By the end of 2023, Russia had occupied, damaged, or destroyed about 50% of Ukraine’s installed energy capacities. During Russia’s destructive shelling of Ukraine’s energy system in March-April 2024, Ukraine lost another 8 GW of capacity. Some facilities, including green hydropower, were completely destroyed. One of the challenges facing Ukraine now is to reconstruct the energy infrastructure under shelling and constant threats because, in the first place, we need air defense systems to preserve what we have. However, what should restoring the destroyed facilities look like?
The expert environment, and in particular the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Kyiv office – Ukraine, advocates for green recovery, though its interpretation is still fragmentary and not quite systemic. At the same time, green recovery itself is a necessary practical step for building an efficient low-carbon economy that will be part of the European family.
What is the current state of green recovery? Do current reconstruction processes consider the need to preserve the environment and combat climate change? Are these processes transparent and open to climate-focused civil society?
With the support of the Heinrich Böll Foundation Representative Office in Ukraine, experts at the Resource and Analysis Center “Society and Environment” prepared the study “Post-War Green Reconstruction of Ukraine: Processes, Stakeholders, Public Participation.” We talked about the study’s findings with Nataliya Andrusevych, Chair of the center’s Governing Board. Here are the key theses of our conversation.
What key processes for reconstructing Ukraine are taking place at the international, national, and local levels?
The main trend of 2023 and early 2024 is an increase in the number of processes and efforts aimed at reconstruction, at all levels. On the one hand, a large number of plans and projects is good. On the other hand, there is currently no architecture for planning and implementing post-war reconstruction.
Last year, development almost stopped of the national recovery plan (preliminarily presented in Lugano). The Ukraine Plan (within the European Union’s Ukraine Facility) is trying to take its place but lacks strategic goals and elements to comprehensively define the vision, tasks, and directions of recovery from the consequences of Russia’s aggression.
International partners began to work more with local communities and local public organizations, especially to implement specific reconstruction projects in local communities and strengthen the latter’s capacity.
Strengthening this cooperation, on the one hand, relates to the request from communities themselves, as they need immediate reconstruction of destroyed or damaged critical facilities, or enhancing their resilience, for example, to prepare for winter without electricity or heating. On the other hand, public organizations or international partners can immediately see the real result or impact of their work precisely within such local initiatives. A good example of cooperation is public organizations Ecoclub and Ecoaction, which help communities install solar panels at schools, hospitals, and other public facilities.
Non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives working in various fields (from humanitarian aid to environment or energy) take a proactive part in restoring and reconstructing Ukraine, developing relevant policies, and implementing specific reconstruction projects. In 2023, public organizations participated in initiatives and document development that were part of various international and national processes, and actively promoted their initiatives (creating coalitions, preparing analytical and informational material, and organizing events).
Unfortunately, a number of processes remain closed to the public, especially at the international level. At the national level, engagement often occurs through the official discussion processes regarding developed strategic or legislative acts. Last year, the main focus was on involving business, which had many more opportunities to be heard at the international level (the conference in London) and in the process of developing the Ukraine Plan at the national level.
Reconstruction = green recovery?
Most processes have “green” and climate elements, especially at the local level. This is often related to international partners’ requirements or priorities, the search for alternative, decentralized energy sources (solar stations, heat pumps, etc.), and the need to restore basic environmental infrastructure (for example, waste collection).
Green issues are also partially considered in post-war reconstruction planning documents or documents developed and adopted in various economic sectors or environmental protection to define strategic goals, objectives, and specific steps for their implementation. For example, the Ukraine Plan has a separate chapter that deals with green transition and environmental protection. This chapter defines the reforms that will be implemented within Pillar I of the Ukraine Facility, namely preventing industrial pollution, reforming climate policy, introducing market mechanisms for carbon pricing, restoring and preserving natural resources, and circular economy.
The strategic and sectoral documents include the State Strategy of Regional Development for 2021-2027, the Innovative Development Strategy of Ukraine until 2030, and the National Energy and Climate Plan.
At the government level, environmental issues are completely lacking in the institutional and organizational architecture of post-war reconstruction. For example, the Ministry of Environment does not have a deputy minister for post-war reconstruction, while the DREAM system still needs to be refined to properly reflect the environmental aspects of reconstruction. DREAM is an electronic government platform that collects, organizes, and publishes open data at all stages of restoration projects in real time. It was first presented at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in London, and in November 2023, beta testing began of the updated functionality. In November 2023, the platform made its data available via API, making it much easier for the public to use.
Why is green recovery the only path to a more efficient economy and inclusive society?
Virtually all major stakeholders state that green recovery should be a priority (government, ministries, local authorities, international partners, and NGOs). However, the idea of what green recovery is in Ukraine is only being formed.
In practice, the holistic understanding of “green recovery” is replaced by specific projects, especially at the local level, that generally regard renewable energy sources and introducing basic environmental practices and mechanisms (such as the aforementioned waste collection). This approach fragments and narrows the understanding of green recovery to individual (if not primitive) basic management components in this area. This situation is mainly due to the refusal to prepare a comprehensive plan for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction and restoration.
Despite public support for the principles of green recovery, only some international partners use this approach in practice within their programs in Ukraine.
Currently, it is too early to say that nature and environment are an independent object of reconstruction or restoration despite the large-scale environmental damage caused by military actions. In the process of planning post-war reconstruction, green reconstruction should not be perceived only in the context of reconstructing destroyed or damaged infrastructure, buildings, and enterprises, because nature suffers from Russia’s aggression daily. Pollution of water bodies, forest fires, loss of biodiversity, and mining are just a few of the challenges we are facing. Therefore, nature needs recovery as well, and this should be given considerable attention when preparing a reconstruction strategy or plan, or when planning the amount and purpose of allocated funds.
Why should recovery and reconstruction processes involve the public?
According to our estimates, there have been positive changes regarding transparency and stakeholder involvement in developing and implementing Ukraine’s green reconstruction and restoration.
The best example of public involvement in 2023, in our opinion, was the discussion of the new draft Regional Development Strategy. Government officials provided the opportunity to submit proposals in different ways, and more than 3,000 proposals were submitted in total! A major feature was the Ministry for Restoration’s active encouragement of public participation in discussions and sending proposals.
Another successful reconstruction area may include the cases of individual cities and communities. For example, despite significant infrastructure destruction, the Voznesensk hromada (community) in Mykolaiv Oblast views green reconstruction as its strategic goal and unchanging path. Hence, it cooperates with the public and eco-activists and involves various donor organizations. It works not only with strategic and planning documents, but also with practical initiatives, such as installing a solid fuel boiler that uses biomass and conducting joint eco-work.
However, it is too early to claim that this has become a daily practice for national authorities and international partners. The closed nature of international processes is of particular concern, including those of financial institutions. International processes in 2023 did not ensure adequate participation of stakeholders other than business.
Our recommendations last year on transparency and public participation in international processes remain relevant and require further implementation, including public involvement at all stages of reconstruction, digitizing processes, creating clear procedures for public involvement, etc. International partners must demonstrate leadership and good will in ensuring these governance frameworks.
What is needed for Ukraine to recover according to the “build back better” principle?
Stakeholders — government, partners, the public, business, and local authorities — have not yet formed a clear vision of green recovery. Apart from the general theses on “green recovery” and the need to consider climate and environmental issues, the 2023 public discourse did not include a structured and substantive discussion of the concept of green recovery. Unfortunately, the principle of “build back better and greener” is still undiscovered and we see little effort to build a common understanding of its meaning.
We have developed a number of systemic recommendations so that the “build back better” principle is implemented in practice.
First of all, it is necessary to adhere to the principles of participatory democracy and the principle of “build back better and greener” at all stages of Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. This includes transparency (in particular, through digitization). This also requires strengthening cooperation between the main national and international stakeholders and Ukraine’s civil society on a systemic and distinct basis, taking into account the interests of communities and residents.
Cohesion requires a separate focus. The consolidation of all stakeholders’ efforts should be restored, as it was at the beginning of the full-scale war. We consider this a fundamental condition for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction and recovery. Hence, it is necessary to ensure the effective cooperation of all stakeholders, openness, transparency, and accountability in the process of post-war reconstruction planning and implementing specific projects.
Finally, the process of accession to the European Union (EU) will have a positive effect on post-war reconstruction “greenness” due to the requirements of the EU’s environmental and climate acquis.
Ukraine has a complex challenge of simultaneously fighting, rebuilding, and moving toward the EU. However, these three processes have a common goal: an independent, modern country integrated into the climate-neutral European economy.