Benefits or development?

Members of the Zhytomyr Oblast Council and the regional administration are raising the alarm. This region, which probably suffered most from the Chornobyl disaster, badly needs funds to solve its Chornobyl- related problem. But the draft of next year’s budget does not foresee any increase in appropriations.

At an emergency session of the regional “parliament” convened to discuss this issue Mykola Chernenko, deputy head of the regional administration, cited the following figures: out of 200.1 million hryvnias slated as state relief for radiation-affected people (over 370,000 in Zhytomyr oblast) only 149 million hryvnias, or 74.5 percent, have been received. Arrears of compensations owed to families with children and free meals for juvenile victims total 15.2 million. With the rising illness rate (nearly 218,000 people, including 50,000 children, undergo regular medical checkups), the number of people who are placed in sanatoriums decreases every year. Owing to systematic and substantial increases in accommodation costs, 2.5 times fewer victims have received such accommodations this year compared to 2001, despite the fact that the government has singled out problems linked to treatment and cures as the highest priorities.

According to prognostications, after 2006 there will be an increase in the incidence of malignant thyroid tumors and leukemia among former liquidators. Instead of the planned 4.4 million hryvnias for providing medical supplies to victims (13 percent of the sum actually required) only 2.5 million hryvnias have been allocated. The resettlement of families from contaminated areas, housing for families of crippled liquidators, families with children affected by Chornobyl radiation, and a number of other needs are chronically underfunded. The problem of certain compensations, primarily for rehabilitation, which should be paid out according to the minimum wage, has become exacerbated despite more than six court rulings awarding claims to victims, totaling some 88 million hryvnias. Yet the state budget has not foreseen such payments. (The Day reported on this a few years ago — Author.)

As a result, the bank accounts of leading raion institutions have been frozen. According to Ihor Klymenko, head of the Ovruch district state administration, in his raion only judges managed to wrest compensations for themselves in amounts provided by law-thousands and tens of thousands of hryvnias in every case.

Meanwhile, Serhii Butenko, chairman of the raion council’s standing Chornobyl Commission, says that the Ukrainian government is paying less attention to victims’ needs, especially in terms of social protection. He sees another serious problem in the hundreds of protracted construction projects, which is why huge sums allocated as capital investments are actually buried without yielding expected results. Chernenko and Butenko noted the need to revise the status of a number of contaminated populated areas and to downgrade them from the category of compulsory resettlement to voluntary. (This problem has been debated for several years, but before the regional council always refused to change the status — Author.)

On the one hand, this will make it possible to develop the social infrastructure in such villages and towns, something that cannot be done now because of legal restrictions. On the other hand, however, this will deny residents certain privileges. Representatives of the picketers who gathered in front of the oblast council during the session suggested that those who come up with such decisions should move their families to such populated areas.

The dilemma of social protection or development was clearly formulated by MP Serhii Ryzhuk (Party of Regions), the ex-governor of Zhytomyr oblast, who spoke during the session. He insisted that in state budget appropriations the emphasis should be on investments aimed at establishing an industrial base in the contaminated territories that need social and economic rehabilitation. He believes that spending up to 90 percent of the budget’s Chornobyl funds on benefits and compensations is ineffective.

However, there is reason to expect that the other side of this approach will be growing losses caused by “burying” budget funds in dubious or protracted building projects (mentioned by Butenko) or run-of-the-mill embezzlement. This is precisely why such appropriations are usually pushed through. Mykola Kruk, a member of the regional council (Our Ukraine) and chairman of the Commission for Humanitarian Questions, told The Day that he has no grounds right now for making such admonitions, although he noted that there are enough examples of people with no Chornobyl victim status staying in sanatoriums slated for victims of the disaster. Still, it will be interesting to watch the parliamentarians from Zhytomyr oblast, who got their seats through the Party of Regions slate, vote on the 2007 budget bill if it does not provide for the pressing Chornobyl relief problems in the region.

In the end, the session resolved to request the Verkhovna Rada to hold a Government Day in parliament, dedicated to Chornobyl questions. Needless to say, this move during the budget-adopting process may enhance the position of not only Zhytomyr oblast but other Chornobyl-affected regions whose representatives actively supported the proposal during the session. Also raised was the question of allotting funds next year for resolving a number of important problems; the list is long and includes claims amounting to tens of millions of hryvnias. In principle, this is a traditional approach, but regions like Zhytomyr oblast do not have many options of being heard. True, the material and financial reserves of Zhytomyr oblast are often pointed out to its leaders, but this is another topic.