Ukraine/ 3. Competence, decision-making and administration  

3.2 Overall description of the system

On the basis of the Presidential Edict of April 2, 2010, N 469/2010, the Public Humanitarian Council (PHC) was created at the President's Administration as an advisory body, consisting of different working groups, including one for culture and arts issues. The PHC submits proposals concerning national cultural policy to the Presidential Secretariat, Cabinet of Ministers and Parliament, representing the interests of all cultural groups and minorities.

Cultural institutions and their responsibilities are regulated by the Constitution and by special laws.

According to the Constitution (Article 85), the responsibilities of the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) are to:

• approve laws (including laws on culture);
• adopt the state budget;
• develop guidelines on national and foreign policies;
• approve national programmes of social and cultural development; and
• approve lists of units not subject to privatisation.

The Permanent Committee on Culture and Spiritual Heritage of the Verkhovna Rada is the main body responsible for the design and development of cultural laws.

Three bodies hold executive power over cultural matters:

• the Chief Directorate for Humanitarian and Social Important Issues of the Presidential Secretariat. From January 2013, according to Presidential Edict #23, this department was restructured into the Chief Directorate for Humanitarian Development;
• the Department for Humanitarian Policy of the Cabinet of Ministers; and
• the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine.

The Ministry of Culture is mainly a financial administrative unit, which allocates funds to more than 130 state cultural institutions of national importance (theatres, museums, libraries, film studios, higher schools, etc.) and to a number of nation-wide festivals and events. As international experts stated: "…while the base and the context have changed fundamentally in Ukraine, the expectations remain and the Ministry of Culture is often seen as a "funding body" that should fund everything" (CDCULT(2007)15 p.36).

On the basis of the Presidential Edict of 9 December 2010, Nr 1085, on Optimisation of Public Agencies, the Ministry changed its structure, commitments and functions and their staffs have been reduced. The State Service for Tourism and Resources is subordinate now to the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine; the State Film Service is transformed into the State Film Agency and away from the ministerial structure but is subordinated directly to the minister of culture. The State Committee for Nationalities and Religions is liquidated, transferring its functions related to nationalities, rights of national minorities and religions to the Ministry of Culture, while matters relating to migration are transferred to the State Migration Service. The State National Heritage Service and the State Control of National Values and Displacement remain in the structure of the Ministry of Culture. The Ministry has an advisory and controlling public body called the Collegium, which consists of heads of Ministry departments, parliamentarians and representatives of (mostly state-owned) cultural institutions and associations (see also chapter 3.1).

The system of public administration for culture is made up of 24 oblasts (regions) and 2 cities (Kyiv and Sevastopol). The basic units of administration are rayons (counties) which are under the supervision of the oblast or city cultural administrations. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea has its own Ministry of Culture, which is responsible to the Cabinet of Ministers of the AR of Crimea.

In January 2008, the Ministry of Culture developed new agreement on collaboration between the Ministry as a central agency, and oblast state administrations. Financing joint actions at the expense of the state budget and local budgets shall be executed according to requirements of budget laws with obligatory attraction of other sources (by formula 50%+25%+25%). However, the practical implementation of this formula in 2009, 2010 and 2011 has shown that in many cases joint actions of national importance have become an additional burden for local budgets because of undeveloped multichannel funding mechanisms and the impact of the economic crisis.

Your Comments on this Chapter?