Despite the war, 86% of Ukrainians still recognize the value of the preservation of nature. Thus, according to the results of a study conducted by the Ekodіya OO in 19 communities throughout the country, 42% of respondents fully support the creation of environmental protection areas, and another 44% are more likely to support than not. This is really a very strong signal: despite the war, fear and lack of information, most people sees in preserving nature meaning and value.

However, this support turned out to be several declarative: 88% of respondents confessed that they did not understand why reserves and national parks are needed, and more than 77% never participated in the discussion of this topic. That is, a positive attitude to the protection of nature does not mean the real readiness to maintain the creation of new objects of the natural-reserve fund (PZF)-the national network of environmental areas, which limits the most harmful activity for nature: logging, opening the steppes, drainage of swamps, development, etc.. Therefore, a paradox arises: Ukrainians are generally for the protection of nature, but at the same time they have no sufficient knowledge to consciously support the creation of new objects of the natural-reserve fund. And this gap has become one of the reasons that reserved territories are very slowly created in our country.

Which inhibits the creation of protected areas?

The strategic goal of Ukraine, enshrined in the Law “On the Basic Principles (Strategies) of the State Ecological Policy for the period until 2030,” - to bring the share of natural territories under the actual protection to 15% of the country's area by 2030. It is about 9 million hectares. But now there are less than 7% of the country's area under protection. The growth over the past five years is on average only 0.06% per year. At such a pace, to achieve the goal, it will take more than a hundred years. Why do we lag like this and that inhibits the creation of new protected objects?

[see_also ids \u003d "

In fact, there are many reasons. This is a shortage in the Ministry and regional administrations of qualified specialists who are involved in the preparation of documents necessary for the commandment of valuable territories. And chronic underfunding of reserved institutions (such as national parks and reserves) by the state. And gaps in the legislation - there is an opportunity to cancel the status of a protected territory, even if it has not lost value. This opportunity is periodically used by dishonest developers or foresters.

Another of the reasons for such slow pace is a complex procedure for coordinating new environmental areas with community. Due to decentralization, it was community who became the owners of the majority of the lands, which previously belonged to the state and on which nature has still been preserved. And often the leaders of the communities either do not respond to the requests of scientists and activists, or refuse to create protected areas due to the fact that the community may lose profits. Locals are also afraid to lose access to the lands after their commandment or restrictions on use. For the most part, such a reaction is due to fears that are based not on facts, but on speculation and myths.

Myths and reality.

Myth 1. To create protected objects, land is taken from the owners. So, 40% of respondents are afraid that the creation of PZF objects will lead to land seizure. But in most cases, the land does not seize the land from the current owners, but simply establish the restrictions necessary for the preservation of nature: for example, you can not cut down the forest, open the steppe or build up the shore. This, on the contrary, is a guarantee that the territory will remain accessible to everyone and retain its value.

Myth 2. Create environmental territories untimely during the war. So thinks a significant part of the respondents. But it was the war that caused the unprecedented destruction of nature: millions of hectares are mined, forests are burning, the meadows open up to compensate for the loss of mined lands, ponds are polluted due to shelling. If you do not fix the security status for surviving ecosystems now, we will lose them forever.

[see_also ids \u003d "

Myth 3. Gromades will lose their jobs due to the fact that some of their territories will receive the status of the territory of the natural-reserve fund. In fact, we are talking about transforming the economy: having limited economic activity related to the exploitation of nature, protected areas can create jobs in the field of tourism, science, nature protection, and the development of environmental education. As well as improve the quality of life in bulk due to clean air, water and saved resources.

What can we do with this?

Our study showed that 88% of residents do not know anything about the creation of PZF objects and how this will affect their lives, because no one explains it - neither local authorities, nor scientists or activists. The inhabitants of the bulk should not be alone with gossip and speculation.

We need systemic educational work by the state, public organizations, scientists - they should explain by real examples what advantages will receive community due to the creation of security territories. It is important to show positive cases - successful communities that have already benefited from creating protected territories, such as national parks. We also need a direct dialogue and partnership with communities on decision -making issues on the creation of PZF objects.

[see_also ids \u003d "

That is, it is impossible to create environmental areas without high -quality and systemic communication at the local level. It is necessary not only to simplify the approval procedure, but also to make huge partners of this process. Do not be afraid to explain to them his features. Do not postpone on "

[votes id \u003d "