Social-economic Consequences of the Chornobyl Catastrophe
Volodymyr Kholosha
First Deputy Chief of State Department–
Administration of Exclusion Zone and Zone of Absolute (Compulsory) Resettlement

1.

Introduction

The largest in its scale and consequences man-caused catastrophe that took place on April 26 1986 on the# 4 Reactor at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
became national tragedy, condemned millions of people to sufferings, and showed how unprotected was
the state in the face of global disaster in peace-time.
The Chornobyl NPP disaster was responsible for serious economic losses within the former
Soviet Union and beyond. The accident disrupted production as well as the normal activities of daily life
in many areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russian Federation. In Ukraine, it led to a significant loss ofelectrical power production and a direct impact on the regional industrial economy. Further, it caused
substantial damage to the agricultural economy and limited the use of the area's forests and waterways(use restrictions were imposed on 5,120 km2 of farmland and 4,920 km2 of forest). For the entire Ukraine
population, the reduction in the Gross National Product and the loss of monies that could have been spenton improving health care and preventive medicine, and in other areas to promote general health and wellbeing was a significant blow.
In 1986, approximately 116,000 persons were evacuated from areas with radiation level higher
than 5 mRem per hour. This evacuation required the construction of additional housing for the evacuees.
Approximately 15,000 apartments; several living quarters with a total capacity exceeding 1,000 persons;
23,000 houses; and approximately 800 social and cultural institutions were constructed during 1986
and 1987. The city of Slavutych was built to house former Pripyat residents (Chornobyl NPP workers andtheir families). Other people from the contaminated areas were located in Kiev.
The measures implemented by the authorities immediately following the accident were designed
primarily to protect the public from the effects of radiation and minimize the immediate threat to humanlife and health. The evacuation was accompanied by various measures. To provide social and economic
assistance to the public and individual enterprises, machinery, equipment, livestock, and other materials
were relocated to less contaminated areas.
Assistance to the affected regions in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus was provided from
centralized all-Union financial and technical resources in the Soviet Union. The assistance focused
primarily on restoring daily living activities. These activities included employment; restoring production
activities (e.g., restarting evacuated industrial facilities, finding alternate power sources); decontaminatinghouses and roadways in areas believed to be salvageable; as well as providing social assistance,
environmentally uncontaminated products, and medical services to members of the public who continued
to reside in contaminated areas.
2. Assessment of losses caused by the Chornobyl catastrophe for the USSR economy
The 116,000 people who were evacuated from their homes and those who voluntarily left (known as thevictim population) were partially compensated for material losses related to the evacuation: lost personal
property, crops in the ground, residences, etc. Industrial and agricultural enterprises (including collective
farms) were compensated for lost financial, material, and technical resources.

- 193 -

In regions with radioactive contamination levels less than 555 kBq/m2 (15 Ci/km2) (intensive
radiation monitoring zones), which were not subject to evacuation under the regulations, each resident was
paid approximately 30 rubles ($33) per month to purchase “uncontaminated” food products imported from
elsewhere. (At this time 1 kg of meat cost approximately 2 rubles and bread cost 20 kopecks.1) The useof local foodstocks (such as meat, milk, vegetables, and potatoes) was temporarily forbidden.
In 1990, the USSR Finance Ministry assessed the direct losses as a result of the Chornobyl NPP
accident. The losses were determined by analyzing data provided by various ministries and agencies, aswell as the industrial departments of the USSR Council of Ministers and the Councils of Ministers of theunion republics. The USSR Finance Ministry found that the total direct loss (including expenditures fromall funding sources) for 1986–1989 was approximately 9.2 billion rubles or about 12.6 billion US dollars 2.
As Ukraine's share of the all-Union budget was 30%, Ukrainian losses from the accident are in the same
proportion.
In 1990, the USSR State Budget included 3.324 billion rubles for remediation of the Chornobyl
NPP accident. Another 1 billion rubles was appropriated from the individual budgets of the RussianFederation and Ukrainian and Belorussian republics. The USSR State Budget for 1991 had included
expenditures of 10.3 billion rubles for these purposes; however, because of the disintegration of the USSR,
only a portion of the funding came from the all-Union budget. By the end of the year, remediation efforts
were being funded by the state budgets of the three newly independent and most severely affected
countries (Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Belarus), Gosstrakh (an insurance company), and voluntary
contributions to the Chornobyl NPP Accident Remediation Fund. A total of 2.97 million rubles of foreign
currency resources (including 2.2 million dollars in convertible currency) were also received and used.

3.

Assessment of summarized economic losses of Belarus Republic

According to estimations of leading Scientific Research Institutes and specialists of various branches ofnational economy, the summarized social-economic detriment to Belarus Republic caused by the
Chornobyl Catastrophe over the period from 1986 up to 2015 comes to 235 billion US dollars [3-5].
The sum includes losses connected with bad effects on population health, detriment to industry
and social sphere, agriculture, construction complex, transportation and communication, municipal
services; contamination of mineral and raw material, land, water, forest and other resources; also
additional expenses connected with mitigation and minimization of the consequences of the accident andproviding safe conditions for vital activities of population.
In the structure of total detriment during the years 1986 – 2015 the main part (81.6%) take costs,
connected with industry functioning support and protective measures implementation, which come to
191.7 billion US dollars. The part of direct and indirect losses totals approximately 30.0 billion US dollars(12.6%). Lost profits are valued at 13.7 billion US dollars (5.8%). Direct losses include the cost of taking
out of use of constituent part of national wealth of the republic: main and circulating production funds,
objects of social infrastructure, living premises and natural resources.
To indirect losses are attributed those caused by influence of economic and social factors (living
conditions and state of health of population) that caused disruption and cessation of production, slowing
down labour productivity, rise of costs and aggravating provisions of other installations of state, cooperative and privet property, also losses inflicted by population migration from affected areas.

1

A kopeck is equal to one-hundredth of a ruble.
This information was officially presented at an ECOSOC (UN Economic and Social Council) meeting by the USSR,
Belarussian, and Ukrainian delegations (letter No. A/45/342 and E/1990/102 dated 06 July 1990 addressed to the UN
Secretary General).
2- 194 -

Constituents of lost profits evaluated in money are: reduction of output, works and services in
the contaminated territories, cost of food turned useless due to radiological contamination, additional
expenses in order to make up for production failed to be produced, cost of restoration of the lost quality of
production, losses from canceled contracts, annulled projects, credits kept idle, penalty, fine and forfeit
payments, etc.
Additional costs include expenses on mitigating of the consequences of the accident andsecuring of he normal functioning of different branches of national economy in radioactively polluted
zones, and providing safe conditions for vital activities of people. They also include compensating ofconsequences of negative factors effects, cost of additional resources, used to compensate losses and lost
profit, cost of decontamination measures and of radiological monitoring.
The cited above evaluation of losses is not final as cause and effect relationship, reflecting thatthe effects of radiological contamination of territories on various aspects of vital activities are rather
complicated. Science still doesn’t have complete and final information on medico-biological, social andecological consequences of the Chornobyl catastrophe.
Table 1. Sectoral structure of social-economic losses of Belarus Republic caused by Chornobyl NPP
accident (billion of US dollars) [5]yearsSectors of
National Economy
1986-1990
1991-1995
1996-2000
2001-2015
1986-2015
Health of population
4.05
16.77
18.13
54.32
93.27
Agro-industrial complex
18.3
20.0
15.6
18.1
72.0
Forestry
0.58
0.68
0.70
2.15
4.11
Industry
0.06
0.13
0.11
0.33
0.63
Construction industry
0.15
1.25
0.32
0.96
2.68
Raw materials, mineral and
2.00
0.12
0.15
0.40
2.67
water resources
Transportation and
0.93
1.20
0.36
0.90
3.39
communication
Social sphere
2.84
5.45
2.96
6.45
17.70
Decontamination of the
0.04
4.19
22.48
10.12
36.83
territories
Radio-ecological monitoring
0.05
0.21
0.19
1.27
1.72
Total
29.00
50.00
61.00
95.00
235.00Belarus Republic still carries the burden of direct financial expenses for mitigation of theconsequences of the Chornobyl catastrophe. For example, 200 million US dollars were spent on so-called“Chornobyl programs” from the state budget in 2004.
4.

Assessment of summarized economic losses of Russian Federation

From 1986 through 1991 minimization of the consequences of the Chornobyl catastrophe in the RussianFederation was financed from the USSR budget. It should be mentioned that there is no data on the direct
losses. It could be assumed that they were not as considerable as in Ukraine and Belarus, as there was nolarge-scale evacuation of population from the exclusion zone [6].
As for the period 1992 through 2000 when Russian Federation started to finance “Chornobyl”
programs on her own, it was planned to allocate 247.7 billion rubles (on the value bases by the year 2000.)
In fact during these years more than 46 billion rubles were finance from the Federal budget. Additional 36
billion rubles were paid as privileges and compensations, which gives us a total of more than 3 billion US
dollars. Payments on “Chornobyl” programs from Russian Federation budget after the year 2000 are still
kept in the same proportion.
- 195 -

5.

Assessment of summarized economic losses of Ukraine

5.1.

Direct losses. Direct expenses and indirect losses, including additional losses caused byprescheduled decommissioning of the ChNPP.

5.1.1. Assessment of direct losses
The city of Pripyat was completed in 1985 and had a population of 48,000 at the time of the accident. In
1986, the city contained three large enterprises under all-Union jurisdiction (Chornobyl NPP, the Jupiterplant, and an integrated residential construction plant); a vocational and technical school; a music school;a complex of hospital institutions; a recreation center; three libraries; and a movie theater.
When calculating losses caused by the consequences of the Chornobyl catastrophe, waste ofinfrastructure facilities located at the ChNPP construction site and in the territory of the exclusion zone,
including the towns of Pripyat and Chornobyl are considered.
Losses caused by waste of material objects of national economy in the exclusion zone due to the
Chornobyl NPP accident total to 1,010.6 million rubles (Table 2). [1]Table 2. Losses from Ukraine Economic Facilities Removed from Service in the Exclusion Zone
After the Accident.
Year of
Cost of Fixed Assets or
Description of Physical Facility Lost as a Result of
Valuation as
Inventory Items
Chornobyl NPP Disaster
Fixed Asset
Rubles,
Dollars,
or Inventory thousands thousands
Item
Facilities and expenses associated with stopping construction on
1986(a)99,028136,120ChNPP Phase III
ChNPP Unit 4
1964(b)201,000
223,330
Chornobyl-2
1984(c)97,700137,027
Enterprises in telecommunications equipment industry (1)1986
51,07070,199Enterprises in the metallurgical industry (1)1986
44,70061,443Enterprises in the construction materials industry (1)
1986
7,750
10,653Enterprises in the river transportation industry (2)1986
21,05028,935
Paved roads (353 km)
1986
60,55083,230Enterprises in the woodworking industry (1)
1986
4,720
6,488
Enterprises in the concentrated feed industry (1)
1986
4,550
6,254
Enterprises for primary processing of agricultural raw materials
1986
4,900
6,735
(1)
Enterprises in the food industry (1)
1986
5,010
6,887
Enterprises engaged in the repair of tractors and agricultural
1986
760
1,045
machinery (1)Enterprises in the forestry industry (1)
1986
4,700
6,460
Collective farms (14)1986
79,693
109,544
State farms (2)1986
18,65925,648
Joint enterprises (3)1986
18,69425,696
Water systems and facilities
1986
4,405
6,055
Sewer systems and facilities
1986
3,850
5,292
Electrical transmission and distribution
1986
315
433
Heating systems and facilities
1986
3,390
4,660
1986
Housing space:
288,316
209,750- State-owned (402)
9,761
7,101
- Privately owned (2,278)
38,76328,200- Rural farmsteads (9,050)
Vacation centers (10); hospital facilities (midwifery centers)
1986
29,10440,005- 196 -

Description of Physical Facility Lost as a Result ofChornobyl NPP DisasterYear of
Valuation as
Fixed Assetor InventoryItem(44); Educational institutions in the vocational education system(3); general education schools (34); music schools (2); recreation
centers (16); movie theaters (2); clubs (39)Total(a)Exchange rate as of April 1986: $1 = 72.75 kopecks(b)Exchange rate as of October 1984: $1 = 71.3 kopecks.
(c)Exchange rate as of 1964 $1 = 90 kopecks.
ChNPP = Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant

Cost of Fixed Assets orInventory Items
Rubles,
Dollars,
thousands thousands

1,010,649

1,338,979

In addition to the items in Table 2, the substantial loss of infrastructure facilities in the
Exclusion Zone was accompanied by further losses of equipment, tools, and machinery that became
contaminated with radionuclides during the accident remediation operations. These contaminatedmaterials were disposed at the Buryakovka radioactive waste disposal site and at the Rozsokha Equipment
Holding Facility 1 and 2. Items in the Buryakovka disposal site include 1,958 trucks, 14 fire trucks, and19 bulldozers; the total estimated cost as of 1986 of the equipment in this disposal site was 17,566
thousand rubles or $24,146 thousand U.S. dollars (estimated cost as of 1986). This is from internal
accounting data from Kompleks State Enterprise. Items in the Rozsokha holding facilities includes 30
helicopters and 11 residential buildings; the total estimated cost as of 1986 of the equipment in thisholding facility is 16 million rubles or about $22 million U.S. dollars (estimated cost as of 1986).
The total loss -- loss of property and individual facilities of economic importance -- was 1,044 million
rubles or $1,385 million U.S. dollars in the Exclusion Zone alone
Besides, other losses, caused by population evacuation and waste of fixed assets during the postaccident period, should also be considered. Those measures were taken after the radiation situation in the
territory of the exclusion zone was specified in 1990’s.
The cost of lost residential constructions and private property outside the Chornobyl exclusionzone equals to 0.2 billion rubles (as of the year 1984 prices.) The loss of fixed assets outside the exclusionzone equals approximately to 0.4 billion rubles (as of the year 1984 prices.)
Consequently, summarized direct losses of material objects and economic facilities outside theexclusion zone total 0.6 billion rubles, which is equal to 0.84 billion US dollars.

5.1.2. Assessment of Direct Costs
The cost of emergency measures was based on the general amount of financing of:works on direct mitigation of the consequences of the accident in the exclusion zone;social protection of the affected population and corresponding medical programmes,
scientific research programmes;
radiation monitoring of the environment;
decontamination and RAW management-

Summarized data on actual amount of financing is given in Table 3 [1]- 197 -

Table 3.
Summarized data on actual amount of financing of mitigation of the consequences of the Chornobyl
catastrophe and social protection of population for the period of 1986–1996 (1986 – 01.09.91
financed from the State budget of the USSR; from 01.09.91 – financed from the State budget of
Ukraine) /in millions of US dollars/.
Line

Heading1.

Social protection of
citizens, total
Special assistanceScientific research
Radiation monitoring
Environmental remediation

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

1992

1993

197.33 196.51 478.07 383.97 545.65 636.93

53.62
57.76
63.79

6.32
3.23
1.99

0.17

0.27

2.99
4.45
1.64
0.01

1994

8.83
4.99
2.28
0.37

1995

22.81
5.92
3.15
0.36

1996

1997(a)1986 1991
6606.55

19.02
7.04
4.44
0.19

8.21
10.54
5.4
0.23

Rehabilitation and disposal
0.08
0.20
0.13
0.16
0.29
of radioactive waste
3173.62 276.07 197.78 205.28 167.44 194.10 89.87
7. Capital investment.
Resettlement and creationof appropriate conditions
for members of the public
residing in contaminatedareas
8. Work in Exclusion Zone
8923.75
19.70 25.84 46.45 44.95 52.08 56.1
9. Other
228.9717.72 15.88 25.91 41.94 43.36 37.0
Total:
19108.23
Ukrainian5732.47 510.81 436.01 755.72 638.30 835.19 844.6
portion**Assuming that in 1986-1991 the Ukrainian portion in the expenditures of all-Union budget was 30%,
then the losses of Ukraine caused by the accident could be evaluated in the same proportion
Since 1998 from the State budget of Ukraine approximately in the same proportion to solve ‘Chornobyl’
problems expenditures were financed:

Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

Million US dollars
584.72371.76
332.64358.34376.00259.09450.11It should be noted that since 2001 as the result of the pre-scheduled shut-down of the Chornobyl NPP
Ukraine is put into additional expense to maintain safe condition of the shutdown reactor units of the
Chornobyl NPP and to convert the object ‘Shelter’ into the ecologically safe system. Annual expenditure
amounts approximately 50 million US dollars. Consequently, in the course of 4 years (up to 01.01.05)
approximately 200 million US dollars were allocated for these purposes.

- 198 -

5.1.3 Analysis of Indirect Losses
Losses from inability to use contaminated arable lands, water and forest resources
The land contaminated by the Chornobyl NPP accident in Ukraine includes rich forests where mushrooms
and berries were harvested and agricultural lands where thousands of metric tons of hay were harvested.
The loss of the ability to use farmland, water resources, and forest resources because of contamination iscurrently estimated to be 8.6–10.9 billion rubles. This is more than 2% of the gross national income
produced by Ukraine in 1986. These figures are for Ukraine alone from 1986–1991. All economic
activity was suspended on land with contamination densities greater than 555 kBq/m2 (15 Ci/km2), andsome activity was suspended on land with contamination densities between 185 kBq/m2 and 555 kBq/m2(5 Ci/km2 and 15 Ci/km2). It will take several decades for the contamination on this land to decreasesufficiently to permit use.
Forestry industries also incurred significant losses. More than 5,000 km2 of forest land waswithdrawn from use. The direct losses due to loss of lumber were nearly 100 million rubles. The total
loss incurred by forestry and related woodworking industries for the 1986–1991 time period wasapproximately 1.8–2.0 billion rubles (in 1984 prices).
Although only 0.6% of the pine stock in the former Soviet Union was located here, this area
produced more than 50% of the total amount of resin collected in the former Soviet Union.
Approximately 60,000 metric tons of coniferous sawdust per year, worth 15 million rubles, was collected
here.
The loss to water resources and fisheries in the Dnepr and Black Sea watersheds because ofradioactive contamination in bodies of water during the first few years following the accident was 2.3–
3.1 billion rubles.
Thus, average evaluation of losses caused by inability to use contaminated arable lands, waterand forest resources for the period of 6 years (1986 – 1991) gives us (8.6 + 10.9 )/ 2 = 9.75 billion rubles.
This indirect loss evaluated for a one year period gives us 9.75 / 6 = 1.625 billion rubles. In 30 years (tothe year 2015) indirect losses in this field of activities will reach 1.625 × 30 = 48.75 billion rubles.
Loss of power production and its industrial impact
Because of the accident, electrical power was not produced using the Chornobyl NPP and goods andservices were not produced because of the loss of power. These losses are especially important relative tothe other losses resulting from the Chornobyl NPP accident. The amount of electrical power not generated
because Unit 4 was not used for its entire design lifetime and because other Chornobyl NPP units wereshut down in 1986 was 62 billion kWh. At a mean cost of 1.5 kopecks/kWh for Chornobyl NPP power,
the direct loss was approximately 1 billion rubles. Economists estimate that each unit of electrical power
cost supplied to other branches of industry increases national income by 20 units. Electrical power
shortages have a substantial effect on production volume in areas such as machinery, light industry, foodindustry, and other processing industries. Thus, the total loss due to lack of electric power wasapproximately 20 billion rubles (in 1984 prices). < I think this estimate is acceptable in case there
happened a large and long scale of electric shortage after the Chernobyl accident. I did not know suchsituation happened. Imanaka>
After the Chornobyl NPP accident, a moratorium was issued regarding bringing any new nuclear
power plants on line at existing power plants. Because of this decision, the national economy failed toreceive 6 million kW of installed capacity. Economists' estimates indicate that a mere 1-year delay inbringing 1 million kW of electrical power on line is capable of reducing the national income by 2 billion
rubles. If the delay becomes long term, the cost of the moratorium could reach 48 billion rubles (in1984 prices) within 4 years.

- 199 -

One might consider that the last mentioned arguments are not convincing. There are no known
reports about long and deep shortage of electricity in Ukraine after the Chornobyl accident. But let us notforget, that at that time Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union, which was a rather specific country.
Beside it was large enough to mask underproduction of electricity in Ukraine by redistributing of its
production and consumption over it’s whole large territory, it was also closed country with the total
control over information, especially that, which provided evidence of its weakening.
After disintegration of the Soviet Union the independent Ukraine in early and middle 90th of the20th century faced problems of underproduction of electricity. The shortage in electricity production was
so severe, that during autumn-winter periods the whole regions (including schools, hospitals andkindergartens), not only industrial enterprises, were being switched off electricity according to schedule oras a result of emergency cutout.
Of course it should be taken into account that the general economic and fuel crisis took place in
Ukraine in middle 90th of the last century, but let us mention also that nuclear electrical power production
was maybe the only stably operating branch of economy during this period. Since 1985 till 1993 electrical
power production in Ukraine dropped down at 27% due to fuel shortage, but at the same time the share of
NPP in produced electricity increased from 19.5 to 40% [7].
Thus, to summarize the indirect losses, the total irretrievable loss to Ukrainian economy fromthe Chornobyl NPP disaster is 116.75 billion rubles (in 1984 prices). The structure of the indirect losses isprovided in Table 4.

Table 4. Structure of Ukrainian indirect losses due to Chornobyl NPP accident
Indirect Loss
Losses caused by inability to use arable lands, water and forestry
resources
Cost of electricity not generated
Cost of moratorium against bringing new capacity on line at existing
nuclear plants
Total:

Rubles in billions
48.75
20,0
48,0
116.75As the exchange rate of the US dollar to the USSR ruble was approximately 71.3 kopecks, we
can estimate the indirect losses as a result of the Chornobyl NPP accident to total 163.74 billion US
dollars, or 3.4 times the Ukrainian gross domestic product for 1997. This is also as much as about 13 statebudgets of Ukraine in 1997, or about 8 in 2005.< How many times larger than the state budget ?> Itshould be noted that indirect losses evaluation is given only on most affected branches of national
economy.

5.2.

Assessment of total economic losses of Ukraine

Direct losses (property and economic facilities) only in the exclusion zone in the territory of Ukraine
totals 1044 million rubles or 1385 million US dollars.
Direct expenditures of Ukraine to mitigate the consequences of the Chornobyl catastrophe at theexpense of different sources of financing during the period of 1986 – 1991 totaled approximately 6 billion
US dollars. During the last 13 years, when Ukraine is independently financing costs of mitigation of theconsequences of the accident, i.e. 1992 through 2004, expenditures reached 6.95 billion US dollars.
However, it is complicated to determine the scale of indirect losses, caused by inability to use
contaminated agricultural lands, water and forest resources [2], decrease of power production, andsequentially decrease in output of goods and rendering services. The Ukrainian specialists estimations
show that by the year 2015 summarized economic loss will come to 179 billion US dollars.

- 200 -

Consequently, summarized economic losses of Ukraine caused by Chornobyl catastrophe havethe following scale and structure (Table 5)
Table 5. Structure of summarized Ukrainian economic losses till 2004
Item
Cost, million
U.S. dollars
1.
Direct losses of inventories and economic assets
1.1 in the exclusion zone1385.01.2 outside the exclusion zone
840.0
2. Direct costs of financing activities on mitigating of the consequencesof theaccident
2.1 1986 – 1991 (Ukrainian share in the USSR budget expenditure)5732.5
2.2
1992 – 2004 (Ukrainian expenditure after declaration of6953.3independence)
3.
Indirect losses according to Table 4 (for the 30 year period up to1637402015)
Total:
178650.8
These losses are not exhaustive, as they do not include all indirect Ukrainian economic losses but omit
items such as:– Loss of health and fitness for work (for the current and future generations)– Future costs for reclamation of contaminated land and water bodies– Future costs for decommissioning of the ChNPP, transform object ‘Shelter’ into ecologically safe
system, disposal of radioactive waste from the Shelter.
.
6.

Conclusions and proposals

1. The accident brought out clearly that nuclear facilities safety expenses are considerably lower thanthose needed to mitigate the consequences of possible accidents – large-scale man-caused catastrophes dotremendous economic damage to countries that are located within the zone of their effect.
2. The Chornobyl catastrophe did enormous social-economic damage above all to three most affected
countries: Ukraine, Belarus and Russian Federation.
As the result of direct losses of material and economic establishments and financial expenses onminimization of the consequences of the accident, the total sum of losses of Ukraine, Belarus and RussianFederation reached tens of billions of US dollars.
The Chornobyl accident is also characterised by considerable indirect losses, which mean
damnification caused by uderproduction in energetics, agriculture, forestry, fish industry, water
facilities etc.I have changed this sentence< I can not understand the meaning. >3. Present estimations of indirect losses of Ukraine and Belarus are based on different methodologicalapproaches and do not enable correct evaluation of health damage, demographic changes, future
expenditure for rehabilitation of contaminated territories and facilities. In light of this development of
universal approaches for estimation of indirect losses caused both by Chornobyl accident and other similardisasters are necessary.

- 201 -

4. Weight of expenditure to minimize consequences of the Chornobyl disaster will continue to be a heavy
burden for the economy of three most affected countries for many years.
Considering that the extent of social-economic damage in Ukraine and Belarus isincommensurable with real economic resources of the countries, the assistance of the international
community is essential.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

References
Comprehensive evaluation of risks as a result of the ChNPP accident. – K., 1998
‘Emergency’ #1., 2001, k., pages 6 – 9.
G.M. Lych, Z.G. Pateyeva. Chernobyl catastrophe: social-economic problems and means of solving
them. Minsk, 1999.
Belarus and Chernobyl: second decade. Minsk, 1998.
15 years after Chernobyl catastrophe: consequences for Belarus Republic and ways of overcoming.
National report. Minsk, 2001.
‘Chernobyl. Five painful years’. Moscow. Izdat, 1992.
Chornobyl catastrophe. Ed. V.G.Baryakhtar. “Export Ukrainy” Publishing House. Kyiv, 1997. – 575
P.

- 202 -