In the world's most developed economies, huge urban agglomerations play a key role, sometimes accounting for more than half of annual GDP.
Despite their obvious advantages in the form of economic growth, integrated transport system and joint planning, the issue of agglomerations in Ukraine has traditionally been complex.
The legislative regulation of agglomerations was thought about after the start of decentralization during the unification of communities in 2016-2019. Then people's deputies tried three times to submit bills that were supposed to normalize the creation and functioning of agglomerations. However, the matter never came to a real consideration. Despite this, there were attempts to form agglomerations, and sometimes even successful ones.
Why is the experience of forming agglomerations in Ukraine not successful? What can help develop this direction? What changes are needed for the development of agglomerations? Let's try to figure it out.
What are agglomerations and what are the problems with them in Ukraine
In general, an agglomeration is very simplistically defined as a cluster of settlements with a large city center. However, in the modern understanding, the concept of agglomeration has a somewhat broader meaning and means not only the interaction of the city center and its satellites, but also the maximum use of common resources, infrastructure optimization and even joint management.
In Ukraine, the concept of agglomeration was officially enshrined in the State Regional Development Strategy (SRDS) 2021-2027, which also identified seven potential agglomerations: Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkov, Odessa, Dnieper, Zaporozhye and Krivoy Rog. The DSRR defines agglomerations as a cluster of cities with a total population of more than 500 thousand people. In EU countries this bar is even lower - 250 thousand.
In this case, functional and economic ties between cities are formed much faster and more organically than legislative norms and administrative-territorial reforms. The absence of legislation does not mean the absence of agglomerations, because in fact there are already a lot of them in Ukraine. But interaction between cities exists without legal boundaries, although its effectiveness is often questionable.
DSRR pays attention to this problem. Quite often, agglomerations in Ukraine have problems with inefficient transport links, high load on the utility network, unbalanced development rates, or worsening environmental conditions. In addition, the existing infrastructure in agglomerations does not always meet the modern needs of the volume of commuting migrations.
The lack of a regulatory framework and systematic work on the part of the Cabinet of Ministers in this direction also gives rise to a number of problems, such as a lack of understanding of the need for the formation of effective agglomerations in large cities and fears of absorption in satellite cities. The operating model of agglomerations can vary greatly. In world practice, there are examples of both the creation of a separate municipal body to manage an agglomeration, and cooperation on the basis of agreements built between local authorities.
Agglomeration in Ukrainian. Such a different experience
Cities in Ukraine tried to create agglomerations at the level of the initial legislative framework, namely the laws “On cooperation of territorial communities” and “On associations of local governments.” On their basis, agglomerations were created in large cities - Odessa, Kyiv and Lvov. True, with varying degrees of success.
The most unique situation was around Odessa, where the initiative came not from the city, but from the region. In 2011, the Odessa Regional Rada adopted a strategic plan for the development of the Odessa agglomeration, which proposed dividing the region’s territories into five subregions, among which one (with the center in Odessa) is an agglomeration-type subregion.
For Ukraine, this was the first precedent of an attempt to create a monocentric agglomeration, however, the imposition of agglomeration interaction “from above” did not find support from local authorities. In fact, the strategy never came to practical implementation.
The situation is slightly different with the Kyiv agglomeration, which was formed as a de facto public organization through the voluntary association of 19 local governments, including Kyiv. Unlike other large cities, it is more difficult to create an agglomeration in Kyiv due to the status of the capital and, in fact, a separate administrative-territorial unit.
During the process of decentralization, no settlements were annexed to Kyiv; accordingly, a model of voluntary participation as equal partners was chosen for unification with other communities. This approach has its advantages and allows municipalities to gradually develop a model of interaction.
As part of the unification of the Kyiv agglomeration, forms of interaction were determined, which include delegation of individual tasks, implementation of joint projects, joint financing of public utility enterprises and the creation of new ones, as well as the creation of joint management bodies. Such bodies are the council and the supervisory board, chaired by Mayor Vitaliy Klitschko. This approach also became quite unique for Ukraine, but unlike Odessa, in the capital it was possible to launch real processes of interaction, since the initiative came precisely from local councils.
Scientists call this type of agglomeration “conurbation,” that is, a polycentric agglomeration association. This approach has obvious disadvantages, since it is intended for cities that are not only equal in legal status, but also relatively equal in socio-economic terms. Despite the declared equality, Kyiv has an obvious economic and social advantage over satellite cities, which are mainly dependent on the capital.
Accordingly, because of this, long-term development planning in the agglomeration may suffer, since it must take into account the real situation in which cities must adapt to the agglomeration center, which can potentially create tension and competition between local governments. Now planning is precisely the biggest problem of the Kyiv agglomeration, which mainly concentrates on solving current issues rather than on a strategic and detailed development plan.
As a consequence, the problem with pendulum migration cannot be solved even despite the formation of agglomeration interaction. The DSRR notes that more than 560 thousand suburban residents come to the capital to work, that is, 32% of the population of the entire Kyiv region. Considering Kyiv’s own chronic problems with public transport, the situation with commuter migration is worsening even more.
The most promising one right now is the Lviv agglomeration, where, following the example of Kyiv, they also created an association of local governments. The key difference of Lviv is the presence of settlements annexed during the decentralization of 2020, which automatically joined the association. In December 2023, 10 more neighboring communities signed a memorandum and will become equal members of the Lviv agglomeration.
However, Lviv decided to go a little further and created a strategy for the development of the agglomeration for the period until 2027, which will become the basis for its further formation. The draft strategy was developed even before the start of a full-scale war with the participation of communities, the region and experts from EU countries.
The main positive point is the identification of key strategic goals, which first of all provide for the establishment of clear cooperation between communities, which in Ukrainian realities quite clearly indicates the prospect of the further existence of the agglomeration. The second strategic goal is the quality of life, which includes transport links, joint waste management, infrastructure development, access to education and environmental issues. This is a major difference from the Odessa Strategic Plan, which rather focused on purely economic development.
At the same time, it should be noted that not all neighboring communities agreed to join Lviv, in particular due to fear of absorption. And although this fear is exaggerated to a certain extent, it requires separate work with local government on the part of both the government and representatives of agglomerations.
What does Ukraine need to develop agglomerations?
The formation of agglomerations at the legislative level can be regarded as the next stage of decentralization. However, first Ukraine must clearly delineate the powers between local governments and the central government, as well as complete the process of creating the institution of prefects and finally adopt bill No. 4298, which will regulate local state administrations. For agglomerations, prefects can become exactly the driving force that will accelerate their formation in all regions of Ukraine.
One of the main functions of the heads of state administrations (who will become prefects after the reform) should be the coordination of local government bodies and legal assistance. In addition, the status of prefects, who according to the logic of the reform should be career civil servants and not political appointees, will encourage and help them act as mediators in the process of forming agglomerations in the event of controversial situations.
The next stage should be the preparation of a clearly defined legislative framework for the formation and functioning of agglomerations, since their consolidation in the DSRR does not answer all the necessary questions. Although legislation now allows communities to cooperate quite broadly, the formation of agglomerations requires clearer standards.
The head of the relevant subcommittee in the Verkhovna Rada, Vitaly Bezgin, says that a new bill may appear as early as this year.
“The issue of agglomerations is certainly relevant. There is no single practice in the world for regulating agglomerations, there are different practices, but I am a supporter of legislative support for the issue. We should expect a new project this year, but now we are slightly observing the development of these trends in different parts of Ukraine, especially in the Lviv region,” says Bezgin in a comment to the HONEST Movement.
The example of Kyiv, Odessa and Lvov shows that, despite the desire of communities, agglomerations are formed more by trial and error than by a clear procedure defined by law. In addition, with the development of cooperation between municipalities, there will be a need to determine legislative norms for the functioning and management of agglomerations.
The government also needs systematic work with communities in terms of education or joining agglomerations. Their formation should not be an initiative “from above”; it should come from the communities themselves. And to do this, they must clearly understand the advantages of such an association.
At the same time, the functioning of agglomerations becomes even more relevant due to a full-scale war, because agglomeration interaction can play a key role in post-war reconstruction.
