By Lyubomyr Zubach, MP of Ukraine

I frequently hear: why should we invent some new types of hromadas’ cooperation, if there is, for example, intermunicipal cooperation (IMC)? And this question usually arises when it comes to a phenomenon like agglomeration. And even more often – when it comes to the introduction of agglomeration in Ukraine. Especially – during the discussion of the draft law “On Urban Agglomerations”. By the way, it already has approval of the specialised committee of the Verkhovna Rada, but still cannot reach consideration. Although the whole progressive world has proved: rapid agro-economic development is not possible without agglomerations.

IMC is a good type of hromadas’ cooperation, but it certainly cannot replace agglomeration. And here are some arguments for that:

1. Absolutely different scale of actors of potential agglomeration.
2. There is no mechanism of parity management of funds and property.
3. Limited scope of tasks regarding IMC.
4. Certain legislative restictions.
5. Territory planning powers.
6. Analogy with business.

So, let's summarise:

The purpose of cooperation is to solve common problems, but the criterion of "commonness" in the case of a large city and surrounding hromadas is controversial.

The purpose of the agglomeration is to synchronise city development with surrounding hromadas, rather than solving individual problems.

When communities cooperate, one of the hromadas receive real management of communal property and funds, while the rest partly lose their influence on the property and distribution of the revenue part of the local budget, which goes for cooperation.

In case of agglomeration cooperation, all hromadas receive the same influence on management, choosing the “board” (agglomeration council), forming other structures, and on resource allocation, approving the estimates.

The full version is available in Ukrainian – please click HERE