Institutional Architecture of Humanitarian Mine Action in Ukraine

DRC UKRAINE | LEGAL BRIEF

Institutional Architecture of Humanitarian Mine Action in Ukraine

This Legal Brief explains the institutional architecture of humanitarian mine action (HMA) in Ukraine, the legal position of the Centre for Humanitarian Demining (CHD) within that architecture, and the remaining allocation gaps between CHD, the Mine Action Centre (MAC), the National Mine Action Authority (NMAA) and other actors. It focuses on the practical effect of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 738 of 4 June 2026. The assessment is based on publicly available sources.

Glossary

Legal Basis

Official links to the instruments are provided in the source list at the end of this section.

Law: Law of Ukraine ‘On Mine Action in Ukraine’ No. 2642-VIII
NMAA: Cabinet Resolution No. 1207 of 10 November 2021
CHD establishment: Cabinet Order No. 303-r of 7 April 2023
CHD transfer: Cabinet Order No. 358-r of 21 April 2023
Coordination procedure: Joint Order No. 9/3/5 of 9 January 2023
Strategy and plan: Cabinet Order No. 616-r of 28 June 2024
2026 amendments: Cabinet Order No. 191-r of 25 February 2026
CHD role: Cabinet Resolution No. 738 of 4 June 2026
Reorganisation: Cabinet Resolution No. 963 of 17 July 2026

1. Institutional architecture of HMA in Ukraine

The architecture separates Cabinet-level approval, inter-agency coordination, coordination of the two centres and operational delivery. Its principal weakness is that the Law assigns many of the same functions to MAC and CHD, while later subordinate acts attempt to differentiate their practical roles.

1.1 How the current architecture developed

The current system was formed through successive legal and administrative steps rather than through one comprehensive institutional design. The Law established NMAA as the inter-agency coordination body and assigned MAC and CHD substantially parallel statutory functions. CHD was created in 2023, after which its unified property complex was transferred from SESU to the Economic and Financial Department of the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers. The National Mine Action Strategy and its Operational Plan subsequently incorporated CHD into additional activities.

Resolution No. 738 represents the most significant recent attempt to differentiate CHD’s practical role. It links CHD more clearly to agricultural and forestry land, information systems, organisation of HMA, QC, certification, risk education, incident data and donor communication. Because it is a subordinate act, however, it cannot remove the overlapping functions retained in Articles 25 and 25-1 of the Law.

1.2 How the architecture is intended to operate

The Cabinet of Ministers sets the strategic and regulatory framework. NMAA coordinates participating authorities, operators and national standards, while its Secretariat provides the institutional link between NMAA, MAC and CHD. Within that framework, the centres support planning, information management, organisation and oversight of HMA in accordance with their assigned roles. Certified operators carry out operational processes. Certification, external inspection and transfer-related QC must be performed within the applicable accredited scope, after which cleared land may be transferred to the relevant local authorities.

Why clear allocation matters. Institutional clarity affects the validity and impartiality of certification and inspection decisions, the reliability of national mine-action data, the allocation of public and donor resources, and the timely acceptance and transfer of cleared land. It also determines which institution is accountable when planning, tasking, information exchange or acceptance is delayed.

1.3 Other institutional and delivery actors

The simplified diagram shows the principal governance line, but implementation also involves specialised operational, technical, accredited and regional actors. Their inclusion does not alter the distinction between national policy coordination, operational delivery and decisions reserved to bodies acting within an accredited scope.²

2. CHD’s place within the architecture

Article 25-1 defines CHD as the institution for the practical implementation of humanitarian demining. Resolution No. 738 is the most detailed public instrument describing how that role should operate. It does not, however, replace the Law or remove accreditation requirements.

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

A formal mandate does not itself prove that CHD holds the required accreditation or is already exercising the function nationwide. An official ministry update of 12 June 2026 stated that CHD staff were undergoing QC training and that the institution was working towards relevant accreditation.³

2.1 Current operational status

Resolution No. 738 assigns CHD a more specific implementation role, including functions relating to agricultural and forestry land, information systems, organisation of humanitarian demining, quality control, certification, risk education, civilian incident data and cooperation with donors. However, the existence of a legal mandate does not by itself establish that every function is already being exercised nationwide.

Publicly available information indicates that CHD currently has an active role in planning, programme support, information management and donor coordination, particularly in relation to humanitarian demining of agricultural land. By contrast, the available sources do not establish nationwide exercise of all functions assigned by Resolution No. 738, particularly certification and inspection/QC.

The 2026 amendment to the Operational Plan expanded CHD’s participation in designated activities and standardisation work. The Accounts Chamber has also recommended stronger coordination and integration of mine-action information systems to prevent duplication and improve planning.⁴

3. Remaining legal and institutional issues

3.1 Overlapping statutory mandates

Articles 25 and 25-1 assign MAC and CHD near-parallel responsibilities for planning, information management, quality management, certification, inspection, standards, training, risk education, incident data, international cooperation and reporting. Resolution No. 738 differentiates CHD in practice but cannot amend this statutory duplication. The Accounts Chamber has also identified overlapping and inconsistent powers and risks linked to fragmented coordination and information systems.⁵

3.2 CHD’s institutional placement

Article 25-1(2) still places CHD under the central authority responsible for civil protection. Cabinet Order No. 358-r transferred CHD’s unified property complex from SESU to the Economic and Financial Department of the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, while Joint Order No. 9/3/5 continues to describe CHD as a SESU institution. The public framework therefore remains internally inconsistent on subordination and governance.⁶

3.3 Accreditation, QC and impartiality

Article 11 requires transfer-related QC to be performed by an accredited inspection body, while Articles 29 and 29-1 reserve certification decisions to accredited conformity-assessment bodies. Where CHD is simultaneously a customer, system owner or contracting actor, functional separation and impartiality safeguards are also required. IMAS distinguishes internal operator quality controls from external monitoring and inspection; QC should not be described as ‘always external’. ⁷

3.4 Prioritisation and tasking

Resolution No. 738 gives CHD an explicit sector/customer role for agricultural and forestry land. The framework does not yet provide one concise public workflow distinguishing strategic prioritisation, selection of land, procurement, operational tasking, QC, acceptance and transfer.

3.5 Regulatory transition in 2026

Resolution No. 963 of 17 July 2026 renamed the Ministry of Economy, Environment and Agriculture and restored a separate Ministry of Agrarian Policy. Resolution No. 738 still refers to the former combined ministry. Responsibility for agriculture- and forestry-related interaction with CHD should therefore be reflected in the updated ministerial and inter-agency framework.⁸

4. Recommendations

The identified gaps should be addressed through a coordinated package of legislative, institutional and operational measures.

Clarify the legal allocation of MAC and CHD mandates. Amend Articles 25 and 25-1 to identify lead, support and accreditation-dependent functions and align CHD’s institutional placement. Responsible: Cabinet, relevant ministries and the Verkhovna Rada.

Adopt one architecture, workflow and reporting framework. Publish an end-to-end process covering prioritisation, tasking/contracting, information exchange, QC, acceptance and transfer, and use the same allocation in quarterly reporting and the 2027–2029 Operational Plan. Responsible: NMAA and its Secretariat, with MAC, CHD and relevant authorities.⁹

Update legacy and transitional acts. Amend or replace Joint Order No. 9/3/5 and update institutional references following Resolution No. 963. Responsible: MoD, Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) and the ministries succeeding to the relevant functions.

Confirm accreditation and impartiality arrangements. Verify and publish CHD’s accreditation status and scope before certification or acceptance-related inspection, and document functional separation where CHD holds multiple roles. Responsible: CHD and the competent accreditation and oversight bodies.

Define a sustainable financing and capacity model for CHD. Map each assigned function to the required budget, staffing, systems, accreditation and donor-financing arrangements, while preserving state accountability for statutory functions. Responsible: Cabinet, Ministry of Finance, the competent ministries and CHD.

Plan the institutional model beyond martial law. Decide which MAC and CHD functions remain permanent, which require transition and how subordination, reporting and operational coordination will work after the martial-law framework ends. Responsible: Cabinet and NMAA, with MoD, MIA, CHD and the relevant successor ministries.

Annex. Detailed functional allocation matrix

The matrix explains how the principal functions are allocated in law, how the institutional roles should be read in practice, and which legal or operational condition remains necessary. It should be read together with the architecture diagram in Section1.

A. Governance, planning and tasking

B. Information, standards and operational assurance

C. Public communication, reporting and accountability

This Legal Brief was produced under the project funded by Switzerland through the Swiss Agency for

Development and Cooperation.

Some of the terminology used in this Legal Brief was taken from draft laws or current legislation. The

contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s). The views expressed herein should not

be taken, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of Switzerland, the Swiss Agency for Development and

Cooperation, or the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). Neither the Agency nor the DRC is responsible for any use

that may be made of the information contained herein.

Additional official and technical sources