Community Preparedness

NP teams conducted 28 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) across five hromadas in Mykolaiv Oblast. The sample was predominantly female (24 out of 28 respondents), with most women aged between 31–50 and 51–65. Only four men were interviewed, with one respondent representing each age bracket. This gender imbalance likely reflects current wartime dynamics, as many men are either serving in the armed forces or may be less visible in public spaces due to conscription risks. 

In terms of displacement status, the majority of respondents identified as host community members (54%), while 14% were internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 32% were returnees—representing the highest proportion of returnees recorded across the assessed Oblasts. This may reflect the gradual return of civilians to areas perceived as relatively more stable following earlier frontline shifts. 

A significant proportion of respondents also reported connections to military service. 32% were members of veterans’ families, while 36% reported having relatives currently serving in the armed forces, including those captured, killed, retired from service, or otherwise connected to the military. The remaining 32% reported no direct family links to veterans or active service members. 

Most respondents reported having dependents, typically between one and three. The largest share (32%) reported having one dependent, although a notable proportion (39%) reported having no dependents. 

Perceptions of the security situation in Mykolaiv Oblast are mixed. Thirty-nine percent of respondents reported that the situation has remained the same, although many described this “stability” as a continuation of consistently poor and insecure conditions. An equal share (39%) stated that the situation is worsening, while 21% perceived some improvement. These responses suggest that although frontline dynamics have shifted compared to earlier stages of the war, insecurity remains a defining feature of daily life for many communities. 

Across the assessed hromadas, housing and infrastructure emerged as the most pressing challenge (19%), followed closely by security (18%) and livelihoods or employment (17%). Respondents also highlighted a challenge not widely raised in other assessed Oblasts: a shortage of qualified staff for key community services, including healthcare personnel and public transport drivers. This reflects the longer-term demographic and economic impacts of displacement and military mobilisation on local service provision. 

Housing shortages were raised particularly frequently by returnees, many of whom reported that their pre-war homes had been destroyed or were no longer accessible. Several respondents expressed a perception that returnees are currently overlooked in assistance programming, which they felt remains largely focused on IDPs. At the same time, IDPs themselves reported ongoing challenges related to housing availability and limited space in collective accommodation sites. These structural pressures help explain why 26% of respondents identified tensions related to competition over resources. Other reported tensions included political or ethnic divisions (12%) and dissatisfaction between civilians and authorities (10%), often linked to issues such as power outages and limited water access. Nevertheless, nearly half of respondents (47%) reported no significant tensions within their communities, and reconciliation or dialogue initiatives were not identified as immediate priorities—suggesting that humanitarian and material needs remain the dominant concern. 

Expectations regarding a near-term cessation of hostilities are largely pessimistic. A majority of respondents assessed such a development as unlikely: 36% considered it impossible, 36% viewed it as highly unlikely, and 21% stated they could not imagine such a scenario. Only 7% believed a ceasefire could occur within the next six months. This contrasts sharply with neighbouring Kherson Oblast, where a larger share of respondents expressed cautious optimism. Notably, those who viewed a ceasefire as possible were also the respondents who reported improvements in the local security situation, indicating that perceptions of future political developments remain closely tied to local security conditions. 

Respondents identified employment opportunities (23%) as the top priority for post-conflict recovery, followed by housing reconstruction (21%) and the rebuilding of healthcare and education facilities (18%). Notably, these were also the same factors most frequently cited as incentives that would encourage displaced civilians to return to Mykolaiv Oblast. Unlike in several other assessed Oblasts, security guarantees were mentioned less frequently, suggesting that respondents view the restoration of functioning infrastructure, housing, and livelihoods as the most immediate requirements for stabilisation and recovery. 

When asked whether their Oblast is prepared to undertake reconstruction and early recovery efforts following a halt in fighting or potential ceasefire, most respondents expressed cautious optimism. 46% stated that their hromadas would be partially capable of managing recovery, while 43% expressed full confidence in local capacity. Only 11% believed the Oblast would not be able to manage such efforts. Overall, these findings indicate a relatively strong level of trust in local authorities and community resilience. 

At the same time, respondents widely acknowledged that many of the key conditions for recovery remain beyond local control. When asked whether external factors could influence recovery efforts, the vast majority responded affirmatively. Security guarantees, political decisions, and broader economic conditions were seen as determining factors that lie outside the authority of local governments. As several respondents noted, reconstruction can only begin in earnest once active hostilities cease, highlighting the limits of local agency in shaping the broader trajectory of recovery. 

Respondents identified several opportunities to strengthen cooperation and support within their communities. The most frequently cited factor was greater transparency from local authorities (27%), highlighting the importance of trust and clear communication between local governments and civilians. This was followed by “other” responses (24%), which primarily referred to the need for more cultural and community events that could help bring residents together, similar to pre-war social life in the hromadas. Support from neutral organisations was cited by 22% of respondents, while others highlighted the importance of more inclusive decision-making processes and greater opportunities for community dialogue. Overall, respondents emphasised the need for stronger communication channels, more participatory governance, and accessible support systems to improve cooperation within their communities. 

Most respondents reported having received some form of support from NGOs, typically in the form of ad hoc humanitarian assistance such as non-food items (NFIs), cash assistance, or emergency support following shelling. However, when comparing the types of assistance provided with the needs identified in the current and future challenges sections, a clear mismatch emerges. The support received does not fully align with the most pressing priorities identified by respondents—particularly employment, housing reconstruction, and restoration of critical infrastructure—suggesting that current programming by NGOs and INGOs in Mykolaiv may not yet be sufficiently adapted to evolving local needs, or that the priority needs are outside of the scope of pure humanitarian response.