A comprehensive approach to reconstruction is the key idea behind the project “Study of the Reconstruction Needs of the Regions of Ukraine”, initiated by the NGO Dobrobat with the donor support of the International Renaissance Foundation.
Unfortunately, there is still no national plan for the restoration of Ukraine, which would guide the authorities at various levels, so local communities are now the main driving force behind the reconstruction. And this project provides an opportunity to provide a deep understanding of the needs and capabilities of local communities and regional authorities, which is crucial for effective planning and implementation of recovery programmes. Based on the data collected, detailed recovery plans and strategies can be developed that take into account the specific conditions of each region and even the settlement. An important component is the active participation of local residents in the research process, which helps to increase the level of trust in recovery projects and involve citizens in the recovery process.
The project “Research on the Recovery Needs of Ukrainian Regions”, implemented in February-May 2024, included several components. Based on the method of in-depth online interviews, 30 experts were interviewed in Kyiv and Chernihiv regions (including 10 representatives of local governments, 2 representatives of regional administrations, 10 representatives of businesses affected by the full-scale war launched by Russia, and 8 representatives of NGOs and charitable foundations). In addition, 600 residents of the 10 identified communities were interviewed using a structured interactive questionnaire.
Below is a detailed description of the survey results.
Timeline and main objectives
The survey results showed that the overwhelming majority of respondents to the in-depth interviews supported the thesis that “reconstruction should be gradual, ‘as far as possible’, but that it should take place now, not after the war. Also, representatives of local community governments and representatives of NGOs and charitable foundations involved in the project emphasise that it is not only necessary to restore to pre-war levels, but also to implement certain qualitative improvements in each of the affected areas. Respondents in this category emphasised that there should be a parallel restoration of critical infrastructure and communications, as well as social infrastructure, business, and housing. At the same time, business representatives understand the concept of rebuilding the country primarily as economic recovery, reconstruction of enterprises and resumption of business activities. Meanwhile, 57% of survey participants from the category of “community residents” understand the reconstruction process to be primarily about restoring people’s housing – this is the most common answer. Among the objects that are not appropriate for restoration at this time, respondents most often mentioned: completely destroyed buildings, cultural centres, social facilities in settlements from which a significant number of people have left, as well as some objects in border and frontline settlements that are constantly under fire.
Representatives of local authorities and CSOs/CFs more often mentioned the following as urgent recovery needs housing, shelters, critical infrastructure and communications facilities, educational institutions; less often – medical facilities, roads and bridges. Business representatives mentioned the following facilities in their communities that need to be restored as a matter of priority: housing for community residents, bomb shelters and roads. In the category of “community residents”, the top objects requiring priority restoration are residential buildings (60% of respondents), roads (27%), educational institutions (17%), and critical infrastructure (12%).
Current state of reconstruction
All respondents from the categories “representatives of local authorities” and “representatives of NGOs/CSOs” noted a high level of success of the implemented projects, and the main indicator of this success, in their opinion, is that residents have already returned and continue to return to their communities. Respondents from the “business representatives” category also positively assess the current recovery processes. Among the things that have already been rebuilt in the communities, respondents from the “community residents” category more often mentioned residential buildings (64%), bridges (55%), educational institutions (54%), gas, water, electricity supply (41%), hospitals, rural health posts (36%), and kindergartens (35%).
According to respondents from the “community residents” category, the success rate of the implemented reconstruction projects is quite high. Thus, 7% of survey participants called the implementation of reconstruction projects “completely successful”, 64% – “rather successful”, 20% – “rather unsuccessful”, only 4% – “completely unsuccessful”, 5% – could not decide on the answer to this question.
Problems, difficulties and obstacles
The main problematic aspects of the recovery process, according to local government representatives, are the lack of understanding among community members of the scope of work in accordance with the capabilities of donors and local communities, as well as the expectation that local authorities should solve all their current problems. At the same time, there is a low level of activity among the population in terms of independent participation in projects. Business representatives emphasise that they are forced to recover at their own expense, as loans for recovery are not profitable. Other pressing business needs include the lack of recovery support programmes, labour shortages, lack of tax benefits for affected businesses, reduced purchasing power, a significant tax burden, and a lack of dialogue with local and national authorities. At the same time, there is a low level of awareness of the available support programmes for business recovery among respondents from the business category.
The main obstacles to the recovery process in general, as noted by representatives of local authorities and NGOs and charitable foundations, include the full-scale war and shelling, lack of funding, lack of labour, bureaucracy, the length of time it takes to prepare project estimates, and the lengthy process of implementing recovery projects. At the same time, the vast majority of respondents in this category noted that they had not encountered cases of corruption in the context of the reconstruction process, saying that everything was transparent, legal and open. On the contrary, the business representatives who took part in the study noted the relevance of the problem of corruption, which has a negative impact on the country’s reconstruction process and their own activities. Among the corrupt practices related to reconstruction, they mentioned, in particular, a significant overestimation of the cost of construction materials. Monopoly and non-transparent tenders were recorded as corruption in business. However, in the category of “community residents”, corruption was named as the main obstacle to reconstruction (apart from the war and shelling itself) – 82% of respondents gave this answer. In addition, 45% of respondents mentioned a lack of finance as a significant obstacle to recovery.
Control and communication
Respondents of all categories report a low level of trust in government officials at any level, with a tendency to trust international NGOs and charitable foundations. The optimal allocation of reconstruction funds among local government representatives and NGOs/CFs is to allocate money directly to a specific project in the budget of a particular community or to the affected household itself. “Business representatives believe that funds should be allocated directly to the community for targeted projects, managed by local government representatives with simultaneous control by representatives of NGOs and local communities and businesses. There is also a fairly high level of trust in local government representatives. 66% of respondents from the “community residents” category trust international NGOs and charitable foundations to distribute recovery funds – this is the most popular answer. A fairly large proportion of respondents in this category are ready to entrust the distribution of recovery funds to local authorities (39%) and Ukrainian NGOs and charitable foundations (21%). It is worth noting the high level of positive perception of the state programme eRecovery – an effective, transparent, efficient programme.
Representatives of local authorities and most of the representatives of the CSO/CF category reported that the overall communication and coordination between all participants in the recovery process is well established and does not require changes, and that interaction is generally close and effective. Regarding the existence of sustainable and well-established communication between all parties involved in the recovery process, most business representatives said that such communication is rather absent. They especially complained about the lack of communication with representatives of affected businesses and pointed to the expediency of creating a single resource coordination centre for businesses (possibly also for the population), which would advise on available support programmes, record urgent business problems and suggest ways to solve them.
Strategy and long-term plans
Respondents from the category of “local government representatives” noted that they are aware of existing recovery plans at the national, regional and community levels, as well as the development of relevant recovery and development strategies that take into account the specifics of regions and individual communities. Also, the vast majority of respondents from the category of “local government representatives” are ready to participate in the development of the recovery strategy in one format or another, to share their experience and offer their ideas. In their opinion, the strategy should be drawn up for 7-10 years in advance and include not only recovery but also development processes – primarily progress in the economy. Instead, some respondents representing CSOs/CFs are not aware of whether there is a general strategy for recovery and development at the national or regional level, and assume that there are plans and programmes in place. At the same time, the majority of representatives of this category are ready to contribute to the development of such a strategy: to offer their ideas, share their own experience, and participate in discussions. A significant number of respondents, representatives of local authorities and CSOs/CFs, noted that recovery and development strategies should be primarily created at the community level, as this is the most rational and appropriate approach. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of respondents from the business category noted that they did not see a general recovery strategy at the national or regional level. There is also a lack of a comprehensive understanding of business losses and damage, and the availability of this data is very important for building an effective recovery strategy. 33% of respondents from the “community residents” category said that there was no recovery strategy in place, while 24% of respondents said that there was a recovery strategy at the national level.
The survey also revealed an example of effective organisation of work in one of the communities: the creation and maintenance of its own damage database and graphical geoportal – this tool should be disseminated to other communities, as its use optimises and facilitates certain recovery processes.
In general, sociological research is an indispensable tool for the comprehensive and effective recovery of Ukraine, which helps to create conditions for the long-term development and improvement of the quality of life of local communities. The project mentioned in this article is one of the first serious steps in this direction. According to its initiators, the collected data will be used to draw up a holistic picture of the needs of entire regions, with a focus on the requirements of local communities, and to formulate a package of specific recommendations to be presented at parliamentary hearings.
Source: “Censor“
