An expert discussion titled “Results from London. What Have We Achieved?” took place in Kyiv on July 5th. During the event, Ukrainian civil society and government representatives discussed the outcomes of the Ukraine Recovery Conference held in London. The discussion was organized as part of a joint project between the International Renaissance Foundation and the European Union called “European Renaissance of Ukraine: Civil Society Initiative for Resilience and Recovery.”
The general framework for the discussion was set by its moderator, Оleksandr Sushko, the Executive Director of the International Renaissance Foundation. He emphasized that when we talk about recovery, we are talking about what the country will be like, its image, and what models it will use as Ukraine undergoes modernization as a future member of the European Union.
Last summer, civil society formulated the basic principles of recovery policy and citizen participation in it for the first time in the Lugano Declaration. A strong movement seeking effective policy and recovery practice models has formed Around this declaration.
“In Lugano, it seemed that the question of ending the war was a matter of months and that by the summer of 2023, we would be able to talk about peaceful life. Today, no one has illusions that specific horizons can be set or when the war will end,” said Оleksandr Sushko. “We do not take it lightly when talking about recovery; we understand that we do not know the final price and consequences. We are solely beginning to shape models of how the social map of Ukraine will change and what the economy will be like. A return to the way things were before February 24 will not happen. Everything will change dramatically.”
While the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Lugano focused on assessing overall losses, the Conference in London addressed the involvement of the private sector in reconstruction processes, attracting investments, exploring financing models, and discussing projects and mechanisms to ensure transparency in recovery efforts. Currently, civil society is preparing for active participation in implementing these initiatives.
According to Oleksandr Sushko, when we talk about recovery, we deal with equations with many unknown variables. However, work is already underway to design the future, and discussions are ongoing. “Today, based on knowledge, experience, and an understanding of the problems that we already identify quite clearly, I would like us to have an honest discussion about where we stand and what priorities to set, knowing that the process of shaping recovery policy is currently in a stage of dynamic development,” explained Oleksandr.
In Oleksandr Sushko’s opinion, Ukraine needs to invent and formulate its unique plan to serve as a future roadmap. “We want to assist the state in constructing this policy correctly so that recovery becomes the creation of the new modern Ukraine, which moves forward based on the guidance provided by society. Despite discussing the experiences of other countries, we understand that none of them can fully apply to our circumstances,” concluded Oleksandr in his opening speech.
Deputy Minister of Economy of Ukraine for Digital Development, Digital Transformation, and Digitization, Oleksiy Sobolev, shared his impressions of the Ukraine Recovery Conference. He said this conference was better than previous ones in terms of practicality. The recovery of Ukraine is directly linked to investments. To rebuild to a sufficient level to defend against Russia, we must attract more investments than Ukraine has drawn in the past 30 years of independence.
“After this conference, investors told me that Ukraine will be in the EU. Now it is perceived as a given. And this has a very positive impact on the investment climate,” explained Oleksiy.
According to Martyna Bohuslavets, the Executive Director of the Institute of Legislative Ideas, if the results of previous conferences in Lugano and Berlin needed to be clarified, the Conference in London stood out positively.
The government had three clear messages: 1) the launch of DREAM – a digital recovery platform that will ensure transparency and accountability; 2) 10 clear steps for reconstruction that need to be taken in the coming years; 3) safeguards and incentives for investments to be implemented at the state level. However, according to Martyna, no clear and definitive steps were outlined for combating corruption.
Natalia Drozd, the Head of the Center “Dobrochyn” NGO, highlighted the positioning of Ukraine on international platforms. “We had the opportunity to compare how Ukraine positions itself on international platforms compared to other countries that have already gone through 25-30 years after the war,” Natalia explained. “The first thing that stands out is that we do not portray ourselves as victims. We position ourselves as a partner worthy of cooperation with the EU and private investors. We demonstrate that we have all the capabilities to lead the recovery process.”
Natalia also noted that the conference in London provided a diverse and high-quality representation of civil society, which was a positive signal.
The President of the analytical center Dixi Group, Olena Pavlenko, highlighted the change in Ukraine’s rhetoric from the conference in Lugano to the Conference in London.
“In Lugano, we discussed losses and only hypothetically outlined the projects we wanted. In London, however, the projects were more structured, clear, and understandable,” explained Olena. “But when we spoke with potential investors in the conference corridors, they noted that they needed help understanding how it would work: what the entry point is, how to proceed, who to approach, and how to be sure of guarantees. This year, we have voiced the ‘how much?’ aspect, and now together with the government, we need to think about the ‘how?’ to present at the next conference.”
Oleksandr Solontai, the head of the “Recovery and Development Agency” NGO, stated that civil society involvement in the recovery process is already remarkably high in some cases.
“There were two instances where it was expressed in different corners that civil society organizations in communities are as many stakeholders in recovery as local government bodies. Just as a certain recovery project can belong to a state agency or local authority, it can also belong to a civil society organization, and there are already precedents where something has been restored and functioned thanks to them. So the answer to the question, ‘What is the role of civil society?’ lies here. The role is direct,” said Oleksandr.
Oleksandr Sushko summarized the discussion’s outcomes. According to him, civil society clearly expressed its ambition to participate in the recovery and be those who contribute.
“It is important to establish communication channels that give citizens a sense of involvement in the processes and a sense of ownership over these processes. A sense that we are all rebuilding the country together and are collectively involved in both designing and implementing. Civil society is diverse, representing a wide range of interests. But simultaneously, it is united by a constructive ambition to participate. Recovery policy will test how the democracy of participation is possible in our country, creating connections between the state and citizens and overcoming alienation,” stated Oleksandr Sushko.
The discussion took place within the framework of a joint project between the International Renaissance Foundation and the European Union called “European Renaissance of Ukraine: Civil Society Initiative for Resilience and Recovery.” The views expressed by the speakers do not necessarily reflect the position of the International Renaissance Foundation and the European Union.
