The article explores the practice of incorporating the territorial approach into the updating of regional development strategies in Ukraine in 2024–2025 in the context of European integration, recovery from the consequences of armed aggression, and the harmonization of state regional policy with the EU Cohesion Policy principles. Particular attention is paid to the growing role of the territorial dimension in regional development planning and to the institutional changes that introduced the mandatory consideration of functional territory types in strategic planning documents at the national, regional, and local levels. The study analyzes the regulatory and legal prerequisites for integrating the territorial dimension into the system of regional development strategic planning, as well as the specific features of its application in the updated regional strategies. The study is based on a comparative analysis of twenty updated regional development strategies adopted in 2024–2025 and focuses on the identification of functional territories, the integration of territorial analysis into strategic planning, and the consistency between identified territorial challenges and policy responses. The findings demonstrate that elements of territorially oriented governance have been incorporated into all analyzed strategies; however, their application remains uneven and largely fragmented. In most regions, the territorial dimension is reflected through the identification of only one or two categories of functional territories, predominantly rural, mountainous, border, recovery, or just transition areas, without the development of a comprehensive territorial development model. Significant differences are observed among regions regarding the interpretation and operationalization of territorial policy instruments. The analysis also reveals a weak connection between territorial diagnostics and strategic programming. Although regional strategies frequently identify spatial disparities, demographic decline, infrastructure deficiencies, peripheralization processes, and specific challenges affecting particular territories, these findings are often not translated into differentiated strategic objectives, policy measures, or development instruments. Special attention is devoted to the consideration of rural areas, mountain territories, border regions, functional urban areas, just transition territories, and recovery areas, as well as to the comparison of Ukrainian practices with European approaches to place-based development. The article concludes that the effectiveness of territorially oriented governance in Ukraine requires further improvement of the regulatory and methodological framework, the establishment of common functional territorial typologies, and stronger integration of territorial analysis into strategic decision-making processes. These measures are essential for enhancing the effectiveness of regional development planning in the 2028–2034 programming period and for strengthening Ukraine’s alignment with European regional policy principles. 

territorially oriented governance, regional policy, functional territories, development instruments, State Strategy for Regional Development, regional development strategies, European Union 

The article explores the experience of applying the territory-oriented governance tools in the EU and Ukraine (during the period preceding the formal establishment of this approach as mandatory for the development of regional policy documents at all levels of governance). The study demonstrates that, despite Ukraine’s large territory and high level of regional differentiation, regional policy was not prioritized until the mid-2000s. Early attempts to introduce the territory-oriented mechanisms were fragmented and focused on specific categories of territories, such as mountain settlements, small mono-functional towns, and priority development areas. These initiatives, although methodologically significant in defining criteria for territorial classification and offering differentiated tools of state support, failed to produce sustainable outcomes. The reasons included inconsistency with national strategic documents, absence of secured and guaranteed financing, and insufficient reliance on the endogenous potential of territories, while the criterion of “depressiveness” often encouraged passive expectations of state aid. The analysis highlights that Ukraine’s regional policy trajectory reflects a gradual shift from sectoral and redistributive models to approaches aligned with the European Union’s place-based paradigm. This transition gained momentum with the approval of the State Regional Development Strategy for 2021–2027, which for the first time introduced functional types of territories, and with the 2022 legislative amendments that made the territory-oriented approach obligatory. However, the legacy of past inefficiencies continues to be relevant, particularly in the context of Russia’s full-scale military aggression, the destruction of economic and social infrastructure, and the simultaneous necessity of harmonizing Ukraine’s policies with EU standards. The research contributes to the understanding of how the territory-oriented tools evolved in Ukraine, their limitations, and the conditions under which they could become effective in the future. It argues that sustainable recovery and European integration require strengthening the institutional and financial foundations of this approach, ensuring systemic coordination across governance levels, and mobilizing the endogenous potential of diverse territories. The findings suggest that Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction and regional cohesion will largely depend on the capacity to adapt and fully implement the place-based approach in line with best European practices. 

territory-oriented governance, regional policy, functional types of territories, development tools, State Regional Development Strategy, European Union 

The article dwells on the importance of increasing administrative capacity at the national, regional, and local levels and building a system for the spending of EU structural funds in the context of the successful implementation of the Ukraine Facility. Attention is focused on the systemic challenges that need to be addressed in the process of implementing a new state regional policy in the context of overcoming the consequences of the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine and bringing it closer to the procedures and best practices of the EU. The authors consider the Ukraine Facility, which has been expanded to include financial assistance for the recovery, reconstruction, and development of Ukraine, and its three components (pillars): financial assistance in the form of grants and loans to the state, reducing investors’ risks in financing investment projects for recovery and reconstruction in Ukraine through the involvement of international financial institutions, technical assistance to the government to develop and implement reforms related to EU accession and gradual harmonization of national legislation with EU Acquis rules, standards, policies and practices in view of Ukraine’s future membership in the EU. The focus of the Ukraine Facility on the importance of the role of local and regional authorities as promoters of an inclusive territorial approach to local development and the need to increase the capacity of local governments is emphasized. Special attention is paid to the use of European funds by the EU countries and an assessment of the implementation of investments in the context of individual EU countries, as well as the peculiarities of the use of allocated structural funds. The article notes that Poland’s experience in the use of funds is very valuable, as it was able to use the maximum amount among EU countries – €87.1 billion, which indicates the high efficiency of the system of interaction with structural funds built in Poland. The strategic directions of building a coherent and effective system of funds use in Poland since the early 1990s as the main goal of regional policy are outlined. Poland has been forming an effective structure of agencies for the use of European Structural Funds for more than a decade. The study of the experience of the EU countries, in particular Poland, has helped to formulate a number of lessons and recommendations for Ukraine. Ensuring the capacity to utilize Ukraine Facility funds at the national, regional, and local levels is impossible without addressing the most pressing issues, such as creating a legal framework for managing structural funds in accordance with EU requirements, building an institutional system for implementing the Ukraine Facility program and the future utilization of EU structural funds; creating appropriate tools and procedures for the preparation, management, monitoring, and control of programs and projects; availability of effective digital management platforms; ensuring a comprehensive approach to socio-economic and spatial development based on effective regional policy and modern spatial planning; implementation of multi-level management and coordination between different actors involved in program development and management of the Ukraine Facility funds; broad involvement of the scientific community in the implementation of the Ukraine Facility. 

regional policy, State Regional Development Strategy, Ukraine Facility, multi-level management, EU structural funds