by Dmytriy Petryshyn

The full-scale armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine has placed local communities in a constant state of crisis response. Local governments are the first to confront the direct consequences of missile attacks and other forms of military violence — the destruction of residential buildings and infrastructure, the loss of livelihoods, and, in some cases, the death or serious injury of civilians.

In the first months of the invasion, while the state was focused on repelling the aggression and the development of basic social protection mechanisms for war victims required time, it was the communities that were compelled to respond swiftly to the urgent needs of the population.

For example, in Chernihiv, since August 2022, the Program for Providing One-Time Material Assistance to City Residents — Owners of Private Residential Buildings Destroyed or Damaged as a Result of Russian Military Aggressionhas been in effect. At the same time, in 2022, the Chernihiv City Council adopted the Program for Providing Support to Internally Displaced and Evacuated Persons.

As a result, a range of diverse compensation and support practices has emerged in Ukraine, differing significantly depending on the local context.

Some cities took the initiative to introduce their own compensation and support programs, while others implemented state programs and relied largely on assistance from international partners.

An analysis of local experience makes it possible to identify several main approaches and practices used by Ukrainian local communities to compensate for damage and support persons affected by armed aggression.

Local Compensation and Support Programs

Such self-developed and self-funded programs allow for a rapid response to the needs of affected persons, often bypassing bureaucratic delays associated with government procedures.

For example, Lviv compensates for the cost of renting apartments for the temporary accommodation of people whose homes were destroyed, reconstructs private houses and apartment buildings, and partially compensates for the repair of windows, doors, and roofs. In cases of complete destruction of housing, the city provides assistance for the purchase of new housing. The local program allows residents to choose between local and state compensation; however, the simultaneous use of both mechanisms is not permitted.

At the same time, the city budget covers the restoration of social and communal infrastructure. Lviv also operates a local business support program, introducing vouchers to reimburse the costs of restoring company infrastructure damaged as a result of shelling.

In Zaporizhzhia, municipal programs focus on supporting victims in critical situations. The community provides targeted financial assistance for housing repairs and the restoration of damaged infrastructure, emergency cash payments to individuals injured by mines and explosions, as well as support for internally displaced persons. Due to its proximity to the front line, the private sector also suffers from shelling; therefore, separate financial assistance is provided for repair works.

In Kherson, a similar approach applies to the families of the deceased and the wounded. Financial assistance is granted to affected civilians, parents of children with disabilities, and to cover funeral expenses.

The advantages of municipal programs are evident: speed of response, flexibility, and the ability to tailor solutions to specific needs. At the same time, they have certain limitations — including procurement procedures, the use of municipal reserve funds, and, most importantly, dependence on the community’s budget and available resources.

Hybrid models: coordination with state programs

Combining municipal tools with state compensation programs enables communities to respond quickly to urgent needs while also ensuring access to larger-scale resources. This approach enhances the effectiveness of state support programs by combining local resources for an immediate response with national mechanisms that provide broader and more comprehensive coverage of community needs.

An example is Kharkiv, where the approved Program for the Restoration of Partially Damaged Residential Buildings and Budgetary Institutions for 2025–2030 provides for urgent repair works to residential buildings carried out by the community itself. Residents, in turn, repair their apartments independently through the “eRecovery” program. The city establishes commissions to review compensation claims, advises residents on preparing documents for participation in the “eRecovery” program, and provides financial support to municipal enterprises involved in addressing the consequences of shelling.

Cooperation with international partners and non-governmental organizations

International partners, international organizations, and the non-governmental sector play a critical role in responding to the consequences of armed aggression, particularly in communities where state or municipal resources are limited or rapidly depleted. Their key advantage lies in their ability to act more quickly and flexibly than public institutions, bridging the gap between the emergence of urgent needs and the launch or scaling up of state programs. In practice, international assistance is delivered at two interconnected levels — the community level and the individual level — each performing distinct but complementary functions.

Individual level

At the individual level, international and national NGOs focus on direct support for affected persons. This primarily includes emergency and basic assistance aimed at restoring minimum living conditions: cash assistance, temporary housing or rental support, repair of damaged housing, as well as legal and psychological assistance. While this level of response is not compensatory in nature, it plays a crucial role in stabilizing an individual’s situation immediately after the damage occurs and reduces the risk of further social vulnerability.

The framework for such cooperation is the Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan (HNRP), which defines the overall priorities of the humanitarian response in Ukraine. A key feature of this plan is the increased emphasis on the localization of assistance — involving communities, local authorities, and military administrations in identifying priorities and implementing programs. This approach enhances the targeting of assistance and reduces the risk of duplication of efforts. At the same time, humanitarian mechanisms, by their nature, remain tools for addressing basic needs and cannot substitute for compensatory instruments aimed at full reparation and long-term social and legal rehabilitation of war victims.

Here is a proofread and stylistically refined version of your text, with improved clarity, structure, and consistency:

Community level

In parallel, at the community and state levels, international assistance becomes more systemic. It includes the restoration or support of critical infrastructure, the provision of temporary housing for internally displaced persons, the establishment of humanitarian centers, support for evacuation measures, and the reconstruction of social facilities. At this level, international partners increasingly act not only as donors but also as co-implementers, working jointly with local authorities.

The practical experience of individual communities demonstrates different models for integrating international support. In Kharkiv, cooperation with UNHCR has become systemic and encompasses both the restoration of housing stock and support for critical infrastructure. Importantly, this assistance does not operate in isolation; rather, it complements state and municipal response mechanisms, allowing the city to focus on coordination and prioritization of needs.

In Mykolaiv, international cooperation has a clear strategic dimension, reflected in large-scale housing and infrastructure reconstruction projects supported by the World Bank and the Government of Denmark. A notable marker of this partnership was the opening of the Danish Embassy Office in Ukraine to enhance coordination. In this context, international partners act not only as sources of funding but also as long-term development partners shaping medium- and long-term solutions for the community.

Danish support covers the restoration and modernization of water and heat supply systems, energy infrastructure, housing stock, and social facilities. At the same time, cooperation extends beyond physical reconstruction and aims to strengthen the institutional and managerial capacity of the community. In particular, Danish experts participated in the development of the Mykolaiv Development Master Plan 2050, integrating reconstruction processes into the city’s long-term development vision.

A separate area of cooperation has involved improving strategic planning and procurement processes at the municipal enterprise Communal Enterprise “Mykolaivvodokanal” (Municipal Water Utility), where governance reforms were implemented, including the establishment of a Supervisory Board. This experience is intended to be extended to other municipal enterprises.

Overall, this approach demonstrates that international partners are focused not only on rebuilding physical assets but also on establishing sustainable governance mechanisms that enhance transparency, accountability, and the community’s capacity to independently coordinate reconstruction and development over the long term.

Here is your fully proofread and stylistically refined version, with improved clarity, consistency, and legal tone:

Maintaining registers of damage and documenting damage

Maintaining a systematic record of damaged housing, property, and harm to individuals’ health enables communities not only to assess the extent of destruction but also to prepare the groundwork for future payments or inclusion in centralized compensation programs.

In Dnipro, the City Council approved the Regulation on the Register of Persons Whose Housing, Other Property, or Health Was Damaged as a Result of Hostilities, Terrorist Acts, or Sabotage. Such a register allows for the systematic recording of damage and ensures preparedness for future compensation procedures.

In Lviv, the Legal Department of the City Council is developing the concept of such a register. The city is already calculating expenditures from its own budget for compensation and restoration, which makes it possible to assess the needs and effectiveness of local programs. At the same time, Lviv lacks methodological tools for an accurate assessment of the damage caused to the community as a whole. A clear definition of “damage caused to the community” needs to be formulated, as well as clarification of what should be included in such damage — whether only expenditures from the city budget, or also losses incurred by community residents and businesses. There is likewise no established methodology for assessing the damage necessary to restore acceptable living conditions for individuals or to resume business activities.

It is important to emphasize that establishing such registers at the local level and ensuring systematic documentation of damage may significantly facilitate future compensation processes for communities through international compensation mechanisms.

Conclusions

The experience of Ukrainian communities demonstrates the diversity of responses to the consequences of aggression, shaped by the security context, available resources, and administrative capacity. At the same time, practice shows that housing remains the only area — with limited exceptions — where a genuinely compensatory approach exists at both the state and local levels, while other categories of harm are addressed primarily through crisis assistance measures.

Municipal programs ensure speed and flexibility but remain limited in scale and capacity. Hybrid models enhance the effectiveness of state programs, provided that communities play an active coordinating role. Cooperation with international partners helps bridge resource gaps but does not replace formal compensation mechanisms.

Recommendations

Active role of communities in implementing state programs. The experience of Kharkiv demonstrates that communities which go beyond mere implementation and actively engage in coordination, consultation, and procedural organization significantly enhance the effectiveness and speed of compensation programs.

Combining rapid response with systemic approaches. The most effective practices show that communities can successfully combine the flexibility of local responses with systemic state policies and international support mechanisms, clearly defining their role within subsidiary instruments and ensuring synchronization with national frameworks.

Systematic maintenance of damage registers. This is a logical and necessary step to ensure objective damage assessment, informed planning of support programs, and — most importantly — the creation of a solid foundation for future claims by communities under international compensation mechanisms.

This material was prepared with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation as part of the project "#Compensation4UA / Compensation for War Damages to Ukraine. Phase V: Interim Reparations for Victims of Russian Aggression against Ukraine – Exploring Approaches, Needs and Solutions."