Housing and war: housing policy in the first year of the full-scale war

Introduction

Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has been going on for more than a year now. In this period, the population of Ukraine has faced numerous challenges, primarily related to security and military activities. The war has also led to an increase in unemployment and internal displacement, and to significant destruction of infrastructure. In response to the housing crisis, new housing programs were introduced in the past year, and some cities launched projects to build social housing. At the same time, overall approaches to housing policy have remained unchanged, and individual solutions and projects lack a systemic character.

This brief is an overview of some of the main trends and changes in the housing sphere in Ukraine since February 2022. It is based on an analysis of decisions by national and local government bodies as well as on public messages and information by official institutions and non-governmental organizations. We have also used:

• data from the survey about the population’s attitudes towards government programs of social and economic support and about the needs for them which Cedos conducted in October 2022;
• data from the survey in the study of the problems and prospects of government housing policy in Ukraine, collected by Cedos in 2019;
• findings of the research by the International Organization for Migration, data from the State Statistics Service, the National Bank of Ukraine, and the Ministry of Education and Science.

This overview is not exhaustive — in particular, it does not include issues related to apartment building management, urban planning, or land issues which are key for updating the housing policy in Ukraine. This brief pays special attention to housing needs and emphasizes the importance of the development of a housing policy capable of responding to new challenges.

Context of housing policy in Ukraine

● Losses in the housing sector, need for housing, and attitudes towards housing policy

The war has caused the biggest housing crisis in Ukraine’s history. In the past year, thousands of buildings have been destroyed by Russian attacks. According to various estimates, housing stock losses in 2022 reached from 135,000 to 817,000 destroyed or damaged buildings. These estimates remain approximate because the ability to physically examine buildings is limited in the conditions of military activity. In June 2022, the Ministry of the Development of Communities and Territories issued an order to develop a system for monitoring the damages and destruction, which should include information on residential and public buildings. However, no official data collected by this system are available yet. In March 2023, a part of the Ukrainian territory remains occupied, and the level of destruction in those areas is difficult to assess. In addition, military activities and missile attacks of civilian infrastructure by the Russian army continue, which means that the scale of destruction and the number of people who have lost their homes are increasing.

Millions of people have been forced to leave their homes. According to the International Organization for Migration, as of January 2023, the number of displaced people in Ukraine was 5.4 million. The IOM estimates that the number of IDPs is gradually decreasing—for instance, in December 2022, there were 5.9 million of them. Among the internally displaced who moved more than once, the main reasons for this were inability to earn income (47%) and lack of proper housing (41%).

In the past year, the need for housing has not just increased but also diversified. A need for temporary crisis accommodation has emerged—for example, while a damaged home is being fixed or while one is looking for long-term rental housing. At the beginning of the full-scale invasion, local government bodies refurbished thousands of education institutions, cultural institutions, dormitories and other communal buildings to serve as temporary housing for people who had left their homes due to the war. For example, according to the Ministry of Education and Science, 3,500 education institutions were used for humanitarian purposes in June 2022, particularly used as housing for IDPs. Even though many people were able to find other housing over the year, returned to their own cities, or moved to other countries, a significant number of IDPs are still staying at so-called collective centers. According to the IOM, in September 2022, about 4% (around 280,000) of all internally displaced people lived in these centers. In total, the IOM reports that 17% of IDPs needed help with housing as of early 2023.

The structure of the forms of ownership in the housing sector is changing: the need for affordable rental housing is growing. According to the findings of the survey conducted by Cedos in October 2022, 76% of the respondents lived in housing which was their private property, 16% were renting housing from individuals, another 5% lived in housing owned by other individuals which they did not pay rent for, and around 3% lived in state-owned, institution-owned, or municipal housing. According to 2019 data, the majority of respondents, namely 83%, lived in housing which was their private property, about 8% of people were renting their housing, and 2% lived in state-owned or municipal housing. The data show that the share of people living in their own housing is decreasing in Ukraine, while the share of renters is increasing. This, is due to displacement in particular, because a significant share of IDPs rent housing on the private rental market. According to the IOM, in September 2022, 53% of IDPs were renting housing.

Rent prices have increased, but the private rental sector remains poorly protected and poorly regulated. Housing rent has increased in most regions of Ukraine. For example, in Lviv Region, according to the State Statistics Service, monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment has more than doubled, increasing from 5,449 UAH in January 2022 to 10,995 UAH in January 2023. In Zakarpattia Region, rent has more than tripled: monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment was 4,313 UAH in January 2022 and reached 13,123 UAH by January 2023. Meanwhile, rents in Kyiv have decreased somewhat, from 8,512 UAH to 7,438 UAH in January 2022 and January 2023, respectively. The situation was especially difficult in the first months of the war. For example, the Economic Security Bureau reported that most complaints they were receiving in March 2022 were related to inflated rent prices. In May 2022, according to the data from websites that aggregate advertisements, rent prices in Zakarpattia increased by 225% compared to October 2021. This situation has provided additional evidence of the vulnerability of the private rental sector and the lack of effective mechanisms for regulating housing affordability. Tenants still risk facing illegal evictions and unjustified rent hikes. In Ukraine, specific tenant rights are articulated in the Civil Code. However, targeted legislation on rental housing is still missing. In addition, rental housing issues have not been included in the final edition of the National Recovery Plan project. It is likely that the growth trend in the private rental sector will continue, which will require additional attention to this issue at the level of national policies.

The population’s income is decreasing, unaffordability of housing is growing, which makes the need for social rental housing even more urgent. According to the State Statistics Service, the average monthly salary in Ukraine in 2022 was 14,577 UAH. According to the National Bank, the total real income of the population was falling in June. Even though it reached the prewar level by December, it was mostly achieved due to payments to the military personnel. Therefore, real incomes have probably decreased among the other population categories. The National Bank estimates that unemployment level was at least 30% by the end of the year. A deteriorating economic situation also means that housing is becoming even less affordable. A certain share of people would not be able to purchase or rent another housing unit on their own if they lost their homes. Some can rely on the help of their family and friends, but others need a capable system of long-term rental social housing. This is important, among other things, because housing cannot be considered affordable for a significant share of the population already today. In October 2022, 43% of respondents spent more than 30% of their total monthly income on housing, with 17% spending a half or even more of their income on housing. This trend was especially prominent among vulnerable population categories. For instance, people whose homes had been destroyed or damaged, displaced people and low-income people spent a higher share of their income on housing than people who did not identify with any of these categories. In addition, about 39% of IDPs reported needing help with paying their rent. Among those who had moved to a different region or a different settlement within their home region, 28% and 11%, respectively, noted that they needed this kind of help. Meanwhile, only 3% of those who had not moved required such help.

The population’s expectations regarding housing provision by the government remain high, but the share of those who support aid with purchasing housing is decreasing. According to the latest Cedos data, 82% of respondents agree that the government must provide housing to people who need it. In 2019, this indicator was similar at 78%. Support for potential affordable rent programs also remains high. In 2022, 73% of respondents agreed with the statement that the government must provide opportunities for affordable renting, and 72% agreed with this statement in 2019. At the same time, the share of those who support government help with purchasing housing has decreased from 83% in 2019 to 70% in 2022. This could be evidence that the perception of housing and housing policies is gradually changing. As a result of free-of-charge privatization of housing after the collapse of the Soviet Union, most households in Ukraine began living in housing that is their private property. Privatization and later programs aimed at helping with housing purchases reinforced the population’s idea that “only housing that is one’s private property can be considered one’s own.” According to the 2019 study, 85% of respondents agreed with this statement. But today, due to significant destruction and forced displacement, the structure of the housing sector is changing. It is likely that ideas about the “norm” in housing will also transform as this process goes on.

● Transformation of the Ministry

The main stakeholder of the housing policy at the national level is now the Ministry of the Development of Communities, Territories and Infrastructure of Ukraine. In early December 2022, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the decree on “Certain issues of optimization of the system of central executive government bodies.” According to this decision, the Ministry of the Development of Communities and Territories, which was responsible for housing policies before, was merged with the Ministry of Infrastructure. According to representatives of the ministry, the creation of a new structure will improve the coordination of the issues of reconstruction. The head of the new government body is Oleksandr Kubrakov, who has also become the Vice-Prime-Minister for the Recovery of Ukraine. The newly established Ministry will be responsible not only for the housing policy but also for regional and urban planning policies. It is expected that the Ministry will have a separate department responsible for housing policy (including the management of multi-apartment buildings), which will be subordinate to the deputy minister responsible for construction.

One of the potential consequences of this merger for the housing policy is that its development and implementation may not be among the new institution’s priorities. The new Ministry’s field of work will, among other things, include such important issues as energy efficiency, logistics and transportation infrastructure, reconstruction of cities, development of regions and communities. There is a risk that urgent issues of the development of housing policies will not be among the Ministry’s first priorities. For instance, issues of social housing can be left in the purview of the Ministry of Social Policy. This can lead to a lack of coordination in approaches to the housing policy which target different social groups, particularly to the perception of social and non-profit housing as housing aimed for only a limited list of the most vulnerable categories. However, as has been noted above, the need for housing has diversified during the full-scale war, and now long-term social rental housing is needed by various population categories, not just the most vulnerable ones. In order to respond to these changes, the country needs to apply a systematic and universal approach which is more socially and economically effective than targeted measures.

Housing policy was fragmented and scattered between different government bodies and levels in Ukraine even before the large-scale war. For example, the issue of housing for internally displaced people was a responsibility of the Ministry of Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territories, the development of the crisis shelter system for survivors of violence and for homeless people was managed by the Ministry of Social Policy, and the Ministry of Economy administered mortgage loan programs. Local government bodies were responsible for the implementation of housing policies, particularly for the existing social and temporary housing. Therefore, the lack of a strong stakeholder at the national level that would be capable of developing strategic solutions in the field of housing will only make coordination between different government bodies and levels more difficult. In addition, construction policies can continue to be a substitute for housing policies. Especially in view of the significant influence of developers on governmental and parliamentary structures.

● National Recovery Plan

In collaboration with researchers and civil society representatives, the government has developed a draft Ukraine Recovery Plan; however, the document has not been approved yet. In spring 2022, the President created the National Council for Ukraine’s Recovery from the consequences of the war. The council included the working group for Construction, Urban Planning, and Modernization of Ukrainian Cities and Regions and its subgroup for Housing, Energy Efficiency, and Civil Defense. In May–June, members of the subgroup developed a document outlining the priority goals and foundations of the future housing policy in the context of recovery.

The document outlines Ukraine’s recovery in several stages which include urgent measures, reconstruction of damaged infrastructure, and development of long-term solutions. In the housing sphere, the draft notes that it is important to develop alternatives to purchase for the realization of the right to housing, particularly non-profit rental housing. Among other things, the Recovery Plan emphasizes the importance of data collection, identification and assessment of housing needs, which should serve as the basis for well-founded solutions. The government presented the draft Recovery Plan at the International Recovery Conference in Lugano in July 2022. All countries participating in the conference signed the Lugano Declaration, which also defines the foundations of Ukraine’s recovery. These principles include democratic participation, sustainable development, gender equality, transparency, accountability and the rule of law. However, there was no official presentation of the document for the Ukrainian audience after the conference in Switzerland. The document still has not been approved, and its future is unclear.

● Urban Planning Reform

The Urban Planning Reform limits the powers of local self-government bodies and reduces their capacity to control and influence the activities of developers. In late 2022, the Verkhovna Rada adopted Bill 5655 “On introducing amendments to certain legislative acts of Ukraine in terms of reforming the sphere of urban planning” in the second reading. The bill had been criticized since 2021, when it was first proposed to the Parliament, and the petition on the President’s website demanding to veto it collected the required number of signatures in a single day. The document restricts citizens’ ability to initiate audits of the legality of construction and limits developers’ accountability to municipalities. It legislates the option of employing private companies to verify a project’s compliance with urban planning legislation. This used to be an exclusive purview of government bodies. The bill also limits the ability of local self-government bodies to influence new construction, and at the same time gives them the function of mandatory monitoring without any mechanisms for controlling development. As of March 2023, the President still has not signed the bill.

Bill 5655 follows the trend in Ukrainian urban planning policies which creates opportunities for developers to make high profits while having low responsibility and accountability to citizens. Risks associated with increased demand load on social or transit infrastructure, the effects of construction on the environment, or unfinished construction are transferred to city communities. For instance, right now Ukraine does not have any mechanisms which would allow cities to recover a part of land price increases or the cost of infrastructure which will inevitably have to be built around new residential projects. In the past, shared participation used to be an instrument for this: developers paid contributions to local budgets for the development of infrastructure. However, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law in 2019 which canceled these mandatory contributions to local budgets. This deprived local development budgets of a share of their annual income—for example, in 2018, Kyiv’s budget received more than 500 million hryvnias thanks to shared participation. Finally, Ukrainian cities today are unable to influence the purpose of housing that is being constructed. There are no effective mechanisms to obligate developers to hand over a share of apartments for the creation of social or affordable rental housing.

● Development of the Social Code

The government plans to work on a draft Social Code which, among other things, will regulate issues related to social housing. In 2023, the Ministry of Social Policy plans to develop a new Social Code. The concept of the document, among other things, defines social housing as a key element of social protection. The Code will include a separate book entirely dedicated to social housing. The Ministry proposes to put the social housing stock in order and defines this category as including such forms of housing as temporary housing, social dormitories, and social housing itself. Thus, the reorganized housing stock will be able to respond to various housing needs more effectively. In addition, the concept emphasizes the need to create a unified social apartment registry. This will allow local governments to reduce their workload, because currently they have to administer several different housing queues. A unified social apartment registry will also make the monitoring of housing needs and the planning of social housing development more effective.

The Social Code concept lays the foundation for updating the social housing system, particularly by emphasizing the importance of the development of a public rental system which would involve various housing operators. However, the separation of social housing from other housing programs and the distribution of responsibility for them between different ministries can deepen the fragmentation of the housing policy and promote the marginalization of social housing as housing for the most vulnerable categories. In order to avoid this, social housing must be an integral part of the complex recovery strategy.

Programs, projects, and solutions in housing

● Housing construction, purchase, and restoration

In early 2022, the government articulated ambitious housing construction and purchase plans, but they were not implemented, and the issue of the future management of such housing remains open. In spring 2022, the Office of the President declared its plans to build or purchase over 50,000 apartments for internally displaced people. Developers reported the intention to create a registry of housing available for purchase in cooperation with the MinRegion. However, no such large-scale housing construction or purchase programs have materialized yet.

Eventually the government and the State Youth Housing Fund purchased 60 social housing apartments, but it is unclear who will manage this housing in the long term. In March 2022, the government and the National Bank created a dedicated account for helping the civilian population in wartime. 100 million hryvnias from this account were later received by the State Youth Housing Fund for purchasing apartments in Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Chernihiv, and Sumy Regions. This housing is intended for internally displaced people, particularly for families with many children. However, currently there are difficulties with further administration of this housing, because local governments do not have institutions capable of putting it on their balance.

The rapid restoration of damaged housing started,  local and regional authorities, as well as civil society, played an important role in this process. During 2022, funds were allocated from state and local budgets at various levels to restore part of the damaged housing. For example, 400 million hryvnias were allocated from state budget reserve fund in the summer to eliminate the consequences of hostilities in the Kyiv region, in particular, to repair infrastructure facilities, educational and health care  institutions, and residential buildings. First of all, they were used to repair minor damages, in particular, to replace windows, doors, and repair the roofs. The role of municipalities and regions in the processes of rapid restoration of damaged housing was key. Many works were carried out by the residents and building owners, including the involvement of local communities and the use of crowdsourcing, crowdfunding practices, as well as the participation of organized volunteer and public initiatives (for example, Repair.together, Brave to Rebuild, NEST, OKNO).

In the end, a complex strategy for the development of housing policies was never created in 2022, and priority steps for overcoming the housing crisis were never defined or approved. In 2023, the government plans to fund certain housing policy goals via a special fund for the elimination of the consequences of armed aggression. The State Budget for 2023 allocates 16 billion hryvnias to the fund for the elimination of the consequences of armed aggression. Money from the fund will be directed to new construction, reconstruction, fundamental renovation, and to purchasing housing for people who have lost their homes due to the war. In addition, in February 2023, the Parliament adopted a bill on compensation for destroyed housing, which defines the procedure of compensation and provides for the creation of the State Registry of Properties Damaged or Destroyed as a Result of Military Actions, Terrorist Attacks, Diversions caused by the Russian Federation’s Armed Aggression against Ukraine. Different types of compensation are provided for different housing categories, including cash, construction works or provision of building materials, and issuing of certificates for the purchase of another housing.

● Discount loans for purchasing housing

The government launched discount mortgage loans, but the targets of the program are inflated. The government’s main housing program in 2022 was eOselia, discount mortgage loans with 3% interest for military personnel, medical workers and educators; in the future, the program will also include loans with 7% interest for other population categories. This is the second attempt to launch a cheap mortgage program in the past few years. In 2021, there was the Affordable Mortgage program with 7% interest. Unlike the previous program, eOselia proposes that banks issue loans from the fund of the Ukrainian Financial Housing Company (UkrFinHousing) rather than their own funds. In late December 2022, the Cabinet of Ministers recapitalized the company by issuing internal government loan bonds for 30 billion hryvnias. In 2022, the program managed to issue 277 loans, although the plan was to issue 500. The target for 2023 is 12,000–15,000 discount loans, which does not look realistic, because even before the full-scale war banks issued much fewer loans per year.

Discount mortgage loans are first and foremost a way to help the development business which is undergoing a crisis rather than to mitigate the consequences of the housing crisis for the population. The National Bank’s December 2022 report on financial stability states that the real estate market remains unbalanced. This means that housing purchase prices are increasing, but the demand is low. According to the National Bank, since rents remain stable or are even decreasing, this lowers the demand for purchase even further. However, developers expect the launch of discount mortgage loans to encourage the market, so they are not in a hurry to reduce the prices. Developers require additional investment to continue their business and fund the projects they have already started. They actively support the decision to allow unfinished buildings to participate in the program. However, this carries additional risks, because the collateral in this case is not completed housing but rather property rights. If loans for this housing remain unpaid in mass, this housing may remain unfinished. In addition, in a situation of economic crisis, lack of stability, and shrinking incomes, only a small share of the population will be able to undertake long-term financial obligations and fulfill them.

Similar housing programs are managed by different institutions in Ukraine, which makes the general fragmented nature of the housing policy even worse. In addition to UkrFinHousing, discount housing loans are also managed by the State Youth Housing Construction Fund. Among other things, the State Youth Housing Fund together with the Ministry of Reintegration and in collaboration with the German government issued 332 housing loans in 2022 for internally displaced people with 3% annual interest.

Discount loans for purchasing housing are still the main form of the government’s housing programs, but this approach does not meet the needs and capacities of households. Additional support for housing ownership will deepen the imbalance in the housing ecosystem in Ukraine. Another risk is that under the current circumstances, a significant share of people will not be able to become effective homeowners. This means that in the future they will not be able to invest enough money in fundamental repairs and maintenance of buildings. In a few decades, this will lead to deterioration of buildings and produce outdated or dangerous housing, just like in the case of housing built in Soviet times, whose owners mostly never conducted fundamental repairs. Today, the development of the non-profit rental sector can serve as a more sustainable and affordable solution.

● Programs of rent and utility fee compensation

The program of utility fee compensation is still active. The Shelter program offers homeowners compensation for giving shelter to internally displaced people. The compensation was 450 UAH per person per month until October, and from October 1, 2022, the government doubled it to 900 UAH. However, there are difficulties and delays in funding the program. In autumn, the Cabinet of Ministers reported that 34 million hryvnias were provided from the budget reserve fund to cover the costs of this program for August 2022. A certain share of the funding was also provided by the Ukrainian Red Cross Society.

Compensation programs can work as emergency solutions, but in the long term they do not increase the amount of affordable housing and do not improve its quality. In the conditions of a poorly regulated private rental sector, these programs cannot guarantee high-quality and secure housing. Compensation programs and direct monetary aid to cover rent or utility costs can serve as additional support for households in difficult circumstances. However, they cannot replace a complex housing policy that would guarantee housing provision options for different needs and abilities.

● Solutions and programs at the local level

The role of municipalities and communities in housing policy has increased. When the full-scale invasion began, it was local government bodies that were responsible for guaranteeing a roof over people’s heads. Since the need for housing had to be met quickly, various forms of temporary accommodation appeared, from modular towns to temporary shelters in schools, kindergartens or railway stations. Since these shelters appeared sporadically, their management has been somewhat chaotic. For example, some of them are managed by local education departments, others by regional administrations or other bodies. These institutions have neither the capacity nor the powers to manage housing. Temporary accommodation often is not a part of official social or temporary housing stocks. Therefore, the rights of their residents can be unprotected, and they risk being left homeless if the building—for instance, a dormitory—is needed again by the institution to which it belongs. In late summer, IDPs reported that education institutions started evicting people from their buildings. Then Iryna Vereshchuk, the Minister of Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories, stated that when people are evicted from temporary shelters, they must be provided with other housing.

During 2022, local government bodies used various mechanisms for responding to the housing crisis, but there is a need to move on from short-term solutions to forming a long-term housing policy strategy at the local level. International organizations have begun to actively support local governments in the processes of reconstruction and construction of housing. One of the most large-scale projects today is the construction of new housing for IDPs and people who have lost their homes in Zhytomyr, Lviv, Chernivtsi, Dubno, Kovel, and Makariv. This work is funded by the European Commission, which also plans to sign construction agreements with other cities—for example, Ivano-Frankivsk has also declared plans for future construction. Meanwhile, Lviv has already held an architectural competition and determined the blueprints for future housing. Municipal representatives note that in the nearest months they have to develop criteria for accepting people to live in this housing, and to determine the form of its management.

It is currently unclear what the legal form of the newly constructed housing will be—for example, whether it will belong to one of the existing stocks (social or temporary housing stocks). In addition, according to municipal representatives, housing built according to these plans will remain in municipal ownership for at least 10 years. This approach carries long-term risks, because it means that the housing can be transferred to private ownership in the future. Privatization of this housing will weaken the capacity of local governments to influence housing policies and effectively meet the housing needs of their residents.

The issue of long-term housing management will only become more urgent. The amount of municipally owned housing will gradually increase, as refurbished buildings, newly constructed housing, or housing built for donor funding will be added to it. There is a lack of institutions at the local level which would be capable of undertaking the responsibility for long-term management of the housing. Whatever the future strategy for the development of housing policies is, local government bodies will be the actors that will implement these solutions. Ukraine currently does not have anything similar to municipal housing companies which manage municipally owned housing in other countries, such as Germany, Finland or Austria. There is a need to develop a sustainable model that will make it possible to create these institutions in Ukraine. This will help not only to manage the existing housing but also to involve investments to expand the municipal housing stock.

The issue of long-term management is also faced by non-governmental organizations that are actively engaged in creating accommodation for people who need it. In the past year, NGOs have undertaken a share of the responsibility for creating housing for internally displaced people. For example, there is the Co-Haty project initiated by the METALAB Urban Lab from Ivano-Frankivsk and members of the independent agency Urban Curators, relocated from Kyiv. They were among the first to refurbish municipal buildings as housing for IDPs. By now they have already implemented several projects in Ivano-Frankivsk, and they are working to renovate a dormitory near Kamyanets-Podilsky. The Committee for Medical Aid in Zakarpattia charity also creates accommodation for the displaced: they already have three buildings in Tyachiv, Uzhhorod and Nyzhnie Selyshche. One of the challenges faced by non-governmental organizations is the search for a format of long-term management that would ensure the financial sustainability and affordability of this housing.

Conclusions

Since the full-scale war was launched by Russia, millions of people in Ukraine have lost their homes. In spring 2023, thousands of people live at education institutions, hotels and modular towns. In the first months of the big war, decisions about moving were among the most important decisions different people had to make. These decisions often involved looking for new housing. In the past year, people have had to change their places of residence many times, moving from one temporary option to another. Experiences of moving were associated with everyday difficulties and lack of personal space, and the lack of permanent housing made adaptation at a new location more difficult. People who had to live at collective centers risked facing violence, a problem that was exacerbated by these residential conditions. As the economic situation deteriorated, housing became even less affordable, particularly for vulnerable populations. In the future, this can exacerbate the problem of homelessness, which is already a major social challenge.

Housing needs have increased and diversified, but the existing programs and solutions meet them only in part. The housing policy develops in the conditions of uncertainty. It can be characterized as fragmented and reactive rather than proactive. In the first months of the war, local government bodies and civil society representatives, with support from international organizations, managed to arrange shelters for many people. However, there is still no approved strategy for the development of housing policies at the national level, and no clear distribution of responsibility for its implementation between various government levels and bodies.

The role of local governments in the housing policy has increased, and new large-scale social housing construction projects have emerged in cities. At the same time, the issue of long-term management of municipally owned housing has become more urgent, because right now Ukraine has no institutions, such as municipal housing companies, capable of taking on this responsibility. The current challenges still include developing the capacity of municipalities and communities to manage housing, and raising local government officials’ awareness of various instruments and policies for the development of affordable and social housing.

In order to meet the urgent challenges in housing, the approach to the housing policy must be changed. Already today, we can see the structure of the forms of housing ownership change, the share of people living in their own housing decrease, and the share of tenants grow. This means that in the future, the need for high-quality, affordable and secure rental housing will only increase. The state policy must offer solutions to encourage the emergence of such housing. An important part of this process is capital investment in expanding the social housing stock, and a ban on the privatization of this housing in the future.

Finally, a well-founded, evidence-based approach to the housing policy should be applied, and the needs of various social groups should be targeted. Today there is not enough information about the state of housing, the number of empty units, the housing conditions of households or the obstacles faced by people in their search for housing. Any solutions or programs must be based on data and research, take into account the experience of other countries as well as the local context and the particularities of the development of Ukrainian cities.