Anatolii Tkachuk explains what should change in the conceptual approach to reforming local self-government and territorial organisation of power in Ukraine, and why continuing to live ‘according to the 2014 plan’ is not possible.

In December 2024, the Centre of Expertise for Multilevel Governance of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe prepared a Policy Advice on the ‘Concept of the reform of local self-government and territorial organisation of power in Ukraine’. The document emphasised the need to update conceptual approaches in order to adapt the reform to new realities, primarily the conditions of wartime and European integration, while retaining a broad vision of the reform and its underlying principles of transparency, subsidiarity, legality, accountability, and social dialogue.

In response to these recommendations, at the end of 2024, an expert group was established under the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine, which began work on draft amendments to the Concept.

At present, the Ministry is finalising an update project in the form of a separate policy document, which describes the Specifics of Implementing the Concept in the Context of War and the Process of EU Accession.

From late August to early October, public consultations were held on the draft Specifics of Implementing the Concept. With the support of the Council of Europe, the Ministry held three regional meetings, collecting proposals and comments from various stakeholders. On 10 October, the Ministry presented a draft report on the work done. The next stage has also been announced: the development of an Action Plan for the implementation of the reform, which will take place in parallel with the procedure for approving the draft resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. All interested parties have been invited to actively participate in this work.

We spoke to one of the experts involved in the process – Anatolii Tkachuk, Director of Science and Development at the Institute of Civil Society and advisor to the Council of Europe – to find out why the update is needed, what it entails and what challenges remain to be addressed in the draft.

Mr Tkachuk, the 2014 Concept for Reforming Local Self-Government and Territorial Organisation of Power in Ukraine transformed the country in many ways, but it was never fully implemented. There are many reasons for this, and they are well known. And now we have a draft document on the specifics of implementing the Concept in the new circumstances. Why, in your opinion, is an amendment needed rather than a new Concept?

We need to understand that the 2014 Concept fulfilled its main function: it established the ideology and direction of change and initiated the dismantling of the old system and the creation of a new one. However, times and circumstances have changed. War, demographics, the economy and the challenges of European integration mean that the context is now different. This is why discussions have begun about changing the Concept in line with the new political vision.

But what exactly is this new political vision? Is it a new Concept, amendments to it, or supplements to it? In my opinion, cancelling the current Concept would be a mistake because it would raise the question of what the reform had been based on. Moreover, the Concept is a policy document. It would be comparable to abolishing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine now, given that we already have the Act of Independence and the Constitution. Therefore, it is fortunate that the idea of abolishing the Concept has been abandoned.

The second approach is to amend the Concept. But what should be changed? The Concept contains an ideology that provides for the delineation of powers according to the principle of subsidiarity and stipulates that communities must be capable. In principle, therefore, there is no need to change any of the ideological foundations.

But there is real life, and above all, there is war. The war has created challenges that did not exist when the reform was being developed. The first of these is the occupation of a significant part of the territory. The second is a sharp and uneven decline in population, with people leaving their communities and Ukraine. The population’s gender and age structure has changed in communities. Not to mention the significant weakening of the economy and the destruction of communities’ civil infrastructure. But does all this affect the conceptual foundations? Fortunately not! These issues concern the specifics of applying individual policies in regions and territories based on new challenges.

Therefore, it was decided not to reject the current Concept, but rather to supplement it with a document outlining the specifics of how to implement this ideology today.

So, are you saying that the Concept remains and that the new document only specifies it?

Yes. It is a combined format. The ideological framework remains unchanged: subsidiarity, capable communities, delineation of powers and citizen participation. However, a description of how to implement these principles in situations involving war, territorial occupation, economic decline and population loss has been added. This is logical and correct – life requires policies to adapt to reality.

You also took part in developing the draft amendment. What was the original idea, and what has unfortunately been lost?

The idea was very specific: to make the document practical. We wanted to identify the challenges that the country and communities face; for each challenge – problems; for each problem – solutions and tasks; and for each task – measures and indicators of success. It had to be clear and consistent. However, some of our proposals are not reflected in the final draft that is now being presented. The document has become more general again and needs to be accompanied by an action plan. The action plan must then be followed by draft regulatory acts of change. In other words, this is another round of work. Unfortunately, this is how it happens. Coordinating the document requires certain compromises, which is why some specifics are lost that would be difficult to agree on at this stage.

In terms of specifics, what challenges do you think are the most critical for local self-government today?

There are three main categories of challenge.

The first group, which I have already mentioned, relates to the war: occupation, migration, a demographic crisis, the destruction of infrastructure, psychological stress, and security issues.

The second group stems from previous incomplete decisions: the uncertain status of districts, the failure to implement regional-level reform, and insufficiently delineated powers.

And the third one is adaptation to European integration: new standards, new management tools, and a new role for local self-government in the implementation of EU policies.

You also emphasise that the war is already changing the very concept of the delineation of powers. What do you mean by that?

We are used to thinking in terms of ‘state – self-government’ and ‘powers – delegated functions’. But the war has destroyed that model. When communities finance drones for the Armed Forces, build bomb shelters and defensive structures, and organise logistics, the classic model of the delineation of powers no longer applies. It is a diffusion of powers, a transition to flexible, adaptive governance where the boundaries are blurred yet coordinated.

We are now in a completely different story, in a completely different world, where the classic approaches we are used to, which we studied in Europe, no longer work. This is a new reality, and it must be reflected in politics.

It is too complicated to implement, isn’t it? It will probably be difficult for the Parliament and communities to understand…

Life will force us to do it anyway. The question is not whether it is difficult or not. Rather, it is a question of survival, resilience and efficiency. If we do not adapt to the diffusion of powers, new types of cooperation and the changed role of the state, we will lose momentum. In this situation, it is better not to be afraid of complexity, but to explain it correctly and provide rationale. And we have already provided this rationale.

How would you assess the potential impact of this new document on the decision-making?

I am a realist. I believe that ideas matter, even if they are not immediately put into practice. Unfortunately, meaningful dialogue where experts and communities are truly listened to and heard is still lacking. Nevertheless, we continue to participate in discussions, make proposals and try to persuade, because we believe it is important. Without broad discussion and the involvement of local self-government, no policy will be viable.

What is your main recommendation for the team directly involved in the update?

The first recommendation is not to be afraid to think strategically.

The second one is to establish not only stable mechanisms and approaches, but also flexibility: the system must function both in times of crisis and in times of peace.

The third one is to focus on people and communities rather than just structures.

And the last one: we are entering a world of turbulence – war between everyone, not just in Ukraine, climate instability, demographic decline, and the rapid development of artificial intelligence. All this is happening today, not tomorrow. And this should be the backdrop for our strategic documents, including the new phase of local self-government reform.

It is important to understand that adopting this document is not the end of the process, but only the beginning. It marks the start of very complex discussions, calculations, and modelling to ensure each idea is implemented correctly, and all necessary measures are planned and taken to implement these ideas, including regulatory decisions, organisational measures, institutional changes, and financial support.