Infrastructure Policy Review of Ukraine

2. Governance for sustainable and quality infrastructure in Ukraine

Abstract

This chapter examines how Ukraine is governing largescale infrastructure reconstruction under conditions of ongoing war. It sets out the emergence of a lifecycle‑based framework for public investment, covering project prioritisation, appraisal, budgeting, execution and monitoring. It reviews the creation of new central gatekeeping institutions, the tightening of appraisal and environmental screening requirements, and the formal alignment of subnational recovery planning with national priorities. The chapter finds that Ukraine has moved decisively towards treating public investment as a strategic portfolio, supported by strengthened budget rules, multiyear fiscal ceilings and an integrated digital pipeline for project management. At the same time, the system is being implemented under exceptional uncertainty, capacity constraints and continued reliance on external financing. The chapter concludes that Ukraine’s challenge is no longer only to establish a formal framework for public investment, but to ensure that institutional responsibilities, fiscal ceilings and digital systems work together as a coherent basis for prioritisation, project preparation and delivery.

2.1. Key government actors

Ukraine has moved from a project-accumulation model towards a more rules-based approach to strategic planning and public investment selection. In the current framework, strategic prioritisation operates through the Strategic Investment Council, the Single Project Pipeline, DREAM-based project registration, and the medium-term fiscal framework, while regional and community planning documents continue to feed project ideas into sectoral and national portfolios. Strategic prioritisation of projects is increasingly shaped by a combination of strategic alignment, implementation readiness, affordability within medium-term ceilings, likely funding source, the sequencing of ongoing versus new projects, and, where relevant, recovery, security and EU-alignment considerations.

Infrastructure decisions in Ukraine are shared across a relatively compact set of central institutions, line ministries, implementing agencies, local self-government bodies, state‑owned enterprises, and oversight institutions. At the centre of government, the Strategic Investment Council (SIC), created by Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution No. 549 of 14 May 2024, provides portfolio-level steering. The Ministry of Finance acts as the fiscal gatekeeper through the budget framework, the Ministry of Economy develops core methodological elements of the public investment management reform, and the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories anchors regional recovery planning and the DREAM digital system.

Around this central core sit sector ministries and agencies that prepare and manage project pipelines; subnational authorities that originate and implement a large share of smaller and medium-scale capital projects; and large state‑owned enterprises that remain major investors, asset owners and contracting authorities in transport, energy and utilities. At the apex, the Strategic Investment Council (SIC), chaired by the Prime Minister, provides the political steering for a unified pipeline: it aligns sector priorities with fiscal space, considers graded project concepts, and signals which interventions proceed to budget preparation. Oversight and assurance are provided through institutions such as the Accounting Chamber, the State Audit Service, anti-corruption bodies, and public-facing data and monitoring platforms. The summary of the key actors is presented in Table ‎2.1.

The MoF is the budget gatekeeper, as mentioned in the previous section. It sets multi-year ceilings, screens projects for affordability and fiscal risk (including PPPs and concessions), and authorises inclusion in the budget only where selection and appraisal requirements have been met. MoF’s role anchors portfolio discipline: it links SIC signals to fiscal constraints, requires DREAM registration, and challenges unit costs, indexation rules, and contingent liabilities before commitment.

The Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine shapes the delivery environment for the largest asset classes – transport, housing and communal services, urban development – and leads regional policy instruments. It sponsors sector strategies and programmes, sets technical and prioritisation criteria, and governs the DREAM, the national project database that follows investments from project proposal to implementation. Under the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories, the State Agency for Reconstruction and Development of Infrastructure (SARDI) acts as a major client and project owner for large works and provides hands-on support to municipalities in preparation and delivery.

Line ministries are policy owners and portfolio managers within their sectors. They convert strategies into pipelines, run appraisal and readiness checks, and oversee delivery by their agencies and SOEs. Large SOEs – Ukrzaliznytsia (rail), Ukrenergo (transmission), Ukrhydroenergo (hydro), Naftogaz group (gas), and regional utilities – are major investors and contracting authorities. Their boards and supervisory ministries must align corporate investment plans with national ceilings and SIC priorities and disclose programme pipelines and contract performance.

Local self-government bodies are essential PIM actors. Oblasts and communities (hromadas) prepare recovery and development plans, originate most small- and medium-scale investments, and execute a substantial share of capital expenditure via budget transfers and municipal enterprises. Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro, Kharkiv and Odesa play outsized roles as project owners and as markets for construction and utilities contracts. Their decisions on packaging, procurement strategies, and tariff/own-revenue policies materially affect delivery capacity and the ability to crowd in enterprise finance.

Procurement institutions form the governmental spine in dealing with commercial entities. The MoE sets procurement policy and oversees the Prozorro e‑procurement system and Prozorro Market. Contracting authorities publish complete, machine‑readable dossiers and conduct tenders on Prozorro. Complex works such as major infrastructure projects require project-specific procurement strategies (market engagement, lotting, contract form, risk and price adjustment). The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU), through its complaints board, adjudicates bid challenges and enforces non-discrimination. AMCU’s decisions can affect procurement timelines and bidder confidence. Given this role, predictable procedures, transparent reasoning and effective safeguards against undue discretion are important for maintaining trust in procurement remedies (OECD, 2025[1]). Broader integrity risks related to procurement oversight and infrastructure delivery are discussed in the integrity and enabling-environment sections of the report. The MoF enforces commitment controls and payment discipline, providing the financial trail that must reconcile with DREAM identifiers and procurement records.

External assurance bodies provide independent checks. The Accounting Chamber conducts financial and performance audits of state programmes and major projects, assessing economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The State Audit Service of Ukraine (SASU) performs legality and effectiveness audits and procurement monitoring, with a focus on compliance with selection rules, tender procedures, contract changes, and achievement of stated results. Their findings feed back into MoF gatekeeping, the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine’s guidance, and SIC decision making, and should progressively pivot from line‑item conformity to outcome‑oriented assurance.

Civil society and market monitors close the transparency loop. Platforms such as DOZORRO, a platform for civil control of public procurement (DOZORRO, n.d.[2]) use open data to identify red-flags while professional associations and chambers provide supplier feedback. The organisations such as AmCham Ukraine (https://chamber.ua/ua/), European Business Association (https://eba.com.ua/en/), Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (https://ucci.org.ua/), and the Confederation of Builders of Ukraine (CBU/KBU, https://kbu.org.ua/en) can provide feedback from businesses and contractors on tender design, documentation requirements and contractual conditions. International partners – EU, IFIs and bilateral donors – co-finance large parts of the capital programme and impose complementary appraisal, fiduciary and environmental requirements that should be mapped into national procedures to avoid duplication. Additionally, the Fiscal Policy Research Center (https://fiscalcenter.org/en/) (Fiscal Policy Research Centre, 2025[3]) think-tank tracks and traces all the receipts of capital expenditure on a national and subnational levels and provides unique insights as to the budget spending for improved government accountability and better donor co‑ordination. Apart from digital maps of public expenditure FPRC also provides Shadow Reports on the topic, as well as dashboards on special issues. In 2025, for instance, FPRC published a monitoring dashboard on the spendings on the projects implemented with the funding from IFIs (Fiscal Policy Research Centre, 2025[3]).

Table ‎2.1. Key actors in infrastructure governance in Ukraine

Institution	Description of Functions
The Strategic Investment Council	chaired by the Prime Minister, made up of members of the Cabinet of Ministers – ensuring co‑ordination of strategic priorities for public investments and approval of a single project pipeline. The Ministry of Economy will provide information and analytical support for the Council’s activities
Ministry of Economy	Coordination of the national system of strategic planning and preparation of a long-term document of national development, which contains the main goals and priorities of investment; preparation of a medium-term 6 plan of priority public investments in close connection with the Budget Declaration; methodological support for the preparation, prioritisation, appraisal, selection and implementation of public investment projects to ensure unified approaches to all types of public investments both at the central and local levels; monitoring the implementation of single project portfolio; policy formation in the field of public procurement and ensuring the functioning of the Prozorro electronic procurement system
Ministry of Finance	determination of the fiscal framework for public investment, taking into account all sources and mechanisms of financing and the need to ensure macro-financial stability; methodological support for budget planning of public investments aligned with the strategic goals and objectives and fiscal framework; assessment of the feasibility of attracting public investment and ensuring the selection of the optimal financing mechanism; assessment of fiscal risks related to public investments, primarily regarding PPPs and concessions; assessment of the reasonableness of the determined cost of projects and availability of financing; ensuring inclusion in the budget or provision of state support only for those projects that have passed established appraisal and selection procedures
Ministry of Development of Communities and Territories	Coordination of strategic planning of regional development, consisting of the State Strategy for Regional Development, the Plan for Reconstruction and Development of Regions and the Program for Integrated Development of Communities, on the basis of which public investments at the local level should be planned; preparation of sectoral strategies in the fields of transport and transport infrastructure, housing policy, housing and communal services and energy efficiency, determination of sectoral prioritisation criteria based on them, preparation of a sectoral project pipelines and proposals for the medium-term plan of priority public investments and co‑ordination of the implementation of projects in the said sectors; development and implementation of DREAM, which will become a repository of public investment projects that meet the defined strategic priorities of national and regional development and established criteria, and will ensure effective monitoring of their implementation;
Line ministries	preparation of sectoral strategies, determination of sectoral prioritisation criteria based on them, preparation of a sectoral project pipelines and proposals for the medium-term plan of priority public investments and co‑ordination and monitoring of project implementation in the relevant spheres of state policy;
State Agency for Reconstruction and Development of Infrastructure of Ukraine	preparation and implementation of large‑scale infrastructure projects in accordance with the medium-term plan of priority public investments; provision of support to local self-government bodies during the preparation and implementation of infrastructure projects
Local self-government bodies	preparation of plans for the recovery and development of relevant territories, development, prioritisation and implementation of public investment projects based on them
Accounting Chamber of Ukraine	conducting a financial audit and performance audit of relevant programmes and expenses, developing proposals and recommendations for taking measures to eliminate violations and shortcomings and prevent them, developing recommendations for improving the relevant legislation
State Audit Service of Ukraine	analysis and verification of the legality and effectiveness of the implementation of investment projects using state and local budget funds, state support, state and/or local guarantees, as well as analysis and verification of the achievement of performance indicators, management of investments (funds) and their use.

Source: Ministry of Finance (2024[4]), Roadmap for Reforming Public Investment Management System, https://mof.gov.ua/storage/files/PIM%20roadmap_final.pdf.

The institutional architecture for PIM has become stronger, and the core institutions are now more clearly defined. However, implementation responsibilities remain uneven in practice, particularly where PPP development, project preparation support and cross-ministerial decision rights intersect. While some expertise centres may need further support and/or reinforcement, the core players are well established. Effective PIM depends on the key institutional actors using a single digital spine (DREAM), applying uniform appraisal and procurement standards, and reconciling decisions with medium-term fiscal ceilings so that projects progress from project proposal to payment with clear ownership, accountability and evidence.

2.2. Infrastructure needs

The latest joint Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA5), prepared by the Government of Ukraine, the World Bank Group, the European Commission and the United Nations, estimates Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction needs at USD 587.7 billion over 2026-2035, equivalent to almost three times Ukraine’s 2025 GDP (Government of Ukraine, World Bank, European Union, United Nations, 2026[5]). This represents an increase of USD 64.1 billion or 12.3% relative to RDNA4 (Government of Ukraine, the World Bank Group, the European Commission, and the United Nations, 2025[6]). Direct damage is now estimated at USD 195.1 billion, while economic and social losses have risen to USD 666.7 billion, underscoring that recovery requirements continue to expand rather than stabilise. Needs remain geographically concentrated in frontline oblasts and major metropolitan areas, and sectorally in transport (USD 96.3 billion), energy (USD90.6 billion) and housing (USD89.8 billion), with particularly sharp increases since RDNA4 in water supply and sanitation, energy, transport, and telecommunications, digital and media.

For 2026, the Government of Ukraine has identified USD 15.25 billion in priority recovery and reconstruction needs, comprising USD 11.27 billion in public investment projects and programmes from the Single Project Pipeline and USD3.98 billion in non-investment programmes (Government of Ukraine, World Bank, European Union, United Nations, 2026[5]). Confirmed State Budget allocations and partner financing cover about USD5.77 billion, leaving an overall financing gap of approximately USD9.48 billion. RDNA5 also records that at least USD20.3 billion in needs have already been met since February 2022 through urgent repairs and early recovery measures, although the report notes uneven sectoral data on needs met. Compared with RDNA4, the 2026 prioritisation is more tightly aligned with the reformed public investment management (PIM) system: projects were screened for strategic alignment, readiness, and realistic financing prospects, and the previous treatment of state guarantees was corrected to avoid overstating needs (Government of Ukraine, the World Bank Group, the European Commission, and the United Nations, 2025[6]).

On the financing side, Ukraine’s infrastructure reconstruction and recovery needs will require considerable financing from international partners and investments from businesses as well as the state. The EU’s Ukraine Facility provides up to EUR 50 billion in 2024-2027 through a unified instrument tied to reforms and investment milestones, with an investment framework to crowd in private capital (European Commission, 2026[7]). The IMF’s Extended Fund Facility anchors macro-fiscal policy and supports budget financing (Ministry of Finance of Ukraine, 2026[8]). The recent reviews confirm continued programme implementation and the importance of PFM and PIM reforms for fiscal sustainability and reconstruction readiness.

These quantified needs and financing envelopes frame the practical constraints for PIM reform. Gatekeeping must occur before commitment, methods must be standardised and proportional to project risk, and data must be integrated across DREAM, budgeting, procurement and treasury systems so that scarce resources are allocated to projects with the highest strategic value and deliverability.

2.3. Strengthening core infrastructure governance functions

2.3.1. Strategic planning and portfolio prioritisation

Ukraine’s current planning and prioritisation framework is centred on the Strategic Investment Council and the Single Project Pipeline. The SIC provides a formal venue for applying cross-sector strategic filters before projects proceed to budget allocation. In practice, this has introduced a clearer distinction between broad reconstruction needs, the wider project pipeline, and the funded portfolio approved for budget support.

The project pipeline now sits within a more structured planning architecture. RDNA5 presents the 2026 priority programme as a filtered subset of broader recovery needs, and the reduced number of projects compared with the previous cycle reflects the operation of screening for strategic alignment, maturity and financing prospects. At the same time, sector and regional planning documents continue to feed project ideas into the national system.

The current framework combines several planning layers: national recovery and development priorities; sectoral strategies and programmes; regional and community recovery plans; and the state project pipeline managed through the new public investment procedures. The IGI Phase 1 survey recorded that Ukraine already used common prioritisation criteria and linked planning to budget allocations, and the reforms adopted since 2024 have placed those functions within a more explicit centre‑led portfolio process.

2.3.2. Project appraisal and selection

Project appraisal and selection are now governed through a more formalised lifecycle than in earlier years. CMU Resolution No. 903 of 9 August 2024 established the project proposal’s preparation, evaluation and grading procedure for the 2025 cycle, and the 2025 reform package further consolidated the public investment procedure through CMU Resolutions No. 294 and No. 527. These instruments organise projects around a sequence that runs from objective setting and identification to screening, appraisal, prioritisation, selection and implementation decision.

Under the current arrangements, project concepts are prepared and assessed before inclusion in the funded state portfolio, and project proposal grading results are recorded in DREAM. Feasibility requirements, cost modelling and risk analysis have also been progressively formalised through the public investment methodology and related secondary acts. This has given Ukraine a more standardised ex ante project entry process across sectors.

The IGI evidence presents this area as one where Ukraine had already established a relatively formal framework before the full-scale war. The Phase 1 survey recorded the existence of project appraisal methodologies, value‑for-money related procedures and an independent assessment function. The Phase 2 survey, meanwhile, showed that evidence use within appraisal was stronger in some elements of cost and benefit estimation than in ex post analysis and wider lifecycle evidence. Taken together, these survey results describe a system with formal appraisal architecture and an ongoing shift toward more standardised use of project data.

2.3.3. Pricing and benchmarking of infrastructure projects

Ukraine does not yet have a single, integrated reference‑price system for infrastructure projects. What exists is a layered regime that distinguishes between procurement objects and, within infrastructure, between civil works and non-construction inputs. Under the Public Procurement Law, “works” are defined broadly and include design documentation, new construction, reconstruction, overhaul, restoration and accompanying services included in the work cost estimate. For public procurement more generally, the Ministry of Economy’s Methodology No. 275 is the default tool for determining expected value, but it is explicitly recommendatory (Ministry of Development of Economy, Trade and Agriculture of Ukraine, 2020[9]). For goods and services, it relies on market comparison, open sources and prior procurement prices, and it recommends sending at least three written requests for quotations and working from at least three comparable prices.

For works, the regulatory regimes are different (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2005[10]), (Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine, 2022[11]). For works, contracting authorities divert away from generic quote collection and into sector-specific cost rules: non-road works are to be valued through approved design-and-estimate documentation under construction cost norms, while road works follow dedicated road-costing rules (Ministry of Restoration of Ukraine, 2023[12]). The civil-works component follows the construction-cost regime; separately procured non-construction components revert to the more decentralised goods/services regime.

For construction works, cost realism is assessed twice: during the project preparation (design costing) and at the contracting stage. Resolution No. 1512 requires price analysis by the customer when preparing investor estimate documentation and when agreeing the contract price. Where project documentation is prepared by the contractor, the contractor also performs the analysis, subject to agreement with the customer. In other words, the pricing check enters during project preparation/design-costing and then again when the contract price is formed. At contract-execution stage, the treatment depends on the contract-price regime:

• for dynamic-price contracts, settlements may reflect actual material costs but, once the database is operational, not above database averages where those exist

• for fixed-price contracts, settlements follow the prices embedded in the contract price (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2025[13]).

In practice, the customer’s investor estimate informs the expected value and procurement planning, but the legally operative price is the contract price agreed with the winning bidder, and for some design-build or design-later cases Ukrainian law now expressly envisages a later updated contract price, with updated material-price annexes disclosed once the design documentation is approved.

Hence, Ukraine’s infrastructure pricing regime remains legally segmented. Publicly financed civil works are moving towards a codified benchmarking architecture built around investor estimates, contract-price analysis, disclosure of material-resource prices, a construction-product codifier and an emerging state price database. Non-construction components of infrastructure remain largely under decentralised expected-value setting by contracting authorities. The reform trajectory is therefore substantial but partial: Ukraine is building the foundations of a public benchmark system for construction inputs, not yet a unified reference‑price system for infrastructure projects as a whole.

2.3.4. Procurement strategy and delivery model choice

Between project appraisal and tender launch, Ukraine’s infrastructure system relies on a set of decisions that determine how a project is taken to market. These include the choice of delivery model, the division of works into lots or contract packages, the allocation of design and implementation responsibilities, and the sequencing of procurement relative to permitting, land and technical preparation. In institutional terms, these decisions are taken by contracting authorities, line ministries, sector agencies, local authorities and state‑owned enterprises within the framework of public procurement law and sector-specific project preparation rules.

For most public infrastructure investment, the prevailing route remains conventional public procurement through ProZorro, with the contracting authority preparing technical documentation and procuring works, services or supplies under the standard procurement framework. Within that route, delivery strategy choices are expressed through the design of tender packages, qualification requirements, contract structure, award criteria and the timing of market engagement. In larger or more complex projects, those choices also interact with donor rules, wartime derogations, and the technical maturity of the project at the point of tendering.

Ukraine’s legal framework also provides for alternative delivery arrangements, including concessions and public-private partnerships. The PPP and concession framework has been revised in recent years, and the public investment management reform increasingly treats delivery model choice as part of upstream project preparation rather than as a purely downstream contracting decision. In practice, however, the main body of reconstruction-related infrastructure procurement continues to move through public contracting authorities, state agencies, municipal entities and SOEs using standard procurement channels.

The IGI evidence is relevant here in two ways. Phase 1 survey responses indicated that formal value‑for-money and appraisal procedures were present for both PPP and non-PPP projects. Phase 2 survey results, meanwhile, showed that Ukraine used evidence in parts of the procurement process, but that evidence use across the full infrastructure lifecycle remained uneven. Read together, these survey findings suggest that delivery strategy and procurement design are now increasingly situated within the broader project lifecycle, while still depending heavily on the capacity of individual contracting authorities and sector institutions.

2.3.5. Permitting and environmental compliance

Permitting in Ukraine’s infrastructure system sits at the intersection of urban planning, land use, environmental assessment, technical construction approvals and administrative processing. The legal architecture includes the Law on Regulation of Urban Development Activities, the Law on Strategic Environmental Assessment, the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, construction norms and related permitting procedures. This means that permitting is embedded in several linked legal and administrative tracks rather than in a single infrastructure‑specific code.

Recent reforms have placed more of this compliance architecture earlier in the project cycle. CMU Resolution No. 430 of 2 May 2023 established the Unified Register of Strategic Environmental Assessment, giving strategic and programme‑level environmental screening a clearer administrative basis. At project level, environmental impact assessment and public consultation remain part of the route to implementation for relevant projects, while urban planning and construction approvals continue to be managed through dedicated legal channels.

Digitalisation has become a visible feature of the permitting environment. The Unified State Electronic System in the Construction Sector provides the core electronic channel for construction-related administrative services, while the eDozvil initiative introduces a more risk-based approach to licensing and permitting workflows. The urban development cadastre and associated geoportals form part of the information base that increasingly connects planning, construction and project registration systems.

2.3.6. Multi-level infrastructure planning

A substantial share of infrastructure recovery planning is organised through regional and local government channels. CMU Resolution No. 1159 of 14 October 2022 established the procedure for comprehensive recovery programmes, including consultation requirements, while CMU Resolution No. 731 of 18 July 2023 set out the preparation, implementation and monitoring procedures for regional and community recovery and development plans. These instruments place subnational planning within the broader reconstruction architecture.

Through these arrangements, oblasts and hromadas play a central role in identifying local needs, preparing project lists and feeding investment proposals into wider sectoral and state‑level portfolios. This is consistent with the organisation of service delivery in Ukraine, where municipalities and communal enterprises remain central actors in water, heat, sanitation, local roads, housing-related investments and much of social infrastructure.

The regional dimension of the reform has also been accompanied by training and methodological outreach. Materials used for the public investment management reform and related regional workshops indicate that the new lifecycle approach is being translated for subnational users through standardised methods, project preparation training and integration with DREAM-based reporting and registration processes.

2.4. Enabling functions supporting infrastructure governance

2.4.1. Medium-term budgeting and allocation discipline

The 2025 Budget Code amendments repositioned budgeting as an enabling control on the infrastructure lifecycle rather than the main point at which projects first enter the system. The Ministry of Finance’s gatekeeping role now sits alongside the SIC’s portfolio role, and access to budget financing is tied more directly to prior selection and registration requirements. The revised framework also reduced the earlier role of parliamentary project-line allocation in shaping the capital portfolio.

Medium-term budgeting has re‑emerged as the fiscal anchor for infrastructure planning through the Budget Declaration 2025-2027. This provides a multi-year reference point for sequencing projects, distinguishing ongoing commitments from new starts, and aligning annual budget preparation with a broader capital planning horizon. CMU Resolution No. 232 of 28 February 2025 further operationalises the selection and allocation process for public investment resources within the renewed framework.

The IGI Phase 1 survey recorded an institutional setting in which alignment between planning and budget allocations was already a visible feature of the Ukrainian system. The post-2024 reforms have built on that feature by tying budget access more explicitly to the renewed project lifecycle, fiscal ceilings and portfolio approval procedures.

2.4.2. Digitalisation of the infrastructure pipeline (DREAM)

DREAM now functions as the central digital registry and management environment for the public investment pipeline. Its role has expanded from a transparency-oriented platform into a core administrative instrument of the infrastructure governance system. The 2025 legislative changes confirm its place in the state public investment framework, while CMU Order No. 588‑r of 18 June 2024 sets the direction for its integration with budget, treasury and procurement systems.

In operational terms, DREAM is used to register projects, record concept-grading results, structure project records through the lifecycle and provide a public-facing information layer on the pipeline. It therefore sits at the point where planning, appraisal, budgeting and monitoring information can be connected through a single system of record.

The IGI Phase 2 survey is consistent with this evolution. It recorded the existence of a digital platform for project information and showed that, within Ukraine’s evidence architecture, the use of information is more established for strategic planning and selected appraisal tasks than for infrastructure management over the full asset lifecycle. DREAM’s current role reflects that pattern: it is already central to upstream portfolio visibility and is progressively being linked to downstream execution systems.

2.4.3. Stakeholder participation, transparency and oversight

Stakeholder participation in Ukraine’s infrastructure system is embedded through several channels rather than through a single infrastructure‑specific participation framework. Public consultation is required in strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment procedures, consultation provisions are included in the rules for comprehensive recovery programmes, and public information on projects is increasingly available through DREAM and open-data based monitoring tools.

The IGI Phase 2 survey described this arrangement as one built on general participation provisions, documented consultation practices and established grievance or oversight mechanisms. It also recorded that stakeholder oversight was more institutionalised than infrastructure‑specific participation guidance. In practical terms, this means that Ukraine’s current participation landscape combines legal consultation requirements, appeals and audit channels, civil-society procurement monitoring and an expanding public information environment around reconstruction projects.

Transparency and oversight also operate through institutions outside the project sponsor chain. The Accounting Chamber and the State Audit Service review expenditure and compliance. The existing anti-corruption institutions monitor risks in reconstruction-related processes. DOZORRO and similar civic tools use public procurement data to support external scrutiny. Finally, the international partners apply their own fiduciary and safeguard requirements where projects are co-financed. Together, these arrangements form the current transparency and assurance environment surrounding infrastructure delivery.

2.5. Overall state of affairs

Taken together, Ukraine’s current infrastructure governance system is organised around a clearer lifecycle than in earlier years. Strategic planning and prioritisation are now anchored more explicitly at the centre of government; project appraisal and selection are governed through more standardised procedures; environmental and permitting requirements are increasingly linked to earlier stages of project development; subnational planning has been formalised through dedicated recovery instruments; and budgeting, digital registration and oversight functions are more tightly connected to the project pipeline.

The chapter therefore describes a system in transition from a more fragmented and annualised investment environment toward a portfolio-based reconstruction framework with defined institutions, procedures and digital infrastructure. That framework now combines central steering, sector management, subnational origination, state‑owned enterprise investment, medium-term fiscal controls, and a common digital project environment. These are the principal current features of infrastructure governance in Ukraine at the planning-to-delivery stage.

References

[13] Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (2025), Some features of determining the cost of construction under martial law (Resolution No. 1512 from November 19, 2025). Database “Legislation of Ukraine”..

[10] Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (2005), On approval of the General conditions for the conclusion and execution of contracts in capital construction (Resolution No. 668). Database “Legislation of Ukraine”.

[2] DOZORRO (n.d.), Громадський контроль держзакупівель, https://dozorro.org/.

[7] European Commission (2026), The Ukraine Facility.

[3] Fiscal Policy Research Centre (2025), Monitoring Dashboard on the Projects Implemented with the Funding from IFIs, https://fiscalcenter.org/project/monitoring-mfo/.

[6] Government of Ukraine, the World Bank Group, the European Commission, and the United Nations (2025), Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA4), https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2025/02/25/updated-ukraine-recovery-and-reconstruction-needs-assessment-released.

[5] Government of Ukraine, World Bank, European Union, United Nations (2026), Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA5).

[9] Ministry of Development of Economy, Trade and Agriculture of Ukraine (2020), On approval of the model methodology for determining the expected value of the subject of procurement (Order No. 275 from 2020, February 18). Database “Legislation of Ukraine”.

[4] Ministry of Finance (2024), Roadmap for Reforming Public Investment Management System.

[8] Ministry of Finance of Ukraine (2026), Extended Fund Facility.

[11] Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine (2022), On approval of the methodology for determining the cost of road works and services for determining the cost of new construction, reconstruction, repairs and operational maintenance of public roads.

[12] Ministry of Restoration of Ukraine (2023), Another update of the database of prices for road-building materials: key changes over the month..

[1] OECD (2025), OECD Integrity and Anti-Corruption Review of Ukraine, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-integrity-and-anti-corruption-review-of-ukraine_7dbe965b-en.html.