Analysis of the draft law:
Sorry, but since you have not uploaded a document, I cannot analyze the draft law. Please provide the text of the draft law so that I can fulfill the request.
Analysis of other documents:
Analysis of the Table of Proposals of Subjects of Legislative Initiative
1. Author’s Position: It is difficult to determine a single position, as the table presents proposals from various entities. However, the Committee’s consideration or rejection of proposals indicates the formation of a consolidated position regarding the final version of the draft law.
2. Main Provisions:
- Alternative Version of the Draft Law: Deputy Bondarenko proposes to completely rewrite the text of the draft law and the National Target Environmental Program. Key changes include a new version of the program’s goal, ways to solve the problem, tasks and measures, expected results, and financing.
- Timing Issues: Deputies propose changes regarding the terms of entry into force of the law and ensuring the provision of regulatory legal acts by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
- Program Financing: Changes are proposed regarding the sources of program funding, including the exclusion of funds from radioactive waste producers and voluntary contributions.
- Tasks and Measures: Deputies propose to exclude the construction of a light-type storage facility for the storage of conditioned radioactive waste at the Zaporizhzhia NPP.
- Consideration of Proposals: The Committee partially takes into account the proposals, in particular regarding the wording of the text of the draft law and appendices, which indicates a compromise and a desire to improve the document.
Analysis of the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine “On Adoption as a Basis of the Draft Law of Ukraine”
1. Author’s Position: The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine supports the draft law, as it submits it to the Verkhovna Rada as a legislative initiative.
2. Main Provisions:
- Submission of the Draft Law: The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine submits the draft Law of Ukraine “On the National Target Environmental Program for Radioactive Waste Management” to the Verkhovna Rada for consideration.
- Representation in the VR: Minister of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Hrynchuk Svitlana Vasylivna will represent the draft Law in the Verkhovna Rada.
- Need for Revision: The need to revise the draft by the Committee on Environmental Policy and Nature Management, taking into account the amendments and proposals of the subjects of legislative initiative, before its consideration in the second reading is emphasized.
Analysis of the Conclusion of the Main Scientific and Expert Department
1. Author’s Position: The Main Scientific and Expert Department (MSED) expresses a number of comments and suggestions regarding the project, which indicates a critical but constructive approach to the evaluation of the draft law. The MSED does not express direct support or rejection, but focuses on the need to clarify and harmonize certain provisions.
2. Main Provisions:
- Overload of the Program’s Goal: The overload of the wording of the program’s goal and the failure to disclose the content of the concept of “radiation factor” are noted.
- Failure to Consider the Provisions of the Concept: It is indicated that not all provisions of the Concept of the National Target Environmental Program for Radioactive Waste Management are reflected in the Program.
- Lack of Procedure: The absence of a clear procedure for the development and approval of a methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of the Program.
- Financing Issues: Doubts are expressed regarding the correctness of determining the sources of funding for the Program, in particular, funds from the general fund of the state budget and funds from radioactive waste producers.
- Need to Clarify Funding Volumes: It is indicated that more detailed information should be provided on revenues from various sources, especially regarding funds from the State Fund for Radioactive Waste Management.
- Unnecessary Prescriptions: It is indicated that there are prescriptions in the text that duplicate the provisions of other legislative acts.
- Effective Date: The date of entry into force of the Law needs to be clarified in connection with the budget process.
- Provisions Regarding Zaporizhzhia NPP: It is proposed to clarify the possibility of implementing measures at the Zaporizhzhia NPP only if Ukraine controls the operation of the station.
Analysis of the Conclusion of the Committee on Environmental Policy and Nature Management
1. Author’s Position: The Committee supports the adoption of the draft law in the second reading and as a whole as a Law, but taking into account certain changes and revisions.
2. Main Provisions:
- Consideration and Rejection of Proposals: The Committee took into account some of the proposals, in particular regarding the wording of the text of the draft law and appendices, and rejected the rest.
- Review of the Conclusion: The Committee reviewed its previous conclusion and made a decision based on additional materials received.
- Recommendation for Adoption: The Committee recommends that the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopt the draft law in the second reading and as a whole as a Law.
- Appointment of the Rapporteur: The rapporteur from the Committee was determined when considering the issue at the plenary session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
Analysis of the Conclusion of the Main Directorate of Documentary Support
1. Author’s Position: The Main Directorate of Documentary Support (MDDS) confirms that the previous editorial corrections were taken into account, and has no comments on the text of the draft law after the changes were made.
2. Main Provisions:
- No Comments: MDDS has no editorial comments on the draft law after taking into account previous corrections.
- Confirmation of Expertise: MDDS confirms the implementation of professional (linguistic) expertise of the draft law.
Analysis of the Conclusion of the Main Legal Department
1. Author’s Position: The Main Legal Department (MLD) believes that the draft law can be adopted in the second reading, but taking into account their comments.
2. Main Provisions:
- Relevance of Comments: The MLD confirms the relevance of their previous comments.
- Inconsistency with the Budget Code: Inconsistency of the provision on the entry into force of the law with the requirements of the Budget Code of Ukraine is indicated.
- Lack of Implementation Mechanisms: It is noted that the provisions regarding the timing of the adoption of bylaws indicate the lack of sufficient mechanisms for the implementation of the provisions of the law.
