Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine #1072 of August 31, 2026

Who is affected: pupils, students, teachers, and other participants in the educational process at educational institutions; founders and heads of educational institutions regardless of type and form of ownership; military administrations and local self-government bodies; designers and construction organizations; the State Emergency Service; the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection.

Summary:

  • introduces a new category of shelter — the “protected space,” which does not belong to the fund of civil protection shelters. It is a room or part of a building of an educational institution adapted to protect against the indirect effects of conventional weapons, blast wave overpressure, and fragments;
  • applies to communities with a satisfactory or moderate level of security risk (determined under the Methodology for Assessing Security Risks in the Education System, Cabinet Resolution #866 of August 2, 2024);
  • expressly warns that the creation of protected spaces does not constitute full compliance with legislative requirements on the provision of collective protection means and does not release heads and founders from the obligation to create full-fledged protective structures;
  • sets detailed technical requirements for the “protected space” shelter: placement only in basements, ground floors, or on the first floor (above the first floor is prohibited); the use of buildings with wooden ceilings is prohibited; the thickness of external walls must be at least 56 cm for brick or 30 cm for reinforced concrete; premises where openings occupy 50% or more of the surrounding structures are prohibited; brittle finishing materials that produce sharp fragments are prohibited;
  • defines capacity standards: 1.2 sq. m per person for single-tier placement, 1 sq. m for two-tier, and 0.8 sq. m for three-tier; internal volume of at least 1.5 cubic m per person; height of at least 2 meters (1.8 meters in exceptional cases);
  • requires mandatory accessibility for people with disabilities and people with limited mobility, as well as at least two evacuation exits;
  • establishes autonomy of at least four hours: drinking water at 2 liters per person, backup lighting, means of communication, medicines, entrenching tools, and containers for waste;
  • provides specific engineering solutions with drawings: soil-filled gabions, reinforcement of walls with concrete blocks, a monolithic reinforced concrete slab over the ceiling, a steel frame, protection of window openings with sandbags or dry brickwork, and a sliding armored gate at the emergency exit;
  • simplifies permit procedures: design solutions are developed by a certified engineer with the qualification level of “leading” or “Category I”; no expert review is required, no documents for the performance of works are required, and the facility is not subject to acceptance into operation.

What is right:

  • a protected space is an interim solution that can be created within months and for substantially less money;
  • the procedure explicitly states that a protected space is not a collective protection means within the meaning of the legislation and does not release from the obligation to build proper shelters. In this way, the document clearly delineates the scope of application of this mechanism and makes it impossible to use it as a replacement for the shelters provided for by legislation;
  • the simplification of permit procedures. Going through an expert review and acceptance into operation would significantly extend the time required for setting up such spaces. Given the need to ensure the readiness of educational institutions by the start of the school year, the simplification of these procedures is justified.

What is wrong:

  • the simplification of procedures creates a gap in accountability. The facility does not undergo an expert review, is not accepted into operation, and consequently no external party confirms that the protective properties have actually been achieved. All responsibility effectively falls on a single certified engineer. If the structure fails to withstand impact, there is no mechanism to establish whether the requirements of the Procedure were met: there is no acceptance certificate, no expert opinion, and no supervisory authority;
  • no obligatory inspection after completion of works is established. The Procedure describes in detail what must happen before the space is created: inspection, examination, assessment report. But what happens afterward — whether anyone verifies that the completed works comply with the design solutions — is not defined. The commission assesses the possibility, the engineer designs, the contractor executes, and there the chain ends;
  • the document does not clarify at whose expense protected spaces are created. For municipally owned institutions this is a burden on local budgets without any subvention; for private institutions, on the owner. As a result, protected spaces will appear where the community is wealthier, not where the risk is higher.

Alternative solution:

  • mandatory recording of the result. Instead of a full expert review, it would be sufficient to introduce a simplified certificate of compliance of the completed works with the design solutions, signed by the same commission that conducted the initial inspection, with photographic materials attached. This does not significantly extend the procedure but creates a documentary trail and personal accountability;
  • an earmarked subvention from the state budget. Without separate funding, the Procedure will operate unevenly and slowly. A logical solution is a co-financing mechanism with an increased share from the state for communities with lower budgetary capacity — by analogy with the subvention for creating housing funds for IDPs, where 100% financing is provided for the eight most affected oblasts.