ロシア連邦によるウクライナ侵略の環境的帰結の克服：損害記録から資金供与された復興へ

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:環境損害の定量化から賠償・復興資金への転換を制度設計として分析する枠組みを提供する。

🏢実務担当者:炭素税収の使途や復興基金の設計が、炭素価格戦略や資金調達の参考になる。

🏛政策担当者:損害記録・帰属・資金供与の段階的設計と財源の目的税化の教訓を示す。

The Russian Federation's armed aggression against Ukraine has caused environmental damage on an unprecedented scale in Europe since the Second World War. By June 2026, the State Environmental Inspectorate had calculated environmental losses exceeding 7 trillion UAH, while war-related greenhouse gas emissions had reached approximately 180 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent during the first thousand days of the full-scale invasion. Although Ukraine has built an extensive apparatus for recording such damage, recording alone cannot restore ecosystems. This article examines how international and national legal mechanisms interact to convert recorded damage into financed ecological restoration. The study employs comparative legal and institutional analysis and content analysis of European and Ukrainian legal acts, adopting a systems approach and drawing on the precedent of the United Nations Compensation Commission. The Commission awarded approximately 5.3 billion USD for environmental claims arising from the 1990–1991 Gulf conflict and monitored the spending of these funds through a dedicated follow-up programme. The analysis distinguishes three tiers: fixation, comprising national damage assessment methodologies and monitoring systems; attribution, comprising the Register of Damage and the International Claims Commission for Ukraine; and financing, comprising environmental taxation, carbon pricing and reconstruction funds. The first tier is operational, the second is incomplete pending the ratification process and the creation of a compensation fund, and the third is the weakest. The Ukrainian carbon tax of 30 UAH per tonne equates to 0.59 EUR, compared to an average of 53.63 EUR across Europe. Its revenues are earmarked for decarbonisation rather than restoring war-damaged ecosystems. The article also highlights a reconstruction paradox: simplifying environmental impact assessments in war-affected territories conflicts with the obligations of Chapter 27 of the accession negotiations. The recommendations focus on sequencing, earmarking, and institutional coordination.

• semanticscholar https://gmk.center/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CBAM24-research_10-2024.pdffirst seen 2026-10-17 05:26:28 · last seen 2026-11-06 05:40:47