Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Israel Ukraine Forum of Science and Innovation‖ (April 27-29, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – Tel Aviv, Israel, 2026. - 262 p.

73 An analysis of available scientific and applied literature confirms that integrating these functions creates preconditions for post-war recovery of aquaculture in Ukraine. Comparative analysis suggests that a critical difference between governance approaches lies in the extent to which environmental objectives are integrated into decision-making and implementation. European practice demonstrates the effectiveness of multifunctional models that may be adapted to Ukrainian realities (European Commission, n.d.). Therefore, a comparative perspective between European approaches and Ukrainian frameworks is particularly relevant (Table 1). Table 1. Comparative overview of Ukrainian and European approaches to aquaculture governance Criterion Ukrainian sector European approaches Governance model Predominantly sectoral- administrative Integrated, ecosystem-based Role of the state Control and permitting functions Strategic planning and coordination Stakeholder participation Limited, fragmented Broad involvement of business, science, and civil society/associations Environmental standards Partially implemented Full implementation of EU directives Investment mechanisms Unstable, budget-dependent Donor programmes, ―green‖ finance Procedural transparency Uneven High transparency standards Recovery and resilience focus Strategies under formation Integrated approach linking governance, ecology, and resilience Governance model Predominantly sectoral- administrative Strategic planning and coordination The review of Ukrainian and international scholarship highlights several concepts that increasingly dominate strategic development programmes. First, many experts emphasize that environmental considerations should be foundational for