On June 15, all European Union member states reached agreement on opening the first cluster of accession negotiations for Ukraine and Moldova — Fundamentals. This was announced by the EU. 

This is one of the key stages in the negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the European Union. The Fundamentals cluster covers the basic areas of how a state functions: the rule of law, fundamental rights, the work of democratic institutions, public administration reform, and economic criteria. That is why its opening is not merely a formal step in the talks, but the start of a new stage of responsibility for the entire system of public administration, including for territorial communities.

For local self-government, this means that transparency, accountability, integrity, and resident participation will increasingly become not just recommendations or “best practices,” but practical standards of governance. Ukraine's further progress toward EU membership will depend on how well they are put into effect.

These changes can already be seen in the data. In 2025, the Transparent Cities program began piloting a new study format assessing how ready Ukrainian municipalities are for EU integration. Analysts are examining how cities adopt European approaches in the areas of openness, engagement with residents, e-services, open data, and public finance. These are precisely the areas directly tied to how the Fundamentals cluster will play out at the local level. So communities outside the pilot assessment can check for themselves how well they meet the basic principles in these areas.

What does this mean for territorial communities?

Opening the Fundamentals cluster will not change life in communities overnight. But it sets a new philosophy for how local authorities work. The focus will be on the quality of engagement with residents, transparency in the use of budget funds, the accountability of local self-government bodies, the integrity of officials, the accessibility of administrative services, and citizens' participation in decision-making.

The first Transparent Cities pilot study in this area shows that even Ukraine's large cities so far pass this “EU-test” only in part. The average implementation rate across the 40 indicators in the Openness and Public Engagement assessment stands at 53.5%. The best results came from Dnipro, Odesa, and Lviv, yet even these cities did not earn more than two-thirds of the maximum possible score. This means that basic openness — the availability of information on decisions, meetings, regulatory policy, recovery, or humanitarian aid — remains a practical task for communities. 

And these matters lie at the heart of the European understanding of good governance. For communities, this means a need to move more actively from the formal box-ticking of requirements toward a systematic management culture — one in which decisions are clear, procedures are open, and results are measurable.

A separate emphasis will fall on anti-corruption tools at the local level: open data, transparent procurement, proper management of municipal property, prevention of conflicts of interest, openness of investment decisions, and stronger public oversight of public finances.

From “local authority” to a service institution

The European integration process is gradually changing the philosophy of local governance. A community should be seen not as an object of administration, but as a community of residents to whom the authorities report, with whom they consult, and for whom they provide quality services.

For residents, this should mean clearer decisions, more efficient use of resources, greater trust in local institutions, and more opportunities to influence the community's development.

In this context, the full implementation of the Law of Ukraine on Administrative Procedure is especially important. It reframes people–authority interaction, requiring municipalities to make decisions more predictable, better reasoned, and more open.

Equally important are the digitalization of services for individuals and legal entities, the restoration of open and transparent competitions for positions in local self-government bodies, the development of anti-corruption mechanisms, transparency in public investment and procurement, and a stronger culture of regular reporting by local authorities.

The digitalization of services is one of the practical dimensions of the shift to a service model of governance. The Transparent Cities study found that the average implementation rate across the 40 indicators in the E-services block stands at 49.8%. The best results came from Kyiv, Lviv, and Kharkiv. However, the mere existence of individual services is no longer enough: residents need a clear “single entry point” — a page or platform that brings together correct links to the city's available online services. 

Resident participation: from observers to co-authors of decisions

One of the key changes should be stronger public engagement. The European model of governance assumes that residents not only receive information about decisions already made, but also have real tools to influence how those decisions are prepared.

This applies to the allocation of public investment, public consultations, the drafting of strategic documents, budget discussions, the development of comprehensive spatial development plans, the reorganization of schools or hospitals, the work of advisory bodies, electronic petitions, local initiatives, and participatory budgets.

Public finance is a particularly telling area. In the corresponding Transparent Cities study, the average rate of meeting the criteria was 44.4%. The best results came from Dnipro, Lutsk, Kyiv, and Khmelnytskyi, but overall the cities showed modest results for an area that draws strong public interest and carries significant corruption risks. The weakest points were not only certain budget documents, but also communication and resident participation in the budget process: not a single city in the sample published a list of public proposals for the draft budget, and 10 cities did not publish the minutes of public hearings on the draft budget. 

For communities, this means a need to build systematic, constructive, and continuous engagement with residents. Participation should become part of the full management cycle — from defining a problem to evaluating the results.

From declaring transparency to proving it through results

Opening the Fundamentals cluster can be seen as a test of maturity for the entire system of public administration. The European approach holds that public funds should be spent not simply in line with procedures, but with a clear understanding of what problem they solve and what result they create for people.

For territorial communities, this means greater attention to strategic planning, assessing residents' needs, monitoring results, openness of data on how funds are spent, and publicly explaining management decisions.

It is not enough to simply declare transparency or integrity. They must be confirmed systematically — through open data, clear procedures, proper reporting, transparent procurement, effective property management, and real mechanisms of public oversight.

Open data in particular — properly organized into an ecosystem and published — show the extent to which transparency is a daily management practice. In the Transparent Cities study, the average implementation rate across the 40 indicators in the Open Data block was only 23.1% — the lowest result among the areas analyzed so far. The highest score went to Kyiv, followed by Lutsk, Kropyvnytskyi, and Lviv, while Odesa and Poltava scored no points in this block. This shows that open data remains one of the weakest links in communities' preparation for European governance standards.

Viewed through the lens of integrity, opening the Fundamentals cluster sets in motion a lengthy process in which the quality of governance becomes not just an internal matter for the state or an individual community, but a subject of ongoing assessment against European criteria. This narrows the space for non-transparent practices while creating additional incentives to develop communities' institutional capacity.

Opening negotiations on the Fundamentals cluster marks the start of a new stage, in which reforms in the rule of law, the fight against corruption, public administration, and democratic governance become subject to constant monitoring and assessment by the EU.

A separate challenge is the reporting culture of local authorities. A study of public reporting by local self-government bodies in 11 Ukrainian cities found that most cities lack a comprehensive approach to communicating their reports. In 4 of the 11 cities, mentions of the reports are virtually impossible to find on the council's own platforms. And even where reports are published, they do not always function as a tool of accountability: they are hard to find, written in bureaucratic language, and often fail to explain to residents what exactly has been done, what problems remain, and what the authorities' next steps will be. 

For communities, this means even greater responsibility for the quality of governance, the use of public resources, and communication with residents. Local governance will increasingly be judged not by formal reports but by concrete results: whether decisions are open, whether procedures are clear, whether participation mechanisms work, whether the use of funds can be verified, and whether the community truly has a say in its own development.

Opening the Fundamentals cluster concerns territorial communities directly, because it is precisely at the local level that European governance standards must become daily practice. That is why the Transparent Cities program is developing the European City Index — a tool to help assess how closely Ukrainian communities approach the EU's good-governance standards. The index will focus not only on the formal existence of documents or services, but on whether transparency, accountability, resident participation, integrity, open data, and quality administrative services actually work in communities. 

This material is funded by Norway. Its content is the sole responsibility of Transparency International Ukraine and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Norwegian Government.