer wants to build an office center and a parking lot there.

Will architects go to rebuild Ukraine if they know that their works will be destroyed?

– What other conflict issues are there that need to be regulated?

In general, urban planning is a field where there is a constant war for public space. This is the worst war in the peaceful world because it happens every day. People have argued and will continue to argue whether there will be a park, a house, or a square. The parties will be very different: experts, residents, developers, state and local authorities. They will all have different interests and different powers.

The customer wants it cheaper, the contractor wants it faster. A design engineer will talk about strength and reliability, which is definitely not about “faster.” For these reasons, there will be a conflict between them and the contractor. The architect will talk about functionality and beauty, which is again about time and money. Environmentalists will generally want customers and contractors to go away and leave everything in its original form.

When I attend lectures now, land surveyors say that their task is to ensure that everyone is equally dissatisfied. Thus, the code should have such a task so that it doesn’t happen that someone wins and everyone loses. It all needs to be balanced as a single ecosystem.

So, everything we discuss and finalize should be part of a single concept.

– Speaking of the concept. Even before the presidential election, GIZ supported the development of the Urban Development Management Concept. The government approved it, and it formed the basis for further development of the Code. You, as well as the head of the Servant of the People party, participated in the development of the concept. But it was not approved by any of the three governments – Groysman’s, Honcharuk’s, who came from the BRDO, or Shmyhal’s. Why, since it took a lot of money from our partners? 

– It was indeed a year of presidential and parliamentary elections. There was a lot of political turbulence then, and everyone who works in the government will tell you that nothing new is adopted before the elections. After the elections, everything changes rapidly, including the personnel. And the document was really very good.

It’s hard for me to say why it hasn’t been supported in these 4 years. Judging by the proposals of the urban planning “reform,” its lobbyists, who were also in the government, supported a completely different vision. GIZ, which has serious experience in urban development, was indeed involved in the development of the concept.

I would like to add here that there was even a draft law written on the basis of the book of problems (the so-called white book). At the first meeting of the committee in 2019, the draft law “On the Regulation of Urban Development” (6403) was submitted. But the committee rejected it, and its further consideration became impossible.

– Now Olena Shulyak emphasizes that you have been working for a year and a half, and your two-year deadline has almost expired. How does she, as the head of the specialized committee, help you?

– I don’t know why she says that. The chairperson of the committee knows that the decision to create the working group was made in March. The first meeting was held in June last year. The group has been formed, which is good. Now the main thing is not to interfere and not to influence the partners on whom funding depends. And the speed of the working group’s work depends on funding. We really can’t do without additional experts. But even without funding, we continue to do what we have to do. It’s just that the speed is slowing down a bit.

– Is it possible that this slowdown is being done to convince our partners to pass the clone resolution 5655? We understand that after Kubrakov’s resignation, another draft law, “On Restoration,” appeared, and we know the risks involved.

– There are two parts to the draft law “On the Principles of Restoration of Ukraine”. The first is the new law on recovery. The second part is presented in the form of a comparative table of 340 pages (!) with changes to existing laws. Most of these changes are simply copied from 5655. It contains almost everything that was not included in the Cabinet of Ministers’s “experimental projects” – new rights and obligations of urban development entities, development of project documentation, and its examination.

The changes also include the Cabinet of Ministers’s right to conduct an “experiment,” which currently provides for the rules for granting urban planning conditions and restrictions, permitting procedures, and construction control copied from 5655. In other words, in total, the provisions of the Law on Restoration and Experimental Procedures are a hidden implementation of almost all of 5655.

– Speaking of control and corruption. The authorities emphasize the powerful anti-corruption effect of the digitalization of construction. The state has allegedly saved UAH 11.2 billion over 3 years by eliminating the human factor, and the real anti-corruption effect of the digitalization of the construction industry is UAH 1.5 billion per year. We have not found any confirmation of these figures. Perhaps they were voiced with reference to sources at the committee?

– I don’t know anything about these figures.

– We also constantly hear about the “$5 per m2″ scheme, when developers are allegedly forced to pay for obtaining permits and commissioning.” However, as with the anti-corruption effect of digitalization, we have not found any evidence of this. Moreover, even the Temporary Commission on Corruption in the SACI failed to find any evidence of this, as there is nothing of the sort in its report on its work. By the way, since September 2021, the Verkhovna Rada has not approved the report. Do you know of any evidence of the existence of systemic extortion from completely legal construction?

– I have heard about it only at the same level as you.

– Ms. Shulyak claims that “mandatory certification of construction contractors” is being considered when working on the Code. Is this her misperception? We are not talking about all construction workers, but only about “responsible executors,” i.e., contractors (or foremen, as they are called in the old-fashioned way).

– Of course, we’re talking about foremen. No one will certify painters. We did not invent this; it is a European requirement. We need to move away from licensing companies. They close and disappear and will not be held responsible. When it comes to specialists, they are already responsible for their careers and their reputations. With the development of legislation, architects have also gained certification. We have to come to the same conclusion in construction.

Specially for Channel 24