How To Improve Civil Society’s Inclusion in the Ukraine Recovery Conference

Yana Brovdiy
The Ukraine Recovery Conference in Berlin on June 11–12 is a prime opportunity to review the involvement of the country’s civil society in previous such events, to avoid repeating past mistakes, and to reiterate the necessity of an inclusive approach to Europe’s greatest challenge since the Second World War.

The first Ukraine Recovery Conference (URC) in 2022 in Lugano, Switzerland, established a guiding framework for Ukraine’s reconstruction, including seven important principles, among them democratic participation and multi-stakeholder engagement. But, while the Lugano Declaration recognized the importance of a “whole of society” approach, the official Ukrainian delegation was primarily composed of government officials, and few civil society speakers were included in the main conference panels. The presentation of civil society’s vision for Ukraine’s recovery took place at a side event. More than 100 Ukrainian organizations also signed a Civil Society Manifesto, but it was never included into any of the URC’s documents.

The lack of civil society representation at the main table in Lugano as well as at other significant international forums, like the Multi-agency Donor Coordination Platform for Ukraine was noticeable. Before the second URC, held in London in 2023, Ukrainian and international experts therefore advocated real rather than declarative inclusion as well as the creation of transparent, formal mechanisms to ensure the participation of civil society. As two experts have argued, “Failing to give [civil society] a central role means losing out on important legitimacy and expertise, while also signaling to governments, including Kyiv, that they need not seriously commit to their participation”. 

There was more participation by and visibility for civil society in the second URC, though it was still limited to the sidelines.

There was more participation by and visibility for civil society in the second URC, though it was still limited to the sidelines. More than 130 civil society organizations attended, and several side events were staged. The London URC has generally been seen as more successful than the Lugano one due to the resulting concrete promises of financial support from Ukraine’s international partners and to more elaborate plans and projects from the Ukrainian authorities. Notably, a digital platform for transparent and accountable reconstruction, DREAM, developed by the RISE civil society coalition and Ukraine’s government, was presented in London. It is one of many examples of the added value and benefits of including civil society in the reconstruction process. 

Olena Pavlenko, president of DiXi Group, a leading Ukrainian think tanks in the energy sector, aptly compared the participation of civil society at the first two URCs: “In terms of public participation, Lugano had a wedding-like feel where the kids have their own little table and every now and then someone comes over and brings sweets. This was roughly the impression I had in Lugano. In London, our ‘tables’ were already standing next to each other. However, I really hope that at the next conference in Berlin there will be a single table”. 

Doing Better in Berlin

To guarantee the success and inclusivity of the Berlin URC, it is imperative to actively incorporate civil society. Its voices will not only enrich the discussions but also ensure that the needs and perspectives of Ukraine’s population are not overlooked.

There are positive indications that the URC organizers aim to bring more voices, especially from the local level, into the discussions. For instance, they plan to showcase successful partnerships between local governments, civil society, and businesses. One of the focus areas will be the essential role of local and regional actors in reconstruction, emphasizing sustainable urban development, housing, local economic activity, and the importance of transparency and accountability in building citizens’ trust in Ukraine’s resilience. A large number of civil society representatives are expected to take part.

It remains uncertain whether, and to what extent, the input of civil society will be officially incorporated into the outcomes and declarations of the URC.

It the same time, it remains uncertain whether, and to what extent, the input of civil society will be officially incorporated into the outcomes and declarations of the URC. To address this, there needs to be a system in place to document its contributions during the conference and to feed these inputs to the key decision-makers. It would also be wise to plan follow-up meetings or reports specifically addressing the issues raised in civil society’s inputs. This would ensure that their contributions are not only heard but also acted upon in the recovery implementation processes following the conference.

By taking these steps, the Berlin URC could significantly enhance the participation and impact of civil society, ensuring that its perspectives are effectively integrated into the conference outcomes. Only through such inclusive practices can a comprehensive and resilient recovery framework that reflects the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders be built.