In the heart of Ukraine’s rural landscapes, a significant transformation is underway, one that could redefine the agricultural sector and its commercial impacts. A recent study led by L. Novakovsky, published in the journal *Agricultural Science and Practice* (which translates to *Agricultural Science and Practice*), sheds light on the challenges and opportunities of forming united territorial communities as part of the country’s decentralization reform.
The research highlights that as of January 1, 2015, a staggering 85.2% of territorial communities were located in rural areas, where agriculture is the primary livelihood. “Power decentralization and reforming local self-governance refers to the rural population, first and foremost,” Novakovsky asserts. This shift aims to empower local communities, but the path is fraught with obstacles.
One of the primary hurdles is the lack of constitutional backing for the main provisions of decentralization. Without this legal foundation, the reform faces significant resistance. Regional and district state authorities are blocking the process, and there are no definitive plans for developing united communities. Additionally, local councils struggle to manage land resources beyond settlement boundaries, a critical issue for agricultural development.
The current system of rural settlements, characterized by numerous small villages and a high degree of subsidization, underscores the need for united communities to foster sustainable local governance. However, the centralization of authorities by the executive branch and the limited financial resources of local councils pose substantial challenges. “The absence of land resources in communal ownership and the financial constraints of councils prove that without principal changes in the current position, most territorial communities will remain unsustainable in legal, organizational, and financial aspects,” Novakovsky warns.
The study also reveals that the implementation of decentralization tasks varies across regions. Some areas have made progress, but there is a clear need for enhanced organizational work, explanatory efforts, and control over the reforming process. Legislative measures are required to address the division of mountainous territories, set higher bonuses and benefits, improve budget limits through taxation, and enhance the role of regionally significant cities as centers of united territorial communities.
The risks of implementing decentralization in Ukraine are manifold. These include the inability to complete the plan for the second stage of the reform without amending the Constitution, unclear mechanisms for implementing local self-governance reforms, and the politicization of regional councils. Additionally, the absence of promising plans for the social and economic development of territorial communities hampers the process. Issues such as determining community boundaries, reflecting land division in the State Cadaster, and addressing human resources for executive bodies further complicate the scenario.
This research underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive approach to decentralization, one that involves constitutional amendments, clear mechanisms for reform, and robust plans for community development. As Novakovsky’s study suggests, the future of Ukraine’s rural areas and the agricultural sector hinges on overcoming these challenges. The insights from this research could shape future developments in the field, fostering a more sustainable and empowered rural landscape.