On 27 September, Natalia Zaitseva-Chepak presented the research ‘Resilience and Recovery of Ukraine: Priorities, Risks, Inclusion’. The study was prepared by the SocioInform Agency at the request of the International Renaissance Foundation and with the support of the European Union.
The study aims to identify the needs of communities and civil society organisations in the context of reconstruction. The study also includes an analysis of recovery experiences, identifying effective and ineffective approaches to recovery.
The study is based on 25 in-depth interviews with representatives of national and local NGOs from different regions of Ukraine.
We are sharing the key details of the study with you. The full text of the study is available here:
Peculiarities of community adaptation to wartime conditions
Today, Ukrainian communities face not only a constant security threat, but also the economic, political and social consequences of the war.
Factors that have had a negative impact on community adaptation:
- Migration and mobilisation
- Reduced economic potential of the communities
- Limitation of the decentralisation reform
- Disruption of dialogue between local authorities and central government, in particular the failure of central government to contribute to the capacity of local authorities to manage communities effectively.
Despite these challenges, Ukraine as a whole and individual communities continue to show resilience in the third year of full-scale war. However, community adaptation is not uniform: different communities are resilient to different degrees. The main determinant of adaptability is not proximity to the war zone, but the capacity and activity of local authorities. Local leaders can either be proactive, developing the community and building communication with civil society organisations, or they can remain passive, responding only to immediate challenges.
In turn, the following factors influence the success of the local authorities :
- Planning in the context of war, creating new solutions in response to new challenges
- Strategic approach to the reconstruction process
- Attracting new resources: financial and human
- Cooperation with the public sector
- Promotion of the Community brand abroad
- Respect for democratic procedures.
Today, the public sector, which mobilises resources and supports vulnerable groups, and international donors, which provide additional funding, are the most important contributors to adaptation.
Effective recovery will be driven by local initiatives, while communication between local and national authorities needs to be improved.
Community needs
For Ukrainian communities during the war, there are five universal areas of need:
- Strengthening the capacity of local authorities
- Strengthening economic resilience
- Provide social services
- Involving the public in decision-making and strengthening cohesion.
Within these areas, the needs of frontline and rearline communities will undoubtedly differ. The primary needs of frontline communities are reconstruction and security. They also often have less freedom to make decisions, and businesses and international organisations are less active in their areas.
The specific needs of frontline and de-occupied communities include:
- Restoration of infrastructure and utilities,
- Security (de-mining of areas and provision of bomb shelters),
- economic sustainability (introduction of a special regime for doing business, targeted support for local businesses)
- Social and administrative services
- Restoring public participation.
This list shows that Ukrainian communities need comprehensive solutions for recovery. To achieve this, each municipality needs to develop a development strategy. Currently, legislation requires municipalities to have such strategies, but in practice their preparation is often a formality. To create a truly effective strategy, it is necessary to bring together all stakeholders in the community.
Civil society experts see their role in strengthening community capacity in the following ways:
- Establish collaboration and communication
- Advocating for the solutions needed
- Strengthening the technical and financial capacity of local authorities, businesses and civil society organisations
- Monitoring to ensure transparent governance.
At the same time, the public sector should work with the community, not instead of it, and mobilise existing resources. In general, in the context of recovery, civil society organisations can be effective in building dialogue between stakeholders, developing local activism, ensuring proper transparent governance of local authorities, providing strategy and analysis, supporting economic resilience and delivering social services.
“Civil society is the engine of recovery, so one of the main risks now is a decline in civic activity,” says Natalia Zaitseva-Chepak, co-author of the study.
Reflections on strengthening Ukraine’s resilience and recovery
It is too early to judge the success of Ukraine’s recovery, as the process is still underway. However, we can already understand which approaches, principles and projects are working and which are not.
We can identify the following factors that make recovery successful:
- Level of funding
- Efficiency of public authorities
- donor policy
- Activity of the public sector.
The level of funding is critical to recovery. At present, funding comes mainly from international partners.
The amount of funding from international donors is expected to decrease in the future,’ notes Natalia Zaitseva-Chepak, ‘so the state and communities need to think about alternative sources of funding.
The central government should develop a clear and consistent policy on reconstruction and an appropriate legal framework. Currently, there is no definition of recovery at the state level. There is also a need for a transparent and clear mechanism for funding recovery, and for administrative bureaucracy to be reduced in order to respond quickly to challenges. The ability of authorities to cooperate and coordinate efforts is important, as state agencies currently work with local authorities in different ways. Central government also needs to reduce bureaucracy if the recovery is to be effective.
Donor policies also need to change, as international organisations are often not flexible enough to meet Ukraine’s specific needs.
At the local level, the capacity and motivation of local authorities, the level of expertise of civil society organisations, and the level of security (proximity to the front line) influence the effectiveness of reconstruction.
Two years into the recovery in Ukraine, we can also identify principles that will allow us to achieve a more sustainable recovery. According to the public sector, these principles are:
- Strategic planning
- Systematic and comprehensive approach
- Localisation and decentralisation
- Collaboration and coordination
- Data-based decisions, rationality and feedback
- Leadership, professionalism, creativity
- Participation and commitment
- Transparency and accountability.
These principles are universal, but they are particularly important in Ukraine. Strategic and planned means that the state will develop a common recovery policy that is understood by all. This policy should be developed with the participation of all parties involved in the recovery process.
The principles of systemicity and comprehensiveness are among the most important prerequisites for successful recovery. In order to recover successfully, communities need to implement sustainable, interlinked projects with a common goal, to recover comprehensively, to combine soft and hard recovery components, and to implement projects designed for the widest possible audience.
The principle of localisation and decentralisation involves transferring decisions and resources directly to communities. Today, the effectiveness of reconstruction is reduced by the imposition of top-down solutions, the introduction of the same solutions for different communities. Therefore, donors need to communicate directly with communities and offer solutions that are tailored to each community’s needs.
Collaboration and coordination means pooling resources and efforts. Today, communities, NGOs and ministries do not communicate enough with each other, and there is a lack of trust between them. Poor coordination between donors and NGOs also slows down the recovery process. There is therefore a need to involve all stakeholders, streamline recovery plans and build partnerships between civil society organisations and local authorities.
A thorough analysis of the needs and capacities of each community is also needed, as well as a study of community residents as a target group. Feedback tools are needed to help community members inform the authorities about project implementation. In general, it is necessary to involve community members in discussions prior to project implementation and to establish communication between authorities and stakeholders.
The experience of various civil society organisations and communities also allows us to identify some criteria for successful resilience and recovery. For example, among infrastructure projects, those that support the viability of communities, i.e. meet daily needs, will be successful. Conversely, infrastructure projects implemented without thorough planning and research into community needs will fail. Among the soft projects, those that bring the community to a new level of development, provide information necessary for strategy, or provide services not covered by the state will be successful. Those projects that do not have a specific end product, or that provide direct assistance rather than community training, will fail.
Degree of adaptation of civil society organisations to the war
Overall, Ukrainian civil society organisations have managed to adapt to the conditions of war. However, this adaptation has not been uniform. For example, national CSOs have been able to attract more funding than local ones, allowing them to develop rather than simply survive. For many local organisations, the lack of long-term institutional support remains a challenge, and they are unable to raise funds for their own development. In addition, CSOs in the hinterland have been better able to adapt, while those in the frontline regions suffer from staff shortages and security threats. In general, the main challenges for all CSOs remain the lack of staff and sometimes the tight timeframes set by donors. A significant number of organisations also report difficulties in working with other stakeholders: donors, local authorities, local residents and government agencies.
To increase their adaptability, civil society organisations need a combination of different forms of support, namely:
- Financial support
- Organisational support
- Information support.
“We can talk about a general increase in the expertise of NGOs. NGOs can now speak in depth about the economy and business,” says Natalia Zaitseva-Chepak. “Moreover, they have become a separate sector of the economy, and local and state authorities have begun to perceive them as autonomous entities. That is why NGOs can become drivers of recovery in communities.”
A look into the future
Last year, the experts’ assessments of Ukraine’s recovery were clearly positive, but this year they are cautious or ambiguous.
The main factor reducing confidence in recovery is the continuation of the war. Some internal factors are also having an impact:
- At national level – risks of corruption and competition for resources.
- At regional level – disproportionate funding.
- At local level – lack of strategic and systemic approach.
Of course, the duration and sustainability of aid to Ukraine and the commitment of international partners will have an impact on the recovery.
For the recovery to be successful, state and local authorities, donors and local organisations need to work together and communicate with each other. At the state level, a unified and clear recovery policy is needed. At the same time, recovery should be decentralised, with projects tailored to the needs of each community.
