Residents commute between communities for work and study, and use shared transport and engineering infrastructure. Responsibility for these services, however, is often divided between different authorities. European experience shows that communities can coordinate planning, deliver services jointly and pool resources, but the specific model depends on the challenges of the territory. This topic was discussed during a presentation of research on European metropolitan models and an international panel at the III International Forum of Agglomerations in Lviv.

Opening the panel discussion, Roman Kizima, Executive Director of Lviv Agglomeration Association, linked the need for horizontal cooperation to the outcomes of decentralisation: communities have been granted new powers and now need to coordinate their actions where shared needs extend beyond the boundaries of a single territory.

From joint planning to service management

Presenting the research, Jean-Louis Rocheron, a French local government administrator and international expert with Expertise France under the RELEVE programme, explained that the mobility of people and businesses has created a disconnect between administrative boundaries and actual urban territories. This means that communities have to work together to address issues such as transport, water supply, sewerage, and waste management.

In France, inter-municipal bodies are set up for this purpose, with their own powers, budget, and responsibilities. When communities transfer a particular function to such a body, they also transfer the necessary resources and staff along with it. Using Strasbourg as an example, Jean-Louis Rocheron described how the transport network, roads, water supply, sewage treatment, and waste management are organised at the metropolitan level. This shared level also covers spatial planning and specific infrastructure and education projects.

The French model envisages deep integration, but, as Jean-Louis Rocheron emphasised, the model is not universal. In different countries, cooperation takes different forms – ranging from voluntary associations to structures with legally defined powers.

Cecilia Dalman Eek, Vice-President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and President of the Chamber of Regions, spoke about cooperation between municipalities in Sweden. One practical area is education: communities specialise their educational programmes so as to retain them in smaller localities and at the same time make them accessible to schoolchildren from neighbouring areas. Among other joint initiatives, Cecilia Dalman Eek mentioned transport links and river protection: the municipalities have jointly organised pollution monitoring, which would have been far too costly for any one to undertake alone.

The example of Milan shows how joint planning is combined with formal institutions. Marco Griguolo, President of the Network of European Metropolitan Regions and Areas METREX and Counsellor Metropolitan City of Milano, spoke about a metropolis with 133 municipalities and around 3 million residents. Here, roads and infrastructure are planned jointly, and the conference of mayors is involved in agreeing on decisions.

A metropolitan strategic plan is used to define common priorities. It is intended to help the city and surrounding communities tackle problems that are difficult to overcome individually, particularly due to the limited financial and technical capabilities of smaller municipalities. At the same time, Marco Griguolo noted that the metropolis' resources do not always match the scope of its responsibilities.

Specific services, shared resources, and responsibilities

Gianina Panatau, General Director, The Bucharest Metropolitan Area lntercommunity Development Association and Vice-President of METREX, described Romanian inter-municipal development associations. These are set up by communities to implement joint projects and organise services, in particular public transport and waste management. A significant proportion of such associations work to secure European funding.

At the same time, the experience of Bucharest shows that the very fact of establishing such a structure does not guarantee smooth operation. Gianina Panatau drew attention to overlapping legislative provisions and a lack of clarity about who makes decisions and is responsible for their implementation. Therefore, for a shared service, it is necessary to define in advance who is responsible, the funding arrangements and the decision-making mechanism.

Chuck Bean, former executive director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, used the example of joint procurement. Instead of each community purchasing fuel for school buses separately, 24 municipalities pooled their purchases and secured better prices. The savings achieved, Chuck Bean explained, demonstrate to communities the practical benefits of cooperation.

The council also coordinated regional transport planning, drinking water supply, and wastewater treatment. Chuck Bean emphasised that such work is not only needed in large metropolitan areas: cooperation can also be beneficial for functional territories with a population of 50,000–75,000 people. For them, the common challenge may not be a large-scale transport network, but, for example, accessible transport links or a water supply system.

Lessons for Ukraine: Start with the needs of communities

Summarising international experience, Kateryna Penkova, Strategic Adviser at the OECD Office in Ukraine, stressed that there is no uniform model that suits everyone. Communities should first determine which function they wish to perform jointly, and then select the appropriate format. Kateryna Penkova identified a legal, institutional, and financial framework as key conditions for effective cooperation, whereas risks include overlapping powers, unequal influence among communities, and the complexity of cost-sharing.

According to Kateryna Penkova, the success of such cooperation is determined not by the number of agreements concluded or structures created, but by whether it helps to address common challenges more effectively and improve residents’ lives.

Olena Shuliak, Chair of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on the Organisation of State Power, Local Self-Government, Regional Development and Urban Planning, joined the panel’s concluding session and compared the models discussed with Ukraine’s needs. She named equality of voice for communities regardless of their size, resources for joint projects, and the protection of smaller partners’ interests as key conditions. According to Olena Shuliak, the practical launch does not necessarily have to cover all aspects at once: communities can initially unite around the most pressing issue.

‘We need to start with functions, not structures,’ concluded Olena Shuliak. Among such functions, she listed transport, water, spatial planning, and the environment. Working at the agglomeration level also requires coordinated planning and shared data, so that one community’s decisions take neighbours’ interests into account.

The European examples presented at the Forum showed different ways to achieve cooperation: joint service provision, strategic planning, associations for project implementation, and formal metropolitan structures. For Ukrainian communities, a specific shared need could serve as a starting point. However, for a solution to work, communities need a clear delineation of responsibilities, fair representation, and resources.

The Forum was organised by the Lviv Agglomeration Association and Lviv City Council, in cooperation with and with the support of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and the RELEVE project (Expertise France), which forms part of the U-LEAD with Europe programme.

The Decentralisation portal recently reported on the legislative measures for the development of agglomerations outlined by Vitalii Bezgin, and on the three key legislative challenges highlighted by Olena Shuliak. We have also compiled the views of participants at the Forum’s opening session on the need for communities to act together and prepared an analytical article on the first panel: community initiatives, legal obstacles, and conditions for cooperation.