The role of parliament as a place of deliberative democracy has weakened during the war. Only 9 per cent of national-level CSOs consider their engagement in and contribution to the legislative process to be efficient (see Annex, Q10).
CSOs are helping communities to design plans for rebuilding
At the local level, CSOs have already been involved in both planning and delivery of recovery-related projects. In response to our survey, 46 per cent of national-level CSOs and 33 per cent of regional groups reported cooperation with local governments in drafting either recovery and development plans or comprehensive recovery programmes in 2025 (see Annex, Q3). Indeed, other sources indicate that more than half of the communities that adopted such plans engaged with civil society and citizens in the process. In parallel, approximately 200 communities (out of 1,469) are working on comprehensive recovery programmes. Where donor-funded projects are involved at the local level, they often make efforts to introduce genuine engagement, poll citizens and publish recovery plans online.
Overall, however, the 2025 Chatham House survey indicates that CSO engagement in planning on the local level appears to have declined over the past year. The share of regional-level respondents reporting involvement fell from 47 per cent of the total in 2024 to just 33 per cent in 2025. This fall could be attributed to wartime centralization, reduced funding, a lack of clarity around the precise recovery process, and an absence of viable mechanisms for local participatory democracy.
In 2025, the national government introduced legislation intended to strengthen local democracy. The new bill provides a mandate for community authorities to update their governing statutes, improve responsiveness to petitions, strengthen public reporting, and engage citizens in both local budgetary planning and delivery processes. It is hoped that this bill will encourage greater citizen participation in local democracy and recovery initiatives.
Currently, the preparation of official planning documents creates a lot of work and discussion but generates little tangible output. This is largely due to fragmented legislation, regulatory contradictions and competition between different planning instruments. Local communities are further confused due to the vague definition of what constitutes a ‘recovery territory’. Central authorities define such territories as places where there is a 15 per cent decrease in population, high unemployment, a decrease in tax income and a 10 per cent rise in IDP arrivals. However, this definition covers nearly all of Ukraine and therefore fails to identify priority areas for reconstruction.
Regional CSOs state that, presently, the most effective way of engaging with local government is through the development of projects for Western donors – who are the main external source of funding at the community level for rebuilding projects. Given the lack of human resources available (see above), CSOs often take responsibility for generating projects and for attracting external resources from bilateral donors and IFIs.
In smaller communities, CSO support is especially relevant. For example, Rise of Ukraine helped the Tokmak community to secure funding from the World Bank for a water well that supplies drinking water to three villages. Elsewhere, CSOs are assisting in preparations for more complicated projects for loans under the European Investment Bank.
Right after the liberation of Bucha, when the city’s council was incapacitated, a non-profit project office run by the Institute of Sustainable Development of Communities (ISDC) attracted around $1.5 million in external funding for reconstruction. This helped to fill the void during the crisis, until governance was restored. As the municipality restored its operations and established its own project office, the ISDC refocused its work on citizen participatory practices, innovation and the promotion of digital solutions for communities.
CSOs are providing community-based support
One flourishing area of social recovery is the growth of community hubs, many of which are involved in vibrant urban planning processes. Often an extension of a local library or cultural centre, such hubs bring people together to discuss the future, host cultural events and organize volunteer efforts to aid the army. Specialized hubs for veterans are also emerging. These spaces are especially valuable, as a national survey on mental health suggested that 65 per cent of Ukrainians reported feeling lonely.
Often supported by Kyiv-based CSOs or more experienced regional groups, the revitalization of these spaces incorporates the principles of accessibility and diversity. CEDOS, an independent think-tank and urban bureau, works on social and spatial development. As part of its New European Bauhaus programme, it engages with 20 small communities (‘small’ being defined as those with 100,000 or fewer inhabitants) to set up Centres of Community Rebuilding. Other groups, like Rozkvit and ReStart Ukraine, work to facilitate community planning, introduce new technologies for urban rebuilding and empower people at the grassroots level. Kharkiv-based Urban Reform produced a vision for rebuilding Okhtyrka, a small town located 30 km from the Russian border. The organization consulted with 100 of the town’s citizens to learn about the community and improve the partnership between citizens and local government. The primary value of this and other platforms like it lies in facilitating dialogue and demonstrating the benefits of engagement.
CSOs are actively monitoring recovery-related activities
Finally, civil society is organizing to monitor anti-corruption efforts related to recovery work and ensure that construction is both compliant with ‘build better’ principles and corruption-free. Eighteen per cent of our survey respondents nationwide view this activity as an effective method of engagement in recovery (see Annex, Q10). One of the most visible coalitions is Big Recovery Portal, a network of 35 regional and Kyiv-based watchdogs. Their new monitoring of rebuilding in the Kyiv region revealed that one-third of the monitored projects had various corruption risks, and that the application of energy efficiency and accessibility requirements was often formalistic. Seventy-eight per cent of tenders for the reconstruction appeared to be non-competitive. This real-time verification of project integrity is very important for course-correcting and improving the system.
![Figure 5. Civil society is largely dissatisfied with the level of involvement in recovery (Question: How would you rate the efficiency of existing formats for involving civil society in recovery? [top three responses])](https://www.chathamhouse.org/system/files/styles/reader_large/private/reader-content/publication-36670/file-62200/OEBPS/image/REP-103-civil-society-recovery-involvement.png?itok=afDYNrnN)