Planning for Ukraine’s recovery is under way, even as the destruction of the war continues. It has started inside Ukraine, with various groups discussing its principles and challenges. It has started internationally, via donor conferences and the G7. Ukrainian civil society is clear about its ambition to be better integrated in the reconstruction process from the very beginning, and is not satisfied with the current level of engagement.
Ukraine’s CSOs have a crucial role to play across all six tracks of the recovery. Whether in ensuring the integrity of procurement for infrastructure projects via anti-corruption monitoring, working with children impacted by war, or supporting veterans, IDPs and returning refugees, civil society engagement will help strengthen the country’s resilience and social cohesion, ward against corruption, and provide innovative solutions to the many challenges facing Ukraine.
Ukraine has the capacity to fully own the reconstruction process. It has a successful track record of cooperation between the state and civil society in the design and implementation of transformative reforms. Its citizens have demonstrated great courage and strong agency in the face of existential threat. It is paramount that future recovery efforts build on these strengths and diminish the risks that could undermine Ukraine’s post-war future.
Policy recommendations for a recovery built on trust
Alongside Ukraine’s EU candidate status and green transition, trust could ultimately be one of the main facilitators of a successful recovery. The country’s citizens need to trust that their government is genuinely there to serve the public interest, and Ukraine’s international partners need to be certain that the resources they pledge are allocated to the greatest benefit of the country and its people. To prepare for a recovery in which Ukraine’s citizens and partners can all have confidence, the following policy actions are recommended:
For the Ukrainian government
- Embed resilience principles throughout recovery planning. This means modernizing all Ukraine’s institutions – at both state and regional level – to ensure they are able to learn, diversify, adapt and self-regulate. The contribution of civil society is key to achieving resilient governance at all levels, and in the post-war period efforts will be need to be redoubled to replenish Ukraine’s resilience capital. Civil society has shown its remarkable mobilization capacity during the war, and will have valuable networks, knowledge, human capital and vision that can help ensure that Ukraine ‘builds back better’, and that all communities have the resources they need to withstand future shocks.
- Set up a working group with representatives of Ukraine’s CSOs to develop a robust civil society engagement framework that outlines mechanisms for civil society engagement both during and after the war. The mechanisms involved will depend on the challenges and risks to recovery within each sector. In the near term, while Ukraine remains under martial law, these mechanisms may include permanent civic recovery advisory offices within government ministries, and mandatory civic oversight and digital portals to track the progress and integrity of recovery projects in real time and report suspected instances of fraud. Following the international Ukraine Recovery Conference co-hosted by the UK and Ukrainian governments on 21–22 June 2023, the framework should be further elaborated and made operational, drawing on the principles set out in the OECD’s Recommendation on Effective Public Investment Across Levels of Government (especially as regards stakeholder engagement), as well as on international experience of rebuilding after disasters and post-industrial regeneration.
- Recognize civil society as a contributor to and not just a beneficiary of the recovery. Carving out a space for the participation of national and regional CSOs in the monitoring and implementation of recovery-related projects should start now. To ensure fair inclusion, Ukraine’s cabinet of ministers should lead on expanding the National Recovery Council to include coalitions and networks of CSOs as permanent members. The government should work with civil society to co-create new forums (both digital and in-person) for participatory democracy that give citizens a voice and enable conflicting positions to be addressed respectfully and democratically. Such mechanisms might include advisory citizen assemblies or juries, with participants selected by ballot to consider specific issues. A dedicated liaison office could be established at the National Anti-Corruption Bureau to regularly engage with civil society at the grassroots level to address loopholes that may allow for abuse of funds by contractors or public authorities, as identified by investigative reporting or civic monitors.
- Establish an independent cross-sectoral recovery facilitation unit. This body would bring together key stakeholders (government, Western donors, business and civil society) to support and strengthen the quality of the recovery by sharing knowledge and data, strategic communication and capacity-building. Connecting and pooling global expertise in this way has potential benefits not just for rebuilding Ukraine. The lessons learned may give rise to innovative and effective solutions that can be replicated in other countries and regions.
- Communicate openly to increase public awareness of post-war recovery planning. If the security situation permits, both national and local governments should host town hall-style meetings and conduct media outreach on the vision for Ukraine’s future. These forums could be used to outline and consult on plans for rebuilding, and on the role cities, communities and people can play in the recovery process. Allowing citizens to visualize what the National Recovery Plan might mean for them via an interactive platform could also drive interest and engagement, and could be an effective way to engage young people and encourage them to contribute ideas.
- Consider appointing a special liaison official for civil society within the office of the president. Such an initiative would create a contact point for the sector, enable feedback and promote cooperation. This could help overcome a widespread perception that there is a lack of political will among Ukraine’s senior leadership to engage with civil society.
- Ensure the recovery is community-based and community-driven. In all of Ukraine’s regions, specific efforts will be needed to secure meaningful engagement for local groups in designing regional and city recovery plans. Positive experiences of participatory budgeting should be built on to ensure citizens have a say in shaping recovery priorities. A ‘future councils’ model could be piloted, with a view to establishing permanent regional bodies tasked with identifying important questions about, and potential solutions to, communities’ future needs. Human resources will need to be dedicated to drafting principles of community-based recovery – including understanding what this means and the mechanisms of engagement entailed – and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of local civil society. After the war ends, the government must ensure decentralization reforms resume and are taken through to completion, including legislative changes applicable to local referendums, state oversight of local decision-making, and new civil service laws applicable to local government officials.
For Ukrainian civil society
- Draw on examples of EU best practice to promote citizen engagement. Ukrainian civil society should consider how it can amplify its voice in relation to the comprehensive reforms needed for Ukraine as an EU candidate country. Many of these reforms (e.g. related to the rule of law, anti-corruption, transport and the green transition) will define the quality of recovery projects and influence the flow of foreign direct investment to Ukraine. CSOs could consider bringing fresh energy to the existing EU–Ukraine Civil Society Platform by inviting new groups to join. They could also institute citizens’ panels, in line with the EU model, to bring people together to discuss policy proposals related to the recovery; and advocate for the adoption of the EU’s code of conduct on partnership principles, which describes and mandates how local authorities and government engage stakeholders in the preparation, implementation and monitoring of cohesion programmes.
- Actively find ways to strengthen integrity within the civil society sector. Ukraine’s CSOs must recognize the risk that non-independent or bogus organizations may proliferate in the context of war and post-war, and consider what due diligence measures need to be put in place to identify and expose illegitimate practices. A critical question is whether self-regulation within the sector is sufficient, or whether additional measures are required to diminish the risks. Civil society must therefore be proactive in inviting Ukrainian government representatives along with Western donors to discuss this issue and propose ways forward. Together, they should determine if a new regulatory body (along the lines of the Charity Commission in the UK) could appropriately be established, or if this function could be performed by Ukraine’s ministry of justice. These discussions should also cover how best to institute a vetting process for CSOs involved in bidding for recovery funding. And a clear firewall, or delineation, between groups responsible for monitoring public spending and those to whom work is subcontracted must be put in place.
- Devise strategies for harnessing citizen activism. Fatigue, burnout and disillusionment, along with long-term migration from Ukraine, all risk impeding the recovery process. Many survey respondents expressed concerns that the sheer effort to survive will inevitably absorb people’s energy, meaning they do not have the time or the resources to dedicate to civic affairs. The vast scale of the recovery task may alienate an already depleted people and disempower them once the war is over. CSOs have an important role to play in finding ways to ensure citizens are heard and their needs understood, as these factors will be key to generating cohesion in communities severely affected by the conflict. For the recovery to be successful, people must have the authority to ‘own’ the change they want to see, rather than feel they are having ready-made solutions imposed on them. Civil society can help build capacity to run effective public consultations across Ukraine. The experience of USAID’s Engage Project for the country could offer good lessons as to what does and does not work in the Ukrainian context. Internationally, too, the Participedia network offers tools for dialogue-based forms of public participation.
For Western donors
- Consider inviting representatives of civil society to join the Ukraine Multi-Agency Donor Coordination Platform. The sector could initially have a consultative role, and, as the platform develops over time, expand its own mandate to include contributing to recovery-needs assessment, delivering feedback on the implementation of recovery projects, and communicating to wider society about the international effort to rebuild the country.
- Ensure civil society has a powerful role in safeguarding the integrity of Ukraine’s recovery process. Dedicated funding should be earmarked for civic monitoring, investigative journalism and digital solutions aimed at increasing transparency. To reinforce accountability, Ukraine’s partners should invest in projects that promote collective action, from the grassroots up, for community-led oversight of public procurement, private sector involvement in recovery work, and the quality and sustainability of project delivery.
- Encourage Ukraine’s government and CSOs to work together on a civil society engagement framework, as outlined above. All assistance directed to the recovery should have conditions set requiring citizen engagement. This applies at all levels, including the operations of the newly established State Agency for Recovery and Infrastructural Development.
- Design dedicated programmes to fund and support direct civil society contributions to the recovery. Bilateral development assistance agencies should recognize the impact of war on the voluntary and civil society sector. Ukraine’s civil society, like all other parts of the economy, has been severely affected by the displacements and disruption of active conflict, including the loss of people and expertise. The sector has shown great resilience under conditions of war, but CSOs will need additional support if they are to play a full part in the recovery. Survey respondents emphasized the need for dedicated training related to recovery projects. Donors should go beyond working with those organizations they are already familiar with, to also engage with newcomers that will require smaller, more flexible grants to enable them to thrive.
- Support large-scale intensive training to build skills for the recovery by financing special professional development programmes, drawing on the expertise of representatives of government, civil society, business and media. These cross-sectoral programmes should offer fast-track, practical modules in areas including strategic recovery planning, project management, public finance, citizen engagement, dispute mediation, integrity, working with new digital systems to track recovery, and delivery of services to veterans, IDPs and children. Ukraine has almost 1,500 local communities, so even a relatively modest ambition to train 15 people per community would mean the model needs to reach over 20,000 participants. To implement skills development on this scale will require an extensive ‘training the trainers’ effort, and will have to involve an extensive network of state and private training institutions able to deliver high-quality education programmes. Investment could also be considered in expanding the EU’s New European Bauhaus initiative to train more people in sustainable reconstruction.
