Build on existing formats
When regional CSOs assessed existing engagement formats, three main options emerged as most significant (combining ‘effective’ and ‘moderately effective’ ratings) (see Annex, Q14).
The most highly regarded format is participation in annual international events, such as the URC. 60 per cent of regional CSOs rated this format positively. At the same time, national CSOs were twice as likely to label these forums as ‘ineffective’ (33 per cent vs 16 per cent). Regional actors appear to value the international networking opportunities and appreciate rare direct access to international donors and top-level Ukrainian government officials. Meanwhile, national CSOs – which are closer to the daily policy process in Kyiv – likely view these conferences as performative.
The data highlight these networking events as a specific point of contention for veteran-focused CSOs. These organizations were significantly more critical of the URC than other CSOs, with 27 per cent judging participation as ‘ineffective’, a 10-percentage-point difference in dissatisfaction compared to CSOs serving other vulnerable groups. This difference in perception could reflect a sense that the international-level discourse on recovery may be failing to address the urgent, specialized needs of the veteran community (namely rehabilitation, mental health and reintegration), focusing instead on long-term international investment. The fact that the very people who have sacrificed so much for Ukraine’s survival feel excluded from the recovery dialogue poses a risk to long-term social cohesion.
The second highest was consultation. 48 per cent of regional CSOs favoured consultations regarding the Ukraine Plan within the European Union’s Ukraine Facility framework. The positive reception of the Ukraine Facility consultations reinforces the role of EU integration as a driver for social recovery. Local communities see the EU’s Ukraine Facility not just as a funding source, but as a protective framework that forces the central government to engage with civil society and provides external standards of good governance as an example to live up to.
Responses on participation in legislative work were among the most polarized in the 2026 survey: 45 per cent of regional CSOs saw it as positive, while 31 per cent of regional respondents labelled it as ‘ineffective’. This disparity among CSOs operating at the same level suggests that, although civil society might be invited to join the process, their impact on final legislation remains inconsistent or opaque. Among national-level CSOs, the response was better, with 59 per cent reporting positive engagement.
In contrast, the decentralization framework appears to be evolving positively, with state actors increasingly viewing CSOs as technical partners in delivering social recovery services. 57 per cent of regional CSOs positively appraised their inclusion in specialized working groups at the ministerial and local levels.
Civic oversight was the third highest. The appetite is especially strong at the local level, with 59 per cent of regional CSOs judging the monitoring of recovery projects on the ground as an efficient mechanism. However, a significant technological and awareness gap exists regarding the DREAM system. National CSOs are almost three times more likely than regional ones to label DREAM as ‘ineffective’ (30 per cent vs 11 per cent). For regional CSOs, DREAM is often seen as an empowerment tool. For a local activist in Kherson or Kharkiv, for example, the system allows them to see local or central government plans for their specific street or hospital. National CSOs, meanwhile, tend to view these systems as data dumps that lack the analytical depth needed for high-level policy advocacy. While regional CSOs were generally less critical, 39 per cent responded ‘hard to say’. This high number suggests either that many organizations have not yet had the chance to use DREAM or that more work is needed to raise awareness of the system’s relevance for local monitoring.
Perceptions of the State Agency for Restoration and Infrastructure Development vary widely. 51 per cent of regional CSOs view cooperation there as ‘effective’, compared to only 36 per cent at the national level.
Perceptions of the State Agency for Restoration and Infrastructure Development vary widely. 51 per cent of regional CSOs view cooperation there as ‘effective’, compared to only 18 per cent who view it as ‘ineffective’. Only 36 per cent of national CSOs view it positively, while 30 per cent rate it negatively. This divergence is perhaps due partly to decentralization and partly to the agency’s mandate. Thanks to Ukraine’s decentralization reform, the reconstruction of schools and hospitals now falls under the jurisdiction of local authorities (though the agency is responsible also for infrastructure of national significance). Conversely, national CSOs typically prioritize high-level institutional modernization (see Figure 3). Therefore, they are more likely to judge the agency on procedural criteria like transparency, procurement reform and legal frameworks, where they may perceive less progress than in delivery of physical rebuilding projects.
Improve engagement at the national level
There is a consensus at the national level on the importance of establishing permanent structures to institutionalize civil society’s involvement in recovery. By proposing to be included in the National Recovery Council (in 2026, 47 per cent of CSOs overall supported this idea), CSOs are seeking a consultative power within the highest decision-making body of the state (see Annex, Q16). The council was originally formed in 2022 to prepare the Lugano Recovery Plan. But since then, it has become dysfunctional but no other body is better placed to allow for the civil society sector’s permanent collaboration and engagement on recovery.
Support for the creation a Civil Society Council at the Ukraine Donor Platform (UDP) declined slightly, from 35 per cent in 2025 to 32 per cent in 2026. The sectoral working groups of the UDP have a ‘Human Capital’ cluster with five sub-groups on education, health, social protection, veterans and gender equality. These groups do not formally include CSOs. When the UDP held its first major civil society dialogues, the hope was that these interactions would evolve into a binding, formalized Civil Society Council – similar to the Business Advisory Council previously launched by the platform. Instead, engagement has largely stayed in the form of ad hoc, quarterly ‘Civil Society Dialogues’, with thematic sessions on front-line regions and social recovery. While the percentage drop in approval is relatively small so far, it could possibly signal that CSOs are becoming more sceptical of the UDP’s effectiveness. Moreover, regional CSOs might suspect that international institutions will gravitate towards larger, well-established, English-speaking CSOs based in Kyiv, leaving the platform disconnected from the realities of community-level rehabilitation.
Regional CSOs were more enthusiastic about international forums such as the EU–Ukraine Civil Society Platform than their Kyiv-based counterparts: 25 per cent of regional CSOs rated this platform as an ‘effective’ mechanism to increase civil society engagement at the national level, compared to just 14 per cent of national-level CSOs. This difference suggests that regional CSOs, in particular, view the EU as a more reliable arbiter than their national government in terms of maintaining transparency and ensuring the inclusion of local civil society actors in the recovery process.
A strong preference for ‘citizen engagement panels’ (similar to EU models) – reported by 50 per cent of CSOs overall in 2026 – suggests appreciation of deliberative democracy as a method of inclusion. Non-profits want to participate meaningfully in the recovery process at all stages and harness the voices of various constituencies. It is a strong signal to the European Commission to build up and promote this practice in Ukraine. Participatory democracy via digital tools would work well, given the existing push for digitalization, and could be easily applied for recovery consultations.
