On October 30, 2025, at Osvitoria Hub, the Anti-Corruption Center MEZHA organized an expert discussion titled “How to Distribute Recovery Funds Effectively and Transparently”.
The discussion was based on a study conducted by the team of the Anti-Corruption Center MEZHA on recovery financing mechanisms in 2022–2024. The study resulted in recommendations aimed at eliminating corruption risks, preventing the misuse of funds, and ensuring effective project prioritization.
The event brought together representatives of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, the Accounting Chamber, experts, and leading civil society and human rights organizations. The meeting was held under the Chatham House Rule.
This event was made possible with the financial support of the Czech organization People in Need, within the SOS Ukraine initiative.
KEY CONCLUSIONS
The recovery sector remains a socially significant topic that continues to draw public attention. Society expects the allocation of resources and recovery priorities to be clear and fair, with the needs of every community equally taken into account. Transparent decision-making principles help prevent questions about why some projects receive funding while others do not, fostering public trust in the state and the overall recovery process.
There is an urgent need to establish a legal framework for recovery. In the fourth year of the full-scale invasion, the legal framework for recovery has still not been established, and the development of the draft law “On the principles of Ukraine’s recovery” has been suspended.
As a result, many initiatives launched during the full-scale invasion are being implemented as experimental projects (for example, comprehensive restoration of settlements or the creation of a social housing fund). While this approach allows flexibility and rapid testing of new mechanisms under wartime conditions, it also carries significant risks of non-transparent, fragmented, and inefficient use of public funds. Experimental projects are often used to bypass standard procedures for procurement, reporting, or public participation.
The need to increase transparency and inclusiveness in decision-making on fund allocation. During the discussion, participants concluded that it is essential to establish comprehensive legislative requirements for projects and funding procedures. This includes setting clear deadlines for submitting project proposals, defining transparent and pre-determined eligibility criteria for financing, and listing exhaustive grounds for refusal of funding. Special attention should also be given to ensuring transparency in decision-making and involving civil society representatives in this process.
Flaws in project prioritization and selection procedures. It remains crucial to ensure mandatory project prioritization during selection and to avoid the use of additional non-public criteria or assessments that may influence final outcomes.
Improving planning processes at the community level. Communities are required to develop and regularly update various strategic and planning documents (such as community recovery and development plans, comprehensive recovery programs, community development strategies, etc.). However, the large number of such documents and the high standards for their content, including the need to consider accessibility, green transition principles, and the development of monitoring and risk assessment systems, demand experienced specialists in planning, architecture, finance, and management, who are often lacking at the local level as a result of urbanization processes.
Due to shortcomings in local planning and the lack of clearly defined recovery priorities within communities, some proposed projects for funding may carry significant risks. This includes projects located near areas of active hostilities or those whose restoration is currently impractical, for example, rebuilding a school that continues to operate remotely because of security concerns.
Expanding the functionality of the DREAM system. The initiative to create a digital platform that consolidates comprehensive information on all recovery projects being developed or implemented in the country is both highly successful and essential. However, to prevent the system from becoming merely a catalog of projects, it should be enhanced with data that enable effective public monitoring and risk prevention. It is important to ensure consistency and objectivity in the information presented regarding the scope and status of project financing. In addition, the entire process of project evaluation under various state programs should be made fully transparent to avoid doubts about why some projects receive funding while others are rejected.
Corruption risks in the construction, reconstruction, and major repair of civilian recovery facilities. During the discussion, participants emphasized the potential for abuses at the stages of project documentation development and procurement. Price inflation for construction materials remains a significant risk. At the same time, this issue should be analyzed comprehensively, as the shadow economy in the construction sector means that part of workers’ wages is often indirectly included in the cost of materials reflected in project budgets.
