This chapter discusses Ukraine's citizen and stakeholder participation landscape, mapping non-electoral citizen participation practices at national, and, to some extent, local levels. It reviews relevant legal, policy and institutional frameworks in place, alongside ongoing governance reforms aimed at fostering more meaningful participation in public life. The chapter highlights Ukraine's significant efforts to strengthen citizen participation. It also identifies opportunities to streamline consultation processes, leverage reforms to adopt innovative participation practices, and build public sector capacities to deliver high-quality participation opportunities. It also discusses pathways to a more co-ordinated and institutionalised approach to participation in the post-war reconstruction processes, to enhance public trust in government, deliver more informed and effective policies, and foster social cohesion.
Public Governance Review of Ukraine
Abstract
Engaging citizens in crisis-affected situations – when adopting a context-sensitive approach and following the Do No Harm principle – can reinforce government legitimacy and strengthen the social contract (Grandvoinnet and Chasara, 2019[1]). Meaningful citizen participation can also lead to better policy outcomes and greater public acceptance, which is particularly vital in complex decision-making contexts involving significant trade-offs (Kim, Shim and Park, 2021[2]; Kostyuchenko, Reidl and Wüstenhagen, 2024[3]). Building a culture of citizen and stakeholder participation is also relevant in the long-term, as it builds citizens’ trust in government and can promote a more resilient and adaptive public sector (OECD, 2024[4]; OECD, 2024[5]).
This chapter discusses citizen participation in the policy cycle in Ukraine since 1991. The first section defines key concepts, in line with the OECD Recommendation on Open Government and the OECD’s wider work on citizen and stakeholder participation and deliberation. The second section discusses the enabling environment for citizen participation in Ukraine, focusing on existing legal and institutional frameworks, ongoing governance reforms, policies and strategies. This includes the adoption of the 2024 Law on Public Consultations (No. 3841-IX), – to come into effect twelve months after martial law is lifted –, amendments to the Law on Local Self-Government (No. 3703-IX) as well as progress on broader policy frameworks of relevance. This section also discusses the broader infrastructure of citizen participation, including roles and responsibilities across the public sector, and efforts to foster a culture of participation among public officials. The third section provides an overview of citizen and stakeholder participation practices in Ukraine today, including the most frequently used forms and mechanisms used, the policy stages and issues for which participation is used, and the uptake of innovative technologies. Throughout the chapter, examples from OECD countries and cases where citizen participation was leveraged in post-conflict reconstruction efforts are mentioned.
The Chapter finds that Ukraine has made significant advancements to develop a strong enabling environment for participation and implement innovative participation practices. It also recognises Ukraine's ambitious citizen participation efforts, including the development of whole of government legislation, adoption of digital participation tools, and piloting of deliberative democracy. Further, it finds that, although different regions of Ukraine will have varying capacities to implement participatory processes due to security concerns, there is scope to streamline practices and provide more opportunities for citizens to be engaged across the policy cycle to foster greater public trust in government and deliver more effective policies and services. It also highlights that the implementation of participation priorities through the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development and the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Action Plans, as well as sectoral and local policies, remains fragmented. This is particularly so regarding setting clear priorities for participation reforms, standardising practices across the public administration, and reconciling different legislative requirements. It recommends that Ukraine could develop a more co-ordinated unified and strategic approach to the promotion of citizen participation, including through enlarging the scope of the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development.
Adapting Citizen Participation in Ukraine to Sustain Democratic Resilience
Over the past three decades, Ukrainians have demonstrated a strong commitment to democratic values (Schmäing, 2023[6]; Dembitskyi, 2024[7]; Goodwin et al., 2023[8]).The desire of Ukrainians to live in a well-functioning and accountable democracy has been manifest throughout the country’s post-Soviet history, including during pivotal moments including the Orange Revolution (2004) and the Revolution of Dignity, or Euromaidan Revolution (2014) (Schmäing, 2023[6]; Dembitskyi, 2024[7]; Goodwin et al., 2023[8]).
Despite periods of democratic backsliding since 1991, the country’s trajectory is marked by reforms to strengthen democratic institutions and give way to more opportunities for citizen participation in the policymaking cycle and in public decision-making. This includes for instance the 2014 decentralisation reforms – especially regarding amendments to the administrative subdivisions of Ukraine, including oblasts, raions and ‘hromadas’ – which were pivotal to stronger democratic institutions and the provision of more meaningful opportunities for citizens to take part in public decisions (Schmäing, 2023[6]). Such efforts are also cited as one of the driving forces behind the country’s active civil society and consistently resilient and cohesive civic space in the context of the Russian invasion (Szostek and Toremark, 2025[9]).
Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and full-scale invasion in 2022 have nonetheless posed substantial challenges to Ukraine’s democratic governance system. Citizen participation exercises and engagement with civil society groups have largely transitioned online due to security concerns. Reduced capacities and resources in the public sector have also translated to lower capacities to implement participatory processes.
The current situation juxtaposes Ukraine’s democratic aspirations and the practical challenges of maintaining citizen participation processes in a wartime context. On one hand, some have pointed to the current context as a crucial opportunity to intensify Ukraine’s commitment to democratic governance and aligning with European democratic values. On the other hand, others point to practical security and capacity concerns, raising questions over the feasibility of institutional transparency under wartime conditions and capacities to drive participatory processes in a crisis period. Looking forward, the resilience of Ukraine’s democratic institutions and the successful implementation of democratic reforms, including those promoting more meaningful citizen participation in public decision-making, will be critical in shaping its post-war trajectory.
Despite the ongoing war and introduction of martial law, citizen participation in Ukraine has proven to be resilient. According to data from the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers (SCMU), the number of public consultation events, which dropped significantly in 2022 to 1,463 – reflecting the initial impact of Russia’s full-scale aggression – rebounded in 2024 to 2,792, surpassing pre-war levels recorded in 2021 (2,780 events).1The Ukrainian government has also proactively adapted participatory mechanisms to wartime conditions by strengthening its digital capacities (see sections below). Cross-government efforts have also led to the development of online participation platforms, ensuring the continuation of virtual consultations on draft legislation (See Table 4.2). The number of advisory bodies has also continued to grow; by the end of 2023, 410 youth councils were established (an increase of 55 during the war), along with over 1000 councils for internally displaced persons (Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine, 2024[10]; Verkhovna Rada, 2024[11]).
At the same time, the introduction of specific legal restrictions under martial law has impacted certain aspects of participation. Notably, amendments to a Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers (No. 996 ‘On Ensuring Public Participation in the Formation and Implementation of State Policy’) introduced two important limitations: public council members may be restricted from accessing executive body premises and involving employees in their work, and the executive body of each public council may decide to not publish all or some of the information on their activities during martial law (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2022[12]). While these precautionary measures are in place to protect citizens from becoming targets during the war, they can also limit CSO and citizens’ access to information on public council activities, including regarding their recommendations on broader participation opportunities.
At a broader level, international security imperatives pose important questions over Ukraine’s ability to prioritise citizen participation exercises in the medium term. Ukraine has an increasingly depleted workforce, and foreign aid plays a significant role in sustaining core governance functions, including citizen participation (OECD, 2024[13]; IMF, 2023[14]; CEPR, 2025[15]). International organisations including the Council of Europe, the European Union, UNDEF, and the International Renaissance Foundation are playing a crucial role in funding and facilitating these participation opportunities. As global priorities shift towards security and defence spending, particularly as of February 2025, concerns arise on the sustainability of participatory mechanisms funded by international actors. These concerns raise critical questions on how the public sector will be able to maintain and institutionalise ongoing citizen participation initiatives with reduced financial support. It also raises questions over the ability of CSOs currently receiving temporary international aid to engage in government processes in the long term. This chapter acknowledges such a context in its analysis of Ukraine’s broader institutional, administrative and technical capacities to propose recommendations for strengthening the resilience and institutionalisation of participation mechanisms in Ukraine.
Promoting citizen participation for more effective polices, stronger trust in government, and more robust democratic institutions
Citizen participation throughout the policy cycle can deepen the relationship between governments and the public they serve and, when done appropriately in contexts of active conflict, can improve social cohesion, build public acceptance around difficult policy decisions, and resolve tensions between conflicting population groups (Grandvoinnet and Chasara, 2019[16]; Kostyuchenko, Reidl and Wüstenhagen, 2024[3]).
As seen in Figure 4.1 involving citizens and stakeholders throughout the whole policy cycle can enhance the impact of their contributions and ensure they can meaningfully shape policies.
At a broader level, the OECD categorises the benefits of participation as intrinsic or instrumental (OECD, 2016[17]):
Intrinsic benefits refer to the inherent values that arise from engaging citizens in democratic processes. They can include, for example, citizens’ sense of political influence and sense of collective responsibility, all which influence their trust in government. Intrinsic benefits can also refer to citizens’ increased political awareness and democratic values. Further, citizen participation can lead to more democratic legitimacy of decision-making processes.
Instrumental benefits refer to the tangible effects or outcomes that result from involving citizens in the policy cycle. Such benefits can include improved policy effectiveness, as policies and services are better informed by the varied needs of all population groups. Participation can also lead to greater policy efficiency, as engaging citizens early in the policy cycle can prevent costly policy failures and ensure effective resource allocation. Finally, citizen participation can ensure increased compliance by citizens, who are more likely to support policies they have helped develop.
Recent evidence shows that citizens’ sense of political agency is more important to building trust in government than any other socio-economic and demographic characteristics, reiterating a well-established link between political trust and the feeling of having a say in policy decision making (OECD, 2024[4]). Comparative findings show that, after increasing trust levels following the start of the war, citizens’ trust in government in Ukraine has now fallen back to lower, pre-war levels and below the OECD average (see Chapter 1). The diversification of citizen participation mechanisms beyond electoral and direct participation – including public consultations, participatory budgets, and deliberative assemblies – has been a common response across democratic governments to engage a broader set of the population, boost citizen trust and buy-in, and deliver more effective policy decisions. As seen in Table 4.2, the government in Ukraine has developed several mechanisms to enable citizens and stakeholders to be involved in the policymaking cycle.
Further, OECD findings also show growing citizen demand to be engaged in the policymaking cycle beyond elections (OECD, 2022[18]; OECD, 2024[5]) . In fact, as democracies evolve, education rates increase, and governments face growingly complex policy challenges, citizens’ have higher expectations about being involved in shaping public policies and services (OECD, 2024[5]). Multiple avenues exist for citizens to be involved in public policy- and decision making in Ukraine, both through institutionalised mechanisms, including referendums, and government-issued mechanisms such as citizen assemblies and consultations, and non-institutionalised channels. To capture the breadth and depth of citizen participation in decision-making processes, the (forthcoming) OECD Citizen Participation Barometer (CPB) provides the following classification:
Representative decision-making: Refers to the process of periodically electing representatives to take decisions on behalf of citizens. This includes, for instance, regular national elections.
Direct decision-making: Concerns institutionalised processes by which citizens of a country register their choice or opinion on specific issues directly at the ballot box through universal and secret vote, other than through legislative and executive elections. It encompasses popular initiatives, optional and obligatory referendums, and plebiscites.2
Participatory decision-making: Refers to non-binding participatory practices, such as online consultations, that governments employ to collect citizens inputs in the process of informing – for instance – the formulation of laws, regulations, and public budgets.
Deliberative decision-making: Includes government-initiated processes (e.g., Citizens Assemblies) where a randomly selected group of citizens that is broadly representative of their community spends significant time learning and collaborating through facilitated deliberation to develop informed, collective recommendations for public authorities. Such recommendations are then considered during the policy formulation stage by public authorities.
This chapter focuses only on citizen and non-public stakeholder – e.g., civil society, academia, the private sector – participation in participatory and deliberative processes.
The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government
The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (Hereafter the Recommendation) defines open government as “a culture of governance that promotes the principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and citizen and stakeholder participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth”. In it, citizen participation is defined as “all the ways in which (citizens and) stakeholders can be involved in the policy cycle and in service design and delivery”. Provision 8 and 9 of the Recommendation invites Adherents to “Grant all stakeholders equal and fair opportunities to be informed and consulted and actively engage them in all phases of the policy-cycle”, and “Promote innovative ways to effectively engage with stakeholders to source ideas and co-create solutions”.
Participation is a spectrum, with different levels of involvement and impact
The OECD acknowledges that participation includes a wide range of modalities and degrees of expected involvement from citizens and impact on decisions. It distinguishes between three levels of citizen and stakeholder participation:
Information: an initial level of participation characterised by a one-way relationship in which the government produces and delivers information to the public. It covers both on-demand provision of information and “proactive” measures by the government to disseminate information. This level of participation can refer to for example, open data platforms or public communication campaigns.
Consultation: a more advanced level of participation that entails a two-way relationship in which the public provides feedback to the government and vice-versa. It is based on the prior definition of the issue for which views are being sought and requires the provision of relevant information, in addition to feedback on the outcomes of the process. In most cases, there is no obligation to take the views of the audience into consideration when amending plans, making decisions or setting directions. In most consultation meetings, decision makers commit only to receiving the testimony of participants and considering their views in their own deliberations. Examples include public consultations on draft legislation or consultative bodies on technical questions.
Engagement: when the public is given the opportunity and the necessary resources to collaborate during all phases of the policy-cycle and in service design and delivery. Engagement is a relationship based on a partnership between citizens and governments. The public is an active part of defining the process and content of policymaking. Like consultation, engagement is based on a two-way interaction, but acknowledges equal standing for citizens in setting the agenda, proposing policy options and shaping the decisions – although the responsibility for the final decision or policy formulation often rests on public authorities. Examples include representative deliberative processes or local participatory budgets.
For the purposes of this chapter, citizens and stakeholders are understood as:
Citizens: individuals, and in the larger sense ' inhabitants of a particular place', which can be in reference to a village, town, city, region, state, or country depending on the context.
Stakeholders: any interested and/or affected party, including non-government institutions and organisations from civil society, academia, the media or the private sector.
Source: (OECD, 2017[19])
Citizen participation in Ukraine is vital not only to ensure democratic legitimacy and enable more effective policy delivery in the short term, but also to lead to more durable post-war reconstruction efforts that involve a wide range of groups in society. Citizens are experts of their own stories, needs, and cultural heritage, which is of particular importance as many heritage sites and cultural landscapes have been destroyed during the war (UNESCO, 2022[20]). Participation processes than involve a wide range of people and groups in society can enable local communities to identify and protect local markers of history, resiliency and identity, ensuring reconstruction efforts reflect local narratives (Ashworth, Graham and Tunbridge, 2007[21]). Citizen participation can also help forge a renewed narrative rooted in resilience, dignity, and unity, countering political polarisation and divisiveness (UNDP, 2022[22]). Similar lessons have emerged, for instance, from the National Conferences in several African countries in the early 1990s, where citizens’ dialogues in post-conflict reconstruction efforts helped foster more democratic institutions and gave legitimacy to new political frameworks (Wing, 2008[23]). Citizen participation in Ukraine can play a comparable role, acting as a unifying force to build trust between society and the state.
To fully realise this potential, an enabling environment for citizen and stakeholder participation is essential. This requires setting the legislative, procedural, and institutional conditions for more effective and meaningful participation processes. At a broader level, it also involves promoting and protecting a thriving civic space, although this is beyond the scope of this chapter.
Strengthening the legislative basis for citizen participation in Ukraine
Legally established citizen and stakeholder participation mandates are essential to the development of participation mechanisms and to building consensus across the public administration around participation rights and obligations. They can also be powerful incentives for public institutions to engage citizens and stakeholders in the policy cycle. As seen in Figure 4.2, most OECD countries have established legislative provisions to promote citizen participation. As discussed in the following sections, Ukraine includes legislative provisions to handle citizens’ complaints, engage citizens and stakeholders in policymaking and service delivery, launch referenda or other forms of direct democracy, and enable citizens and stakeholders to launch petitions.
Note: N=38. The figure represents percentages of OECD countries and Ukraine including types of legislative provisions related to citizen and stakeholder participation.
Source: 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government; Ukraine data collected in 2024 and 2025.
In Ukraine, citizen participation is embedded in Article 38 of the Constitution, which states that “Citizens have the right to participate in the administration of state affairs, in All-Ukrainian and local referendums, to freely elect and to be elected to bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government”. A range of laws and resolutions have been passed to enable the implementation of Article 38, institutionalising citizen participation within the Ukrainian public administration. This section analyses such normative frameworks (see Box 4.2 for an overview) as well as ongoing reforms to be implemented after the Martial law has been lifted.
Constitution of Ukraine, adopted by the Verkhovna Rada on 28 June 1996
The Ukrainian constitution establishes a right for citizens to participate in the policymaking process via:
Article 38: “Citizens have the right to participate in the administration of state affairs, in All-Ukrainian and local referendums, to freely elect and to be elected to bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government.”
Article 106: “The president of Ukraine [...] creates, within the limits of the funds envisaged in the State Budget of Ukraine, consultative, advisory and other subsidiary bodies.”
Resolutions promoting citizen participation
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, 2010, No. 996, on Ensuring Public Participation in the Formation and Implementation of State Policy: Establishes a procedure for executive bodies at the national level to conduct public consultations to inform state policy. Following this procedure is mandatory at the national level, and recommended for local government. Further, it sets procedural requirements and methods to conducting public consultations with the wider public, including the requirement for all executive bodies to include a public consultation page in their websites. The resolution also outlines the types of policy decisions triggering mandatory consultations. It also sets a requirement for each ministry, central executive body, Council of Ministers, and local authority to establish a Public Council, formed by members of civil society organisations, to be consulted as part of the policymaking cycle
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers on Conducting Consultations of Executive Authorities with Representative Bodies of Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine, 2022, No. 1018: Approves a procedure for conducting public consultations with representative bodies of indigenous peoples of Ukraine in the preparation of draft normative and other acts related to the rights and interests of indigenous peoples of Ukraine. Following this procedure is mandatory for executive authorities and recommended at the local government level.
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, 2022, No. 90 on the Procedure for Conducting a Survey on Initiatives Aimed at Solving Public Administration Issues in Various Spheres of Public Life on the Unified State Web Portal of Electronic Services: Defines a mechanism for conducting online surveys on administrative services. The resolution defines such a survey as a tool to assess public opinion on public services and policies. It states this is not a vote, election or consultation. Surveys are conducted through the Diia online portal.
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers on Approval of the Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2007, No. 950: Sets a requirement for the Cabinet of Ministers to involve trade unions, and all-Ukrainian associations of employers' organisations in decision-making on issues related to the formation and implementation of state social and economic policy, regulation of labour, social, and economic relations.
Resolution of the Cabinet on Approval of the Procedure for Development, Public Discussion, Approval of Programmes for the Comprehensive Restoration of the Region, the Territory of the Territorial Community (Its Part) and Amendments to Them, 2022, No. 1159: Sets a requirement to include stakeholders and the general public in programmes for the comprehensive restoration of the region through the inclusion of representatives in consultative bodies of between 5 and 21 members to advise on these programmes. It does not specify how such representatives are selected.
Resolution of the Cabinet On the Procedure for Publication on the Internet of Information on the Activities of Executive Authorities, 2002 No. 3: Outlines the procedure for publishing information about the activities of executive authorities on the Internet, including by mandating regular updates of official websites and the Unified Web Portal, setting responsibilities for setting up portals (Ministry of Digital Transformation, and for monitoring activities (Ministry of Culture and Strategic Communications).
Resolution of the Cabinet On the formation of regional councils of entrepreneurs in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, regions, mm. Kyiv and Sevastopol, 2011 No. 526: Promotes the formation of regional councils composed of business associations, entrepreneurs and other relevant entities to inform state regulatory policies and entrepreneurship development.
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers On Certain Issues of Developing Regional Development Strategies and Action Plans for Their Implementation and Conducting Monitoring of Such Strategies and Action Plans, 2023 No 816: Sets a procedure for ensuring public consultations and discussions on draft regional development strategies or action plans. To obtain the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories’ (MDCT) opinion on compliance with all requirements, the responsible entities must submit the results of the public discussion of the draft regional development strategy or its action plan.
Resolutions on social accountability mechanisms
Resolution of the Cabinet On Approval of the Procedure for Facilitating the Public Examination of the Activities of Executive Authorities, 2008 No. 976: Sets a procedure for civil society organisations to take part in social accountability activities, including by conducting a public examination of the activities of executive authorities.
Resolution of the Cabinet On Issues of Anti-Discrimination Expertise and Public Anti-Discrimination Expertise of Draft Regulations Laws 2025, No. 322: Sets a procedure for non-government actors, including public councils, to conduct public anti-discrimination examinations on draft laws, acts of the President, and other normative legal acts developed by executive authorities.
Laws on citizen and stakeholder participation
Law on Public Consultations, 2024, No. 3841-IX: Adopted to streamline the involvement of interested parties in the process of preparing, conducting, and following up on public consultations to inform all stages of the policy cycle at a national and local level. The Law will come into effect 12 months after the termination of martial law.
Law on the All-Ukrainian Referendum, 2021, 1135-IX: Defines the legal basis for the exercise of Ukrainian citizens’ will through a referendum. It also sets the procedures for initiating, calling, preparing and conducting a referendum.
Law on Local Self-Government, 1997, No. 280/97-VR: Sets a requirement for local authorities to consult with citizens via referendums, hearings, public consultations, and other methods as part of the policymaking cycle. It also establishes a requirement for local level authorities to form consultative bodies composed by citizens.
Law On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding Democracy at the Local Self-Government level, No. 3703-IX: Introduces definitions for specific participation mechanisms and establishes the processes by which they should be conducted, including citizen conferences, public hearings, participatory budgeting, and public consultations. It also sets a requirement for the development of local-level consultative bodies conformed by citizens, and promotes youth participation. It also expanded the definition of the term “resident” to include internally displaced persons with a certificate of registration in order to enable them to take part in participation opportunities at the local level. The aim of such amendments is to promote citizens' participation rights at the local self-government level, further involve them in local self-government decisions and strengthen trust in local councils.
Law on the Principles of State Regulatory Policy in the Field of Economic Activity, 2004, No. 1160-IV: Establishes the right of citizens, business entities, associations, scientific institutions and advisory bodies to participate in the development of draft regulatory acts, including by submitting proposals and taking part in consultations.
Law on Citizens Appeals, 1996, No. 393/96-VR: Regulates the process by which Ukrainian citizens can submit proposals, complaints, and petitions to public authorities. A Draft Amendment to this Law was received by the Verkhovna Rada in September 2024.
Law on Access to Public Information, 2011, No.32939-VI: Defines the procedure for exercising and ensuring the right of everyone to access information held by public authorities, other holders of public information as defined by this Law, and information of public interest.
Law On the Basic Principles of Youth Policy, 2021, No. 1414-IX: Establishes a framework for youth policy and guarantees the participation of young people and youth organisations in the formation and implementation of that policy. It requires authorities to involve youth in decision-making on matters affecting them through for instance consultations and representation in advisory bodies such as youth councils.
Law about Public Associations, 2013, No. 3257-IX: Regulates the creation, operation, and rights of public associations, including their right to submit proposals, join consultations, and contribute to drafting laws and policies through advisory bodies and mandatory consultations on key issues.
Law On Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of Activity, 1999 No. 1045-XVI: Establishes the legal framework for the creation, rights, and guarantees of activity of trade unions in Ukraine, including their participation in relevant government decisions. It also obliges public authorities and employers to consult trade unions and involve them in oversight mechanisms related to employment.
Law About Professional Creative Workers and Creative Unions, 1997, No. 2849-IX: Sets the legal status, organisation, state support (including registration and funding mechanisms) and rights for professional creative workers and their creative unions, including their right to participate relevant in government decisions.
Source: (Verkhovna Rada, 1996[24]); (Verkhovna Rada, 2010[25]); (Verkhovna Rada, 1997[26]); (Verkhovna Rada, 2022[27]); (Verkhovna Rada, 2022[28]); (Verkhovna Rada, 2023[29]) (Verkhovna Rada, 2024[30]); (Verkhovna Rada, 2004[31]) (Rada, 2007[32]) (Verkhovna Rada, 1996[33]) (Verkhovna Rada, 2011[34]) (Verkhovna Rada, 2025[35]; Verkhovna Rada, 1991[36]; Verkhovna Rada, 1997[37])
The main regulatory document on citizen participation at the national level – until the new Law of Ukraine ‘On Public Consultations’ enters into force – is Resolution No. 996 of 2010, which sets a framework for public participation to inform state policies. It also provides the SCMU with a regulatory mandate to ensure the co-ordination of executive authorities in their compliance with democratic standards, including regarding their interactions with the public (Verkhovna Rada, 2020[38]).
In addition to setting broader participation requirements, Resolution No. 996 also sets a framing for strengthening public sector capacities regarding setting advisory bodies and enabling dialogue with non-government actors. For instance, it requires that each ministry, central executive body, Council of Ministers, and regional authority establish a Public Council (PC) (see Box 4.15), including members of civil society organisations, and recommends officials to meet with councils twice a year and support their continued operation. These PCs complement participation processes in Ukraine. In addition, the resolution outlines procedural requirements to plan, conduct and report on public consultations, including a requirement for each public authority to publish consultation opportunities in a dedicated page of their own official websites. It sets minimum durations for consultations and outlines the steps to plan and implement consultations. Public authorities are also recommended to prepare an annual consultations plan (referred to as indicative plan) including all planned consultation activities, to which civil society organisations can submit proposals. The Resolution also outlines consultation methods and sets mandatory requirement to consult citizens on specific public decisions. These include those related to the constitutional rights, freedoms and duties of citizens, development of policies that are of ‘vital interest’ to citizens – although a definition is not clarified in the text –, the preparation of strategic documents (e.g., regional programmes), and changes in the provision of administrative services. It also sets a requirement to consult citizens regarding proposed changes related to regulatory activities, legal status of public associations, benefits or restrictions to businesses and CSOs, and budget expenditure.
The Law on Public Consultations, adopted by the Verkhovna Rada in 2024 and set to come into effect twelve months after the end of martial law, represents a broader systemic change in Ukraine. Its adoption reflects an interest to both harmonise participation processes across the public administration and align with guidance from international actors including the OSCE, the OECD and the EU, which were involved its early drafting stages. See Box 4.3 for the main elements of the Law.
Main components of the Law on Public Consultations of Ukraine
Defining public consultation
Articles 1 and 4 of the Law on Public Consultations formally defines the scope of public consultations and establishes principles to implement consultation exercises, including those of participation, openness, transparency, accessibility, accountability, effectiveness, and proportionality. It also provides definitions for key aspects of the participation process.
Identifying stakeholders and clarifying responsibilities within public administration
Articles 1, 2, 3 5 and 6 provide a definition for citizens and stakeholders that may be involved in participatory processes, outlining their rights to receive information, submit proposals and participate in consultations. They also clarify the public bodies that are subject to the Law, broadening the scope of Resolution No. 996 of 2010. Further, they acknowledge other regulations that are pertinent to citizen participation in Ukraine and provide clarity for which legally mandated procedure takes precedent depending on specific cases.
Setting procedural requirements and defining participation mechanisms
Articles 7 -15 codify a set of procedures or conducting public consultations and establish definitions for specific participation mechanisms, providing a legal basis for the introduction of an online platform for public consultations. Article 16 defines the conditions where a consultation should not take place. Finally, Article 17 also lays out how public consultation should be co-ordinated.
Building accountability mechanisms regarding the implementation of public consultations
Articles 18 – 20 outline the consequences for not following public consultation procedures, provide guidance on reporting on public consultation results, and set a requirement for monitoring the consultations process.
Source: (Verkhovna Rada, 2024[30])
As outlined in Box 4.3, a number of mechanisms for participation are defined in the Law, including:
Electronic Consultations: Primary and mandatory form of public consultation in Ukraine, to be conducted via a unified online platform (in development) or official websites of public authorities. Citizens and stakeholders can submit proposals, respond to questionnaires, and track consultation processes and outcomes through this mechanism.
Targeted consultations: Optional consultations aimed at specific population groups. These consultations serve to gather expert opinions or feedback from those directly affected by a public decision. Methods to conduct these consultations can include surveys, written requests for feedback, or focus groups.
Public discussions: Open, frequently in person or hybrid events for broader public engagement. These are typically used for decisions affecting constitutional rights or issues of significant public interest (e.g., the environment). They can take place in the form of public hearings, roundtables, conferences or townhall meetings.
CSO consultations: This refers to engagement of CSOs who may represent collective interests or support the government to broaden participation, acting as intermediaries between the public and authorities.
Expert consultations: In-depth consultations with subject matter experts to ensure technical soundness and feasibility of proposed policies. They may take place as closed expert panels, advisory boards, or commissioned studies.
Consultations initiated by citizens or stakeholders: These can take place through petitions or formal requests to public authorities, who are required to respond and, where pertinent, launch a formal consultation process.
Monitoring and feedback mechanisms: Citizens and stakeholders will be provided with dedicated opportunities to monitor how their feedback was considered as part of the preparation of post-consultation reports.
The introduction of the Law represents a significant step toward a more cohesive approach to citizen participation in Ukraine. However, its implementation will require substantial adjustments within public bodies at all levels. OECD interviewees in and outside of government emphasised the importance of using the twelve-month interim period to proactively develop tailored guidance and support materials that are adjusted to the administrative processes of each type of body mentioned in the Law. Early preparation of such guidance will be essential to enable public institutions to develop the necessary tools and expertise to implement the Law and ensure meaningful citizen and stakeholder participation. Ensuring participatory approaches are adopted at the earliest stages of ongoing reforms and decision-making processes related to the recovery process is also paramount to ensuring these are responsive and involve all relevant people and groups of society, building a case for an earlier implementation of the Law.
As part of Ukraine’s Roadmap for the Functioning of Democratic Institutions, published in May 2025, the Government consolidated a working group including SCMU representatives, the Secretariat of the Human Rights Commissioner, ministerial representatives, public associations and experts, to continue revising the Law on Public Consultations under the leadership of the MoJ, ensuring alignment with OECD, EU and other international guidance, as well as addressing discrepancies with other legislative requirements in Ukraine on citizen participation. Specific tasks of the MoJ include approving methodological recommendations on the procedure for preparing an annual report on public consultations and its indicators; developing a procedure for organising public consultations by executive authorities in accordance with the requirements of the Law On Public Consultations; developing recommendations for state authorities and local self-government bodies on conducting public consultations, among other tasks. This falls within a broader remit of the working group to review and adapt, where necessary, all legislation on citizen participation in the country.
The 2025-26 Action Plan of the National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society includes a commitment to developing trainings to public officials at the executive authority level and local government on citizen participation to enable the implementation of new legal requirements and prepare relevant recommendations for policymakers (approved on March 21, 2025 No. 246) (SCMU, 2025[39]).
Setting common definitions of citizen participation in legislation
Establishing a common understanding of participatory, direct, and deliberative processes – and strategically using various forms of participation in policy documents or legal frameworks – can enhance consistency and effectiveness of participatory exercises across government (OECD, 2023[40]). Clear definitions of citizen participation can help clarify its purpose and who is or should be implicated. As outlined in several legislative provisions – including Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 996 – which provides a basis on which to define the purposes of participation in Ukraine.
Resolution No. 996 however remains unclear on what constitutes citizen participation, equating public consultations with public opinion studies prepared by academic institutions or civil society organisations. As identified by OECD interviews and broader literature on the subject, this has led to some conceptual confusion in the public administration on the core aspects of citizen participation and the importance of providing citizens with direct opportunities to be engaged in the policy cycle (Kushniriuk, 2023[41]). This is aligned with evidence collected by the OECD through qualitative interviews with government and non-government bodies in 2024, which suggests that more can be done to establish a common understanding of the definitions, rationale and purpose of participation among public officials in Ukraine. In this sense, the definition provided by the new Law on Public Consultations is pertinent and responds to a clear need.
Further, OECD interviews with policymakers in Ukraine also showed that the term citizen participation is at times used to refer to citizens’ use of public or social accountability mechanisms. Social accountability focuses on ensuring the government is responsible for its actions, enabling citizens and stakeholders to question the government and to reward or sanction performance through electoral, institutional, administrative, and social channels. In contrast, citizen and stakeholder participation has the specific aim of collecting the perspectives of interested parties to inform policy decisions. In the context of Ukraine, these also differ in terms of institutional entry points: citizen and stakeholder participation is nearly always government-led, while social accountability can emerge at the initiative of citizens or civil society initiatives operating independently of formal government structures (e.g., complaints mechanisms or social audits). Both social accountability and citizen participation are core aspects of open government and democratic governance and essential for meaningful participation: effective participation can lead to stronger policy acceptance and design, and robust social accountability ensures integrity and responsiveness. However, they fulfil different functions and expose each party to different levels of risk (e.g., anticorruption whistleblowing requires stronger legal protections than participation taking place within formally sanctioned processes) and can also result in different outcomes, so conflating the two can dilute the impact and purpose of both.
Such inconsistencies are also present across other laws and regulations outlined in Box 4.2 which, while providing a comprehensive legal framework, could further align in the definition of concepts including participation or stakeholder engagement, and promoting a unified approach to employing participation tools or practices. For example, Cabinet Resolution 2022, No. 1159 seeks to give effect to the constitutional right of citizens “to participate in the administration of state affairs” (Verkhovna Rada, 1996[24]) by introducing procedural mechanisms for public involvement in the preparation of programmes for the comprehensive recovery of regions and territorial communities. The Resolution requires draft programmes to be informed by a working group composed of a range of interested parties, including public authorities, associations, businesses, and others, and to be published on official websites for public proposals. It reflects a stakeholder-based model for participation, rather than a citizen’s rights-based approach. While this in no way undermines the participatory intent of the instrument, the absence of a clear reference to citizens could lead, in practice, to participation being implemented mainly through intermediary groups. Addressing the discrepancy between citizen participation as a constitutional right and stakeholder consultation as an administrative tool would strengthen legal coherence and could reduce the risk that recovery planning processes rely predominantly on mediated forms of participation rather than direct citizen involvement. Further, the Resolution lacks a clear enforcement mechanism, resulting in inconsistent applications across the public sector in terms of how processes are triggered, planned, implemented, and followed up on across the public administration (Krainii, 2025[42]).
The Law on Public Consultations (See Box 4.2. ) establishes the most up to date definition of public consultation in the country: “public consultation is a stage of problem formulation, development, formation or implementation of state policy, resolution of an issue of local importance, during which the subject of public consultation collects, processes the proposals of interested parties on the subject of public consultation and publishes the results of the analysis of such proposals.” It also sets the parameters for who can participate in public consultations, including citizens, foreigners and stateless persons, non-government organisations, local government associations, business associations, and “other persons whose rights, freedoms, interests or obligations are affected by the decision, as well as other persons who have expressed a desire to participate in public consultations”. See Box 4.3 for further analysis in this regard.
Of note, the Law exclusively provides a definition for the term public consultation, which does not include the broader spectrum in which citizen participation occurs (see Box 4.1 and Box 4.2). This limited scope has the potential of reinforcing existing conceptual ambiguities that are widespread among public officials. As reflected in OECD interviews with Ukrainian public officials, the concept of participation is often used to refer to cross-sectoral collaboration in the preparation of policies, consultation with local government on national-level policies, one-way communication with the broader public, and social listening. This conceptual confusion (e.g., not defining participation across a spectrum or confounding consultation of government stakeholders with citizen consultations) is evident also in other legislation (see Box 4.2).
Clarifying scope and co-ordinating responsibilities for participation across the public sector through legislation
As seen in previous paragraphs, Ukraine’s legislation includes a broad scope of participation forms, with public consultations and participation via consultative and advisory bodies involving public representatives (e.g., public councils, councils on internally displaced persons, business councils, youth councils, etc.) being the most prevalent. Other forms of participation included (e.g., in the Law of Local Self-Government in Ukraine) such as local referenda, public hearings, citizen-led initiatives, local residents’ meetings (conferences), participation of residents in planning and distributing local budget funds and public evaluation of local government activities are also featured, although they are often less widely used. In some cases (e.g., local referenda), these are paused under martial law. Such inconsistencies between legal requirements and application may point to challenges in adopting a strategic approach to using specific forms of participation for specific purposes, which in turn can have policy implications.
Additionally, the multiplicity of legislative arrangements across policy areas has led to a proliferation of governance mechanisms (see Table 4.1 to consult citizens and stakeholders, providing an opportunity for further streamlining. OECD interviews with government representatives in Ukraine in 2024 echo this finding, pointing to the need for more cohesive legislation.
Further, OECD interviews point to gaps and overlaps in existing participation responsibilities outlined in legislation. For instance, the Law on Public Consultations does not apply to the preparation of draft regulatory acts governed by the Law of Ukraine "On the Principles of State Regulatory Policy in the Field of Economic Activity” (Verkhovna Rada, 2023[43]). While the scope and purpose of citizen and stakeholder participation under each Law is different (e.g., the latter is focused only on collecting technical, often highly specialised inputs as opposed to promoting broader democratic engagement), there is a strong case for improved co-ordination among the two.
For instance, participation in regulatory policy is largely limited to written comments on draft regulation and occasional public discussions, usually taking place only after Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA) are made public. Closer alignment with the Law on Public Consultations, particularly for high-impact regulations, could enable earlier and more representative forms of participation throughout the RIA process. This would also bring Ukraine’s practices closer to the OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance, which calls for early and representative participation (OECD, 2012[44]). Addressing discrepancies regarding consultation timeframes and which stakeholders are targeted under each case could further strengthen the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of participation processes informing regulatory policy. More can also be done to align reporting requirements on consultation outcomes (e.g., by requiring the inclusion of public consultation reports as part of RIA publications). Finally, ensuring that all draft regulatory policy documents subject to consultation are published on the centralised participation platform would promote alignment with the Law on Public Consultations and improve accessibility. Further guidance and comparative examples on embedding meaningful citizen participation in regulatory processes can be found in the 2025 OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook and the OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy (OECD, 2025, pp. 30-37[45]) (OECD, 2020[46]).
More broadly, while defining consultation in law can help clarify a core aspect of participation, the absence of a broader implementation framework limits the governments’ ability to deliver representative and context-appropriate opportunities. Establishing a formal recognition that participation exist across a spectrum (see Box 4.1 for examples on how the OECD defines the spectrum of participation) would help harmonise understandings across institutions. It would also equip policymakers with clearer guidance on which forms of participation are more appropriate for different policy contexts, levels of influence, and capacities. For instance, a more deliberative or co-creative process may be more appropriate where public trust is low or the policy issue is likely contentious, whereas a consultative approach may be sufficient for a more technical, less polarising issue. This approach would, on one hand, provide legal clarity on public authorities’ obligations towards the public and, on the other, enable policymakers to develop more context-specific participation opportunities. The Actions in the 2025-26 Action Plan for the National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society partially respond to this challenge by setting a commitment to training public officials on different forms of participation, including deliberation. The contents of such trainings are not available at time of drafting.
Legislative reforms at the local level: clarifying participation requirements for local government
Decentralisation reforms in Ukraine since the 2014 Euromaidan revolution have resulted in the creation of 1 469 hromadas, the establishment of an elaborate multi-level regional development planning framework, as well as a significant increase in local public service delivery, and public funding for regional and local development (OECD, 2022[47]). The significant expansion of local authorities' responsibilities has also increased the potential impact of citizen participation on effective decision-making and service delivery. Despite the significant challenges posed by the full-scale Russian aggression, Ukrainian authorities are committed to continuing the decentralisation process in 2025 (CoE, 2024[48]).
Building citizen participation capacities at the local level is vital to the effectiveness of decentralisation reforms in Ukraine. OECD findings from 2022, corroborated by interviews conducted in 2025 highlight growing regional economic and social disparities, fragmented local government funding and overstretched municipal staff with limited administrative and financial capacities as well as low participation expertise (OECD, 2022[47]). Resource constraints and unclear citizen participation mandates have resulted in low skills and expertise on citizen and stakeholder participation among local government officials. Further, OECD interviews show that more is needed to build, on the one hand, local officials’ capacities to implement participatory processes and, on the other, citizens’ awareness and skills to take part in them. Building local capacities to enable citizens to be part of the decision-making process, particularly among the most under-served regions, can be crucial to strengthen democratic values across Ukraine, counter anti-democratic influence, and ensure regional development.
In 2025, the Verkhovna Rada passed the “Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding Democracy at the Local Self-Government level” to align public consultation processes at the national and sub-national level (Verkhovna Rada, 2025[35]). This Law establishes formal requirements for citizen participation at the local level. It provides an expanded account of the different forms of participation that local governments can employ, and the process to implement each. It also establishes a provision for young people’s and IDP participation in local government, and mandates the approval of a Municipal Charter for each territorial community, outlining specific forms and procedures for public participation. As of 2024, six pilot municipalities (Sumy, Lutsk, Brusyliv, Berdychiv, Poltava, Slavutych) enacted statutes providing a comprehensive set of norms and procedures to, among others, promote citizen participation in policymaking (Council of Europe, 2025[49]).
The 2025-26 Action Plan for the National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society in Ukraine discussed in Box 4.5 seeks to address some of the challenges discussed in this section, by identifying a set of actions to build local-level citizen participation capacities in Ukraine to fulfil legislative requirements. These include preparing recommendations on standards, good practices and methodologies for conducting public consultations and involving residents on issues of local importance and local government decisions. It also sets provisions to deliver trainings and events for representatives, local governments, and deputies of local councils on organising public consultations. In addition, the Action Plan included an item on monitoring the implementation of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding Democracy at the Level of Local Self-Government” and preparing relevant recommendations based on the results of such monitoring. Taking steps to enabling the implementation of legal requirements (e.g., “Law on Public Consultations” and “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding Democracy at the Level of Local Self-Government”) is also mentioned in Ukraine’s Roadmap for the Functioning of Democratic Institutions, and the Action Plan for the Reform of Local Self-Government and Territorial Organization of Power in Ukraine for 2024-2027.
In light of these commitments, the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine (MDCT) consolidated a Working Group on the Development of Methodological Recommendations composed of public officials, academics, experts and CSO representatives. The Working Group contributed to the development of recommendations to assist local self-government bodies in the preparation of Statutes of territorial communities, or amendments to existing ones, as mandated by the aforementioned legislative updates (Government of Ukraine, 2025[50]). Such recommendations have been uploaded online to enable government officials at the local level to meet new legislative requirements.
Legal requirements are the strongest driver to implement public consultations in Ukraine
SCMU data for Q4 of 2024 shows that a significant proportion of consultations in Ukraine are related to draft legislation (of 638 consultation topics identified, 351 related to draft normative and legal acts). This reflects the extensive reforms underway as part of the EU accession process. These consultations present an opportunity to engage citizens in shaping and understanding the reform agenda, helping to generate societal buy-in and build public momentum behind the country’s democratic and European integration efforts. However, OECD interviews with key government and non-government stakeholders suggest that ministries often take a formalistic approach to fulfilling consultation requirements, engaging primarily with advisory councils and experts, and limiting citizen participation opportunities downstream in the policy process, once draft decisions have been prepared and draft laws are published online.
Several regulatory and legislative arrangements in Ukraine (see Box 4.2 and Box 4.3) establish a formal requirement for policymakers to consult citizens in relation to draft laws and policy documents. In fact, of the 14 relevant public authority representatives in Ukraine interviewed by the OECD in 2024 on the topic of citizen participation, 11 referred to a law or resolution when asked about drivers for conducting consultations.
Strategic policy documents in Ukraine provide an opportunity to enable a transversal approach to citizen and stakeholder participation, and build visibility across sectors
As seen previously, participation practices in Ukraine are shaped primarily by legal requirements rather than policymakers’ voluntary commitment to participatory governance. While legal mandates ensure some level of engagement, relying solely on legal compliance carries risks: participation may be superficial, irregular, or disconnected from citizens’ real needs, and policymakers may view participation processes as a bureaucratic obligation rather than a tool for informed decision-making. Developing a clear policy or strategy can help address these risks by explaining the purpose of participation, linking it to long-term priorities, and encouraging policymakers to view engagement not only as a legal duty, but also as a constructive tool for building trust and improving policy outcomes.
Policy documents on citizen and stakeholder participation can play a key role when backed by political will and aligned with existing legal frameworks (e.g., strategy, roadmap, plan). They enable a more co-ordinated, systematic and effective approach across government by setting clear objectives, defining roles and responsibilities, and aligning practices across the public sector. Such policies or strategies can also be crucial to support the implementation of legislative or administrative reforms to work cohesively towards addressing society-wide priorities. Most (87%) OECD member countries have adopted specific policy documents to foster citizen and stakeholder participation at the national government level (see Box 4.4 for examples). Many of them have adopted of Open Government Partnership (OGP) Action Plans to outline strategic actions to achieve better outcomes on participation, although they do not provide a full picture of whole-of-government strategic directions on participation (OECD, 2023[51]).
Participation policies or strategies can also ensure that under-heard population groups are engaged in the policy process. As of 2023, most OECD countries had adopted a policy to increase the representation of specific policy groups, including young people (67% or 23 respondents), women (47% or 16), people with disabilities (35% or 12) and LGBTQI+ communities (23% or 8) (OECD, 2023[51]).
Finland’s National Programme for the Promotion of Democracy and Participation
Finland’s National Programme for the Promotion of Democracy and Participation is a cross-government strategy developed by the Ministry of Justice. It includes 15 objectives and key measures to promote democracy and citizen participation, each with clear timelines and allocation of responsibilities across government. The core aim of the Programme is to promote voter turnout and strengthen the participation of citizens in the policymaking cycle, with an emphasis on children and young people. The Programme also seeks to foster a culture of participation across government and society, as well as co-ordinate local-level democratic developments.
Australia’s Public Service Framework for Engagement and Participation
Led by the Australian Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources and the Australian Public Service Commission, the Framework provides policymakers with guidance and support to enhance engagement with citizens and stakeholders. The Framework sets quality standards and principles for participation, consolidating existing guidelines and tools to plan and deliver participation activities effectively and appropriately. It also defines the different ways in which participation can take place, developing a country-specific spectrum of engagement. The Framework also self-describes as a public commitment to public service accountability and transparency. Its preparation included contributions from nearly 1,000 public officials and is intended for all public service officials at all levels, therefore promoting a culture of participation across the public sector. The development of the Framework was informed by available statistics on engagement in Australia, and delivers on commitment 5.2 of Australia’s first OGP National Action Plan.
Canada’s Cabinet Directive on Regulation and Associated Policies
Canada’s Cabinet Directive on Regulation (the Directive) sets out the Government of Canada’s expectations and requirements in the development, management, and review of federal regulations, including in relation to citizen participation. It sets the basis for co-ordination and co-operation across Departments and agencies when engaging with citizens and stakeholders in the context of preparing and reviewing regulation. It also is the basis for the preparation of Participation Plans in alignment with established guidance for consultation and engagement. It also promotes the use of digital tools in alignment with other existing policies, including the Policy on Communication and Federal Identity, the Policy on Privacy Protection, and the Policy on Official Languages.
In Ukraine, there is currently no unified policy document on citizen and stakeholder participation at the national level. Instead, two national-level policy documents provide a partial vision on strategic participation objectives; the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development and the OGP Action Plan 2023-25. In addition, all government bodies are required by Resolution No. 996 to prepare yearly participation plans or ‘indicative plans’, which although they are not strategies, they list all the consultation activities intended for the year.
Ukraine has implemented six OGP Action Plans since becoming a member of OGP in 2011, with the latest being the OGP Action Plan 2023-25. Although these plans are not a strategy – providing a cohesive vision of open government principles for Ukraine – they are a selection of Ukraine’s priorities to promote open government. While the promotion of citizen participation does not feature as a standalone commitment, it is mentioned across three of its ten commitments. These include Commitment 3 on developing public participation mechanisms for the restoration and development of regions and communities damaged during Russia’s full-scale invasion, Commitment 5 on enabling participation in Ukraine’s efforts to align with EU legislation, and Commitment 6 on the development of an E-youth digital platform. The impact of these commitments on building public administrative capacities to deliver meaningful citizen participation opportunities however has been classified as ‘modest’ in the Independent Reporting Mechanism of the Action Plan given a lack of clear links between the actions cited in the Plan with ongoing reforms in the legislative and administrative space to strengthen citizen participation (OGP Independent Reporting Mechanism, 2024[55]).
Most OECD countries (64% of respondents to an OECD survey in 2022) have a policy or strategy in place to improve or promote an enabling environment for CSOs (OECD, 2023[51]). In Ukraine, the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development 2021-26 encompasses the spirit of the state policy of ‘no decisions for civil society without civil society’ (Government of Ukraine, 2021[56]).
The preparation of this strategy involved around 200 representatives from civil society institutions and experts through a public-facing government platform, and around 300 participants through targeted meetings. Its number one strategic direction is on Ensuring effective procedures of public participation in the formation and implementation of state policy at the national and regional levels, solving issues of local importance.
The strategy acknowledges the role of civil society organisations both as enablers of citizen participation and as participants in government decisions. The tasks outlined under the strategic direction on participation are aimed at: 1) enabling civil society organisations to take part in public decisions both at the national and local level, and 2) providing a unifying framework to improve participation efforts and capacities among government and civil society organisations. Specific actions are listed regarding standardising consultation procedures, reviewing advisory councils, and enhancing legislative guarantees for peaceful assembly and strengthening participation at the local level through referenda, public hearings, advisory bodies, participation in budgetary processes, among others. Improving access to public information is also mentioned. Further, improving the All-Ukrainian Public Budget participation mechanism (see Table 4.2) also mentioned as a priority. The introduction of an online platform for interaction with executive authorities, citizens and civil society, is also mentioned, as is the development of tasks to improve government, citizens and civil society capacities to make use of participation tools. Improving the involvement of civil society in the development of regulatory acts and enabling disability advocacy organisations to take part in the policy cycle is also listed.
2025–2026 Action Plan
The 2025–2026 Action Plan for implementing Ukraine’s National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society (2021–2026) sets out several key priorities on participation, including:
Ensuring Ukrainian legislation on citizen participation at the national and local level is aligned with European and international standards.
Strengthening the application of citizen participation practices at the national and local level, including by providing recommendations on participation standards and practices, developing methodological guidance, developing draft regulatory acts to support the implementation of legislative requirements on participation, conducting trainings, and monitoring participation practices.
Building public councils’ capacities.
Promoting participatory budgeting in schools.
Leveraging the use of online digital tools
Building citizens and CSO capacities to use participation tools, including deliberative democracy, digital tools, and other participation mechanisms.
Delivering effective civic education programmes.
Source: (Government of Ukraine, 2021[56]).
The progress review of the 2023-2024 Action Plan to support the implementation of the Strategy lists several achievements regarding participation, including the adoption of the Law on Public Consultations, as well as amendments to the existing legislations at the local level (see Box 4.2. ) (Government of Ukraine, 2024[57]). Other achievements listed referred to building capacities in executive bodies to use participation tools, as well as delivering trainings for adults on civic skills. At the regional level, achievements listed included the promotion of local dialogues to inform policy and establishing dialogue platforms to enable citizens and stakeholders to inform decentralisation reform.
At the same time, there is no clear link between the promotion of citizen participation and several other achievements listed under the same priority in the review, which seem to be focused instead on promoting social cohesion. While policies that foster social cohesion and citizen participation opportunities are complementary, they serve distinct purposes. Social cohesion policies aim to foster unity and building trust and solidarity among different social groups. On the other hand, citizen and stakeholder participation is about involvement in public decision-making processes, ensuring the needs of citizens and stakeholders are reflected and policies are better informed. While participation can enhance social cohesion, and vice versa, it also aims to enhance democratic governance, effectiveness and public accountability. Conflating the two can lead to participation being seen as a tool for social unity only, rather than a mechanism to enhance citizens’ impact in policy decisions. It can also lead to a tokenistic approach to participation, rather than providing meaningful opportunities to be involved in policymaking.
The Strategy’s term will come to an end in 2026 and, at time of writing, an updated National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society 2027–2032 will be developed as part of the Roadmap on “Functioning Democratic Institutions”. The new strategy presents a timely opportunity to place citizen participation as a core priority. While the role of CSOs remains essential, relying primarily on organised intermediaries (e.g., CSOs and Public Councils) may unintentionally limit broader public engagement, particularly among marginalised or informally organised communities. The new strategy could address this by embedding formal citizen participation mechanisms into government structures and expanding opportunities for ordinary citizens to participate. This includes integrating both the 'supply side' of participation (e.g., strengthening institutional and CSO capacities) and the 'demand side' (e.g., enabling citizens to access and have a voice on public decisions through more representative and direct mechanisms, civic education, and meaningful citizen-government interactions).
Opportunities also exist to further adapt it to the war context as well as promote a longer-term perspective to embed citizen participation in post-war reconstruction efforts. See Box 4.6 for an example.
Colombia’s PDET are participatory, long-term development programmes created by the government as part of its post-conflict peacebuilding strategy following the 2016 Peace Agreement. They are an ambitious government-led effort to involve citizens across 170 municipalities most affected by the conflict to promote economic development and address historical inequalities. Its aim is to rebuild the social fabric in conflict-affected territories, promote citizen-led planning, and deliver effective government services (e.g., on infrastructure, health, education). The participatory process to inform priorities included community assemblies, where over 220,000 citizens met through organised meetings to identify priorities and propose solutions. Participatory tools were also adapted to respond to indigenous language needs and involve under-heard population groups.
Finally, at the sectoral level, the Cabinet Resolution No. 996 (2010) on Ensuring Public Participation in the Formation and Implementation of State Policy requires that each ministry, other central executive bodies (e.g., agencies), and regional and Kyiv City administrations must publish online an annual plan listing all public consultations planned for the year (hereafter referred to as indicative plan) (Verkhovna Rada, 2010[25]). These indicative plans must include information on the consultation topic (e.g., specific question, project, or regulatory reform), the format (e.g., online consultation, town hall meetings), timelines, who is targeted (e.g., citizens, civil society organisations, businesses) and the responsible public officials’ contact details. To prepare them, Ministries and agencies appoint one or more officials within their workforce – usually in their communications unit – to collect inputs from across their government body to be listed in the indicative plan. Such officials also liaise with civil society and relevant public councils (See Box 4.15) who are invited to provide suggestions.
Building an infrastructure for participation in Ukraine’s centre of government
Responsibilities over core aspects of citizen participation in Ukraine are shared across several public entities
In Ukraine, several public entities have responsibilities over the governance of participation. This is also the case for most OECD countries, where responsibilities for citizen and stakeholder participation are decentralised and several offices share mandates (OECD, 2023[40]). Evidence collected by the OECD through interviews with public officials in Ukraine in 2024 finds that, absent a clearly defined central co-ordination mechanism guiding the institutional architecture for participation in Ukraine, current participation approaches remain fragmented, with varying standards and levels of commitment across ministries and local authorities. Challenges persist to developing public institutions with a role on the governance of participation (e.g., through legislation, setting good practices, developing government-wide standards and tools) which are mapped in Table 4.1. The OECD finds that more can be done to develop a co-operation model and establish a cohesive and integrated approach.
Source: OECD Public Governance Survey to Ukraine, 2024
As seen in the above table, the governance of citizen and stakeholder participation in Ukraine is fragmented and opportunities exist to adopt a strategic approach at the government level, with responsibilities spreading across several institutions at the national and, as discussed in the following sections, local levels. While this allows for a more tailored and specialised approach – enabling institutions to develop sector-specific legislative provisions, institutional arrangements and capacity-building tools – it also presents significant challenges in terms of steering, co-ordination and monitoring. A lack of clear co-ordination mechanisms and standardised procedures has reportedly led to inconsistencies on, for instance, the development of legislative arrangements and guidelines, creating barriers to access on the citizen and stakeholder side, and effectiveness on the government side.
Co-ordinating citizen and stakeholder participation from the centre: the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
Governance arrangements for citizen and stakeholder vary across OECD countries, shaped by administrative structures and the historical trajectory of democratic reforms. OECD data from 2020 shows, however, some common trends regarding the co-ordination and professionalisation of responsibilities for citizen participation across government. For instance, most (81% or 30) of the 39 surveyed OECD countries have designated offices or institutions responsible for providing support to public institutions to ensure public officials have the skills to consult and engage with citizens and stakeholders. Most (67% or 25) have an office to provide technical support to public institutions on the use of digital technologies for citizen and stakeholder consultation or engagement and/or an office to strengthen relationships between government and civil society (84% or 31). Finally, 21% (eight) of respondents had dedicated staff in charge of participation in all the ministries at the central or federal level (OECD, 2023[40]). As shown in previous OECD studies, a significant barrier to more effective and meaningful participation is lack of cross-sectoral co-ordination, pointing to the importance of establishing a strategic view from the centre (OECD, 2024[5]).
Having a clear distribution of responsibilities can lead to a more coherent and consistent approach to the implementation of citizen participation processes across the public administration, reducing duplication of efforts and fragmentation. Embedding participation responsibilities across government structures makes its prioritisation less dependent on political cycles or other externalities, ensuring policy continuity. Clearly allocating responsibilities on participation can also enable governments to develop expertise, provide trainings, and ensure public officials develop the skills and tools needed to engage with citizens effectively.
As previously noted, the SCMU has a regulatory mandate to co-ordinate executive authorities’ compliance with democratic standards, including regarding their interactions with the public (Verkhovna Rada, 2020[38]). Its activities serve to build citizen and stakeholder participation capacities across both front-office and back-office functions of public authorities (see Figure 4.3).
Front-office functions include all public-facing activities of government, including communicating with the public to raise awareness of consultation exercises, delivering participatory processes, and managing public-facing communication portals (e.g., consultation webpages) (OECD, 2024[5]). Examples of front office functions led by the SCMU include leading the work of the Co-ordination Council for the Implementation of the OGP Initiative (see Box 4.7) and supporting the implementation of participatory processes led by executive authorities through technical expertise. Front-office functions, particularly public communications, are crucial to enhance societal awareness of consultation processes, and can be key to fostering a whole-of-society buy in for reconstruction efforts.
Back-office functions include the internal processes of government, including drafting legislative and regulatory frameworks, developing and implementing state policy, ensuring civil servants have adequate skills and capacities, performance management and audit, and building institutional learning (OECD, 2024[5]). Examples of back office functions of the SCMU include reviewing recommendations on draft legislations on citizen and stakeholder participation (e.g., the Law on Public Consultations, which was developed by the Ministry of Justice) which are then submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers for consideration. It also oversees the compliance of executive authorities on regulatory requirements on participation, including by monitoring the publication and implementation of annual consultation plans. As part these functions, the SCMU also tracks consultation activities across all ministries, other central executive authorities (e.g., agencies) and regional and Kyiv city military administrations, and publishes quarterly reports.
Other back-office functions of the SCMU include overseeing the implementation of state policy regarding interactions with citizens and civil society (e.g., the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development) via co-ordination meetings with executive bodies and the development of action plans. This is also the case for the implementation of the Open Government Partnership Initiative in Ukraine, where the SCMU leads the development of action plans to meet commitments, with the involvement of representatives from executive authorities and the public. The SCMU also develops trainings and guidance materials to public officials at a national level to deliver participation processes (see Box 4.9). It is expected that, once the country is no longer under martial law, the SCMU will play a co-ordination role to the implementation of the Law on Public Consultations.
The Co-ordination Council is Ukraine’s multistakeholder forum which oversees the implementation of the OGP action plan, including by considering and approving action plan proposals, monitoring their implementation, and issuing recommendations for improvement as needed. It is provided with administrative support by the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers. As of 2023, it was composed of seven representatives from government bodies at a national level, including the State Secretary of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Deputy Director of the Department of Information and Public Relations of the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Deputy Minister of Economy, the First Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation, the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Deputy Minister of Justice for Digital Affairs.
It also includes representation from international organisations, including Transparency International and International Renaissance Foundation, and civil society organisations including the Civil Society Development Forum, the Institute of Analytics and Advocacy, the Eastern Europe Foundation, and the Public Union “Legal Development Network”. Civil society organisations are selected through an open competitive process.
Although the Co-ordination Council oversees the implementation of actions under each action plan, including for instance the adoption of the Law on Public Consultations, OECD interviews with government stakeholders and international organisations showed that it could be pertinent to further engage the Council to inform the planning and implementation of broader reforms on citizen and stakeholder participation.
Source: Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
While the SCMU is already progressing towards becoming a central hub for citizen participation, OECD interviews suggest that more can be done to clarify its role across the public sector and increase the visibility of the role of the SCMU Department of Information and Public Relations in particular across government. In addition, foreseen reforms related to the Law on Public Consultations provide an opportunity to ensure the SCMU staff is equipped with the necessary skills and capacities to promote a whole-of-government approach to the implementation of the Law.
Moving forward and on a longer-term perspective, establishing a dedicated Centre for Participation—built within the SCMU’s Department of Information and Public Relations, particularly its Sub-division for Promotion of Civil Society Development and Public Interaction—could help steer the national participation agenda and ensure adherence to legislative requirements. This centre could be created either through restructuring the sub-division or as a distinct unit within it, helping to consolidate expertise, strengthen oversight, and raise the profile of participation efforts across all levels of government.
International examples of Centres for Participation (see Box 4.8 for instance) show that having a dedicated unit which centralises advice, co-ordination, capacity building, innovation and policy development on citizen participation can reduce ambiguity across public bodies on responsibilities and ensure the consistent application of participation policies. It can also promote economies of scale and reduce duplication costs. For example, in the case of Ukraine, the Centre of Participation could be featured in the centralised participation portal currently in development as a point of contact for CSOs. A formal structure can also enable the Centre to act as a hub for collaboration with other ministries and agencies, and ensures the continuity of institutional knowledge beyond changes in political leadership. According to international practices, setting up a Centre for Participation requires between 3-7 officials, which would need to be reallocated from the existing number of officials that work in the Department of Information and Public Relations, and the Sub-division for Promotion of Civil Society Development and Public Interaction.
France’s Interministerial Centre for Citizen Participation (CIPC)
France’s CIPC (Centre interministériel de la participation citoyenne) is part of the Inter-ministerial Directorate for Public Transformation. It provides support and guidance to ministries and state services on executing participatory projects, and oversees ensuring the quality, transparency and follow up of participatory processes. It does so by developing guides, trainings and methodological advice on participation, as well as piloting participatory processes to better tailor mechanisms and align with public expectations and objectives. The CIPC also manages a network of public agents responsible for citizen participation, which meets regularly to discuss common challenges and successes. The work of the CIPC on streamlining the procurement of digital participation platforms across the public sector has led to demonstrable fiscal savings.
New Zealand’s Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) Policy Project team
The New Zealand DPMC Policy Project provides policymakers with strategic and practical advice to integrate citizen participation as part of day-to-day governance processes. This includes for instance clarifying the different purposes and benefits of participation, and setting out a range of types of engagement depending on the level of participation.3 It also centralises a range of good practice guidelines and design tools, provides information on building participatory capacities across agencies, establishes participation principles and values, issues resources on selecting participation methods, and provides guidelines to engaging with under-heard population groups. Other types of guidance are also provided, including on conducting citizen juries, building local-level capacities for participation, and engaging with Māori and Pasifika. The DPMC also created a Cross-Government Stakeholder Community of Practice for officials from all government agencies to join and learn from each other by sharing expertise and experiences.
Fostering a culture of participation across the public administration and in society
International experience shows that structured guidance and training for civil servants plays a key role in effective citizen and stakeholder participation. Almost 80% of OECD countries have developed toolkits and guidelines for civil servants regarding citizen and stakeholder participation, with 64% also offering formal trainings (OECD, 2023[40]). Although significant reforms have been undertaken to strengthen professional development in the civil service in Ukraine, the ongoing war has presented important spending cuts on public officials’ trainings (OECD, 2024[62]) In this challenging context, the SCMU partnered with the High School of Public Administration (HSPA) and other educational and international institutions (e.g., universities and research institutes, OSCE, UNDP) to provide trainings and certificates to enable public officials to build their citizen and stakeholder participation skills. In addition to this, the Ministry of Digital Transformation provides more than twelve (12) education series on the Diia.Education website on participation and civic technologies.
Higher School of Public Administration
The Higher School of Public Administration organises trainings for public officials on competencies including management, digital skills, reform and reconstruction processes, human rights and equality, security, anticorruption, languages, and other core governance priorities as determined by the Schools’ Development Strategy (See Chapter on the future of civil service for a detailed overview). Such trainings are available through a Knowledge Management Portal available for public officials. The main course offered by the Higher School to build policymakers’ participation skills is entitled “Public Authority Communications for Democratic Governance”. The course is offered to Category B civil servants. In 2023, 54 civil servants of category “B” completed the training. In 2024, the number increased to 343.
The course includes eight modules, of which three are focused on public communications and access to information, one on dialogue and mediation skills, and one on behavioural insights. Three modules are focused on citizen consultations in policy processes:
Module 3) Public Consultations as a Form of Communication with the Public. The module provides an overview of general principles and regulatory frameworks for participation, including standards set by the Council of Europe and the European Commission4. It also maps stakeholders, discusses different consultation formats (e.g., electronic consultations, world cafés), and provides information on organisational requirements for conducting consultations (e.g., information notices, reporting).
Module 4) Other Mechanisms of Public Engagement and Cross-Sectoral Partnerships (e.g., Advisory Bodies. The module provides an overview of public and advisory bodies and their functions, as well as ways to engage non-government organisations as public experts. It also provides an overview of the State Policy in Promoting Civil Society Development and the OGP Initiative.
Module 7) Public Consultation Workshop. This module discusses how to select a consultation format, using digital tools, as well as organising and implementing innovative approaches including world cafés and future workshops.
The HSPA has also partnered with the Hans Seidel Foundation in Ukraine to develop an online course for public officials entitled “Political Education of Civil Servants in Ukraine”, including modules on political education, democratic values, the Ukrainian political system, and public participation and communication from government authorities. The OECD does not have further information on the uptake of this course.
In addition, two other programmes are run by the Higher School of Public Administration, involving representatives of the SCMU to help impart them. These include:
Interaction with the public in public authorities, which in 2024-25 was imparted to about 1,000 civil servants, and;
Information support and interaction with the public in public authorities, which was imparted to about 200 civil servants in the same time period.
Unified State Digital Education Web Portal ‘Diia Education’ Training Certificates
The Unified State Digital Education Web Portal “Diia.education”, led by the Ministry of Digital Transformation, offers courses for public officials and citizens on a range of subjects, including topics such as civic service, youth work, crisis communications, and how the public service operates. As of May 31, 2025, the site had over 2.6 million users registered, and had issued 3.8 million training certificates. The Ministry reports the following uptake for relevant courses by the aforementioned date:
“Classification of civil service positions” (39636 users)
“State policy and how to shape it” (24353 users)
“On democracy through action (modules 1 and 2)” (19948 users)
“Organization of youth internships in public authorities” (41166 users)
“How to build an effective civil organization” (2013 users).
Source: OECD interviews with government and non-government stakeholders in Ukraine; (Government of Ukraine, 2026[63])
The trainings discussed above represent a significant step towards enhancing public officials’ participation capacities and awareness of relevant guidelines and statutory requirements, although their impact may be limited by low uptake. Ukrainian civil servants interviewed by the OECD reported low awareness of opportunities to be trained. While the OECD does not have available data on HSPA target percentages of public officials having completed such a training, of the 159,122 Category B public officials reportedly working for the Ukrainian Government by May 2024 (National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service, 2024[64]), less than 0.3% had completed the HSPA “Public Authority Communications for Democratic Governance” training. At a broader level, OECD findings suggest public officials have low incentives to seek professional development opportunities, as promotion processes are unclear (OECD, 2024[62]). At time of writing, the Government of Ukraine committed through their Roadmap to Accession to the EU to develop trainings, guidance materials and information sessions for public officials at the national and local level to strengthen capacities on participation. A number of trainings have been updated to meet legislative requirements discussed in subsequent sections. Several observations discussed below could be considered in further advancing their effectiveness.
Greater clarity and co-ordination in the learning opportunities available to policymakers may be needed. While various courses address participation, they often do so from different angles – such as participation as a form of public communication (HSPA), or participation as part of the political process (Hans Seidel Foundation) – without a clear structure linking these messages. As it stands, more may be needed to ensure policymakers know what course to take for which purpose, including by reviewing course contents and co-ordinating across providers to make it easier for policymakers to navigate options and select the most appropriate offer.
The new statutory requirements on public consultations under the Laws of Ukraine “On Public Consultations” and "On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding Democracy at the Local Self-Government level" will also require dedicated training opportunities for national and local government officials. At the local level, non-government organisations, including the All-Ukrainian Association of United Territorial Communities and the Association of Ukrainian Cities already address some of this demand. They work to promote the voices of local authorities in reform processes as well as facilitate peer learning and exchange among local level officials. The Association of Ukrainian Cities has developed several guidance materials, including guides on local government interaction with civil society institutions, open government data, open government under martial law, public involvement in local government to support local authorities to build open government and citizen participation capacities. It will be crucial that the HSPA co-ordinate closely with these organisations in developing guidance on adherence to new legislative requirements.
Further alignment could also be made with international standards on citizen and stakeholder participation trainings and guidelines, including the OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes (OECD, 2022[18]).For example, in alignment with OECD guidelines, the course could also consider introducing quality measures to ensure meaningful participation processes, and provide checklists for policymakers to follow in designing, planning, implementing and evaluating participation processes.
Building capacities for participation in society is also key to promoting a culture of participation. CSOs interviewed by the OECD reported more can be done to build citizens’ civic education and build trust in participatory processes. To address this, the Government of Ukraine has included a number of actions, including for instance in the Roadmap for the Functioning of Democratic Institutions, which lists as a measure to hold information events for citizens, CSOs, and business associations on taking part in civic participation opportunities (Government of Ukraine, 2025[65]). The Government could collaborate with CSOs to design and implement comprehensive civic education programmes to ensure these are adapted to the varied needs of different target audiences (e.g., rural groups, young people).
Fostering a culture of participation by closing the loop and demonstrating impact
Ensuring citizens feel their contributions in participation processes are impactful is key to fostering their trust in government and public institutions, and ensure their continued engagement in participation opportunities. The SCMU has made commendable progress in systematising the tracking of participation outputs (e.g., the number of participation activities – including public consultations – that ministries, agencies and local authorities implement on a quarterly basis). As of 2025, it also reports on aggregate outcomes, such as the total number of participants involved (including citizens, civil society organisations, and business representatives) and the overall number of proposals submitted, as well as their aggregate rate of acceptance, partial acceptance, or rejection (SCMU, 2026[66]).
However, aggregate-level reporting provides limited insight for individual participants on how their perspectives were considered. Citizens and stakeholders who take part in a specific consultation are usually interested in whether their input was considered and how it informed the final decision. While consultation-specific feedback (such as short reports summarising key inputs and the administration’s response) is provided in some cases in Ukraine, further efforts could help make this practice more consistent and predictable across participation processes. Establishing clearer and more systematic reporting practices for each consultation would enable participants to more easily verify how their contributions were considered, strengthen their perception of having a voice, and increase the likelihood of continued engagement. In addition, disaggregating participation data by consultation can support public authorities in identifying differences in interest across policy topics, as well as gaps in representation of different population groups.
OECD interviews also showed a need to enhance the transparency and accountability of participatory processes, and to build further credibility and perceptions of impact. This can be done by ensuring that public authorities ‘close the loop’ and issue public responses on the outcomes of consultations. In Ukraine, requirements to close the loop are stipulated in the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 996, as well as the Law of Ukraine On Public Consultations. However, the extent to which this is done in practice is unclear. Several countries have embedded accountability mechanisms as part of their participation processes to enhance the credibility of participation and foster continued engagement. For example, the New Zealand Law Commission issues public reports of public consultation outcomes for each legislative reform process (Government of New Zealand, 2025[67]). In Canada, the Department of Justice’s Policy Statement and Guidelines for Public Participation sets out a requirement to report on consultation outcomes (Government of Canada, 2025[68]). In Brazil, Brazil Participativo – the country’s federal-level digital participation platform – enables over 1.5 million users in Brazil to access information on consultation opportunities and outcomes, as well as track the policymaking process for policy projects across government (Government of Brazil, 2025[69]).
Fostering a culture of participation by building institutional knowledge
Collecting standardised data on public consultations and enabling exchange across the public sector, through for instance developing a repository of good practices and fostering information exchange across public officials on the outcomes and lessons learnt of consultation exercises, can also be a driver for innovation and adaptability to different policy needs and contexts. The central government website of Ukraine includes a civil society page which includes a section on good practices. This section compiles international guidelines on citizen participation and domestic examples and study cases (Government of Ukraine, 2025[70]).. Opportunities exist to strengthen this page to enable policymakers to highlight ongoing initiatives and obtain more practical, context-specific guidance. In Spain, for example, the Government has set up a Sectoral Commission on Open Government, which serves as a space for co-ordination, collaboration, and debate among Spanish public administrations (state, regional, and local) to exchange on experiences and develop joint initiatives in the field of open government, including citizen participation exercises (Government of Spain, 2025[71]). As another example, the Government of Ireland funds a hub to support governments to improve public consultations with children and young people, particularly those in precarious situations, called Hub na nOg. The hub collects records of consultations with children and youth across the public sector, enabling policymakers to build their skills on the subject (Hub na nOg, 2025[72]).
Fostering a culture of participation by institutionalising civil society participation
Since 2016, civil society organisations (CSOs) in Ukraine have expanded significantly, playing a key role in social cohesion, promoting democratic values, and acting as intermediaries between citizens and government. There is also notable mobility between government and CSO leadership – it is not uncommon that former members of government become leaders of CSOs and vice-versa – has been an enabler for co-operation. Yet, OECD interviews show that CSO access to government decision-making remains limited and uneven, with well-established CSOs with preexisting contacts in government having more influence on decision-making processes than less-established ones. While some engagement with government is institutionalised via the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development, CSOs primarily interact with officials through informal channels, and many continue to face challenges in identifying clear government contact points.
This section discusses current citizen and stakeholder participation practices in Ukraine. It finds that while nearly all national public institutions involve citizens in their decision-making processes, more could be done to develop quality standards, adopt a more coherent, standardised approach to existing consultation practices, and engage citizens throughout the policy cycle to ensure more impactful participation. Further, more can be done to adopt lessons learnt from innovative pilots and continue adapting participatory methods where possible.
Most Ukrainian public institutions have a mandate to engage with citizens and stakeholders
Most government bodies adopt participatory policymaking approaches
All ministries, central executive bodies, Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and local state administrations in Ukraine have a legal mandate to engage citizens and stakeholders in their decision-making processes through participatory approaches (see Table 4.1) to inform policy, legislation and public service delivery. Although the Ukrainian Constitution, the Law On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding Democracy at the Level of Local Self-Government, and the Law on All-Ukrainian Referendum enable citizens to take part in direct democracy, including referenda, (see Box 4.2) no legitimate processes have taken place at the national or local level in Ukraine in the past five years.5
According to data collected by the SCMU, 76 executive authorities held 748 public consultation events during the fourth quarter of 2024 (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2025[73]). Most consultations were held by Ministries (306 out of 748), followed by regional authorities and Kyiv (226) and other central executive bodies (216). An analysis of the participation forms adopted (i.e., direct, participatory, deliberative) shows that nearly all processes mapped by the SCMU fall under the ‘participatory’ category, as they focus on consultations on draft policies and legislation (see following sections for a breakdown of participatory methods and tools used).
Participation opportunities are broad in scope, but take place mostly at the decision-making stage
According to SCMU data, at the national level, the policy areas which were most consulted on by the last quarter of 2024 were health (77 consultation events conducted by the Ministry of Health), agrarian policy (33, Ministry of Agrarian Policy), education and science (31, Ministry of Education and Science) and social policy (30, Ministry of Social Policy) (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2025[73]). At the central executive authority level, the State Tax Service conducted the highest number of consultations (44) followed by the National Health Service (32), and the National Police (12). Local executive bodies do not report the policy areas on which they consult. Nonetheless, the areas with highest number of consultation events included the Kirovohrad Oblast Administrative District (29), Volyn Oblast Administrative District (26), Kyiv City State Administration (25), and Chernihiv Oblast Administrative District (23) (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2025[73]).
While the SCMU does not collect data on which stage of the policy cycle these participation processes occur, an analysis of indicative plans across Ministries shows that most participation opportunities take place ahead of the decision-making stage, where policymakers publish draft policies or legislation to collect citizens’ perspectives. This process is important as it enables policymakers to hear the views of citizens and stakeholders ahead of the adoption of binding legislation, policy, regulation, by-laws and decrees.
Participation opportunities however are less frequent in the other policy stages of agenda-setting (enabling citizens and stakeholders to help identify emerging challenges and needs), policy formulation (engaging citizens and stakeholders to formulate policy solutions), implementation (collaborating with citizens and stakeholders in actions to implement policy) and evaluation (enabling citizens and stakeholders to assess the process, impact and outcomes of implementation). As seen in Figure 4.1, this represents lost opportunities for more meaningful participation upstream, and greater accountability downstream. Pilot processes in the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in Armenia, for instance, show positive results when engaging citizens throughout the budget cycle, from the conception phases to budget setting, to deliberations in the National Assembly (OECD, 2024[74]). See Box 4.10 for further examples of expanding citizen and stakeholder participation across the policy cycle.
The Provincial Government of South Cotabato in the Philippines included as a priority of their 2022-25 Open Government Action Plan to increase citizen participation in monitoring local infrastructure projects to increase accountability of government and private contractors, encourage civil society organisations to take part in project developments, and enable public access to information to monitor projects. Such projects were designed to prioritise the delivery of basic services in conflict-affected areas for those most affected.
The government prepared circulars for citizens and CSOs with information on local infrastructure projects and how to participate in monitoring exercises. In addition, a government-led Project Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (the Barangay Project Monitoring and Evaluation Committee) was set up with members from government, CSOs, and schools. The Committee received presentations on how to monitor progress, and was supported by public officials who collected and processed their monitoring reports. Such reports were then submitted to the Barangay Development Council, who would then liaise with project implementers to provide feedback where relevant.
Evaluations from this project show that the exercise contributed to stronger accountability by project implementers. Lessons included providing ample time for citizen participation exercises to take place, ensuring attendance from key CSOs by providing sufficient notice and information, and prioritising in-person meetings to improve the quality of participation.
Source: (DILG, 2025[75]; OGP, 2025[76])
Government bodies do at times conduct public opinion surveys and consider non-government organisations’ analytical reports on citizens and stakeholder perceptions on key policy issues to inform agenda-setting. OECD interviews, however, show that more can be done to broaden the range of CSOs engaged in these exercises to ensure broader representation of perspectives. Digital participation tools are being leveraged to adapt to wartime constraints and continue providing critical services.
The uptake of innovative participation methods, including deliberative democracy and participatory budgeting, is strongest at the local level
Innovative citizen participation opportunities can enhance the impact of national-level consultations. For example, evidence from more than 700 cases gathered across 26 OECD member countries and 8 Accession and non-member countries shows that the use of representative deliberative processes has been increasingly used to address complex policy problems requiring important trade-offs. Deliberation can also be used to strengthen integrity and prevent corruption, ensuring that decision-making processes are shielded by undue influence from interest groups, and can be a tool to address polarisation and disinformation (OECD, 2020[77]). Further, deliberative processes can help foster a sense of ownership and shared responsibility, helping to address polarising issues with tailored and legitimate policy solutions. In addition, such processes have proven effective in building civic skills and enhancing social awareness on public issues (KNOCA, 2025[78]).
Source: OECD Deliberative Democracy Database
The first two deliberative processes in Ukraine took place in 2024, in the cities of Zvyahel and Slavutych. They were implemented by their respective city councils with support from the Council of Europe in planning, implementing and evaluating the processes. These cases represent a strong case study for how deliberative democracy can be used to foster social cohesion and resilience in a wartime context, with a tangible impact and results (see Box 4.11 for details). Considering their success, the City Councils of Zvyahel and Slavutych are planning to institutionalise the Citizens' Assemblies by incorporating it into their Statutes as a civic participation tool. OECD interviews with CSOs and international organisations show support to continue expanding deliberative practices across municipalities and at the national level. At time of writing, the Government of Ukraine outlined as a commitment to the country’s EU accession process to learn from international experiences on deliberation to further strengthen such a practice in Ukraine.
Citizens' Assembly in Zvyahel: “Creating Urban Spaces as Public Locations for Social Interaction and Recovery”
The Zvyahel Citizens' Assembly, Ukraine’s first deliberative democracy initiative, concluded on November 3, 2024, after three weekends of discussions. To ensure broad representation, 4000 invitation letters were sent to randomly selected households in the community. 45 participants and 12 alternates were selected from the pool of respondents by a stratified random draw. Two seats were reserved for internally displaced persons (IDPs). The process was facilitated by the Council of Europe, and participants engaged in structured discussions, expert presentations, and group work to develop recommendations to improve urban spaces. In its final session, the Assembly presented a vision for urban spaces, developed an advocacy plan, and formed eight initiative groups and a new CSO to sustain engagement.
The Assembly had an institutional impact, with the Zvyahel Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and City Council members attending and receiving recommendations presented by participants. Plans to incorporate the Assemblies as part of a tool in the city’s Statute are underway.
Citizens’ Assembly in Slavutych “How can we improve the household waste management system in our community?”
The second Ukrainian Citizens Assembly took place in the city of Slavutych. It was launched on 19-20 October 2024 and concluded on 23-24 November 2024. It followed the same methodology as the CA in Zvyahel, spanning over three weekends, and including 45 randomly selected main participants and 12 alternates. The municipal website provided an online platform for residents to submit ideas and opinions on the Assembly’s topic.
Citizens’ recommendations were presented to local authorities in a report and, at the closing event, the Mayor of Slavutych emphasised the importance of the CA. He stated: “Certain instruments of democracy do not work during the war, so mechanisms of deliberative democracy, such as the Citizens' Assembly, are extremely important today. I am convinced that we should use this tool in the future.” The City Council is also looking to institutionalise CAs via Statute.
Securing the long-term sustainability of innovative citizen participation practices – such as deliberative processes –can be a way to strengthen Ukraine’s democratic resilience in the long term. Successfully replicating deliberative pilots will require effective peer-to-peer learning opportunities, including leveraging existing local government networks (e.g., the Association of Ukrainian Cities) to showcase practices and encourage uptake across different regions. It could also require revisions of existing legislative frameworks (e.g., the Law on Public Consultations, or the Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding Democracy at the Level of Local Self-Government) which already cite different forms of participation. Finally, in the long term, securing stable funding and ongoing public commitment that is resistant to shifting policy or budgetary priorities is crucial.
Participatory budgeting (PB) is another democratic tool for people to have a direct say on how public money is spent through direct allocation of government resources to priorities or projects. Those resources are usually predefined by public authorities, who allocate a specific budget to the process. In most cases, citizens submit proposals for projects, which are then reviewed by government officials and voted on by citizens. Across OECD countries, most PB practices take place at the local level.
In Ukraine, there is currently no regulatory or legal framework on participatory budgeting, and this form of participation does not currently take place at the national level. Nonetheless, the decentralisation reform of 2014 opened new avenues for citizen participation at the municipal level, and gave way to a strong uptake on PB as a participation method (Schmäing, 2023[6]). As of 2021, the country ranked among one of the top European countries with participatory budgeting projects in place, after only Poland, Portugal and Spain (Dias, 2021[81]).
An in-depth account of PB uptake at the local level is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, it is worth highlighting the potential role of PB in reinforcing trust in government and fostering better policy outcomes. Most literature on mapping the uptake of PB at a local level in Ukraine – produced by international organisations and CSOs – points to a significant positive correlation between trust in local government and PB (Volodin, 2019[82]; Schmäing, 2023[6]; Khutkyy and Avramchenko, 2019[83]).
Digital participatory budgeting
The NGO ‘Social Boost’ led the development of the first digital variants of participatory budgeting in Ukraine. Drawing from in-person practices, digital participatory budgeting includes citizen-led proposals for projects, which are then accepted or rejected by municipal-level administrations based on whether they conform with technical and legal regulations. Once projects are selected, citizens can vote, with the project receiving the most votes being implemented by the municipality. While citizens are not usually engaged in project implementation, municipalities are required to report on implementation outcomes on the PB platform.
The Social Boost platform is the most widely used across municipalities, with over 100 cities and communities having used it to implement a participatory budgeting process.
Source: (SocialBoost, 2025[84])
Participatory budgeting has been increasingly used across OECD and non-OECD countries. See Box 4.13 for further examples.
Peñalolén, a Chilean commune in the province of Santiago, had been experimenting with participatory budgeting since 2008, to strengthen citizen participation in policies to address local development priorities. In 2019, the commune launched a digital participatory budget version to reduce costs, amplify reach, and supplement ongoing in-person processes to enable citizens to have a say on local urban planning projects.
The municipality of Peñalolén led the initiative by launching the main website, organising citizen training workshops, and allocating CLP 500 million (approx. €545,000) to be distributed among winning proposals from each sector. Local community centres and neighbourhood councils also hosted information sessions to engage residents in the process. A range of strategies were used to engage underrepresented groups, including targeted workshops for older adults and youth, a preparatory project on environmental proposals for young citizens, and open training sessions for the general public.
Over 24,450 inhabitants participated in this project via the online platform, representing over 10% of the total population of Peñalolén. Citizens submitted 169 proposals for the 2019-20 round. To ensure quality, each idea had to include documentation, a clear solution description, and signatures of support from other citizens. While this represented a higher bar for participation, the exercise fostered a more collaborative community engagement. Of the initial proposals, 48 met the eligibility criteria for funding. In the final phase, over 15,000 residents voted for their preferred projects. Votes were relatively evenly distributed, reflecting a wide range of local priorities. Based on the results, ten projects—spread across different neighbourhoods—were selected to receive municipal funding. An analysis of the practice shows that enabling citizens to see feedback from other citizens and being able to interact with other ideas boosted engagement,
Ukraine employs a variety of participation mechanisms, including online portals, advisory councils, and in-person participation. Since the beginning of the war, the Ukrainian government has made concerted efforts to leverage digital technologies to continue engaging citizens in policy decisions and delivering critical services (see sections below). The following pages assess the most used participation mechanisms, while Table 4.2 provides a mapping of mechanisms used in Ukraine to date. As seen below, while many of the citizen participation mechanisms discussed are legally mandated (see Box 4.2), further efforts could help aligning their implementation with international practices.
Ministry-specific participation portals are active, although practices vary across public bodies
Resolution No. 996 of 2010 requires all Ministries, other central executive bodies, the Council of Ministers, and regional authorities to establish a dedicated “Public Consultations” page within their official website. Ministries currently use these portals to publish a copy of their indicative plans, as well as enable citizens to provide feedback on draft legislation, strategic documents, and draft policies. All public authorities collect and report data on how many consultations were published, enabling better monitoring from the SCMU on participation outputs.
SCMU data for the fourth quarter of 2024 showed that most consultations (255 of 306) at the Ministry level were conducted online, with virtual and in person public conferences coming at a distant second place (19). Other participation tools, including meetings with public councils and other advisory and consultative bodies (14), forums (7), and roundtable meetings (4) were also recorded (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2025[73]). In addition, SCMU longitudinal data shows that the emphasis on online consultation methods cannot be attributed to ongoing security challenges alone, with similar skews showing even before the COVID-19 crisis (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2025[73]).
Across the OECD, countries are adopting more varied approaches to citizen participation practices at a national level as an effective way to capture a broader range of insights and increase their responsiveness to public needs (OECD, 2023[40]). Complementary approaches – e.g., utilising quantitative results from online polls and qualitative outcomes from roundtable discussions – can often provide clearer and richer policy insights. In addition, expanding participation methods can ensure the participation of a wider range of population groups by removing barriers related to factors including civic literacy levels (e.g., children and youth), tech-savviness (e.g., older people), and social exclusion (e.g., internally displaced peoples and rural communities). Over-reliance of a particular consultation format can also lead to disengagement, as citizens have more expectations on how governments communicate with them. Developing more dynamic approaches to participation can ensure the public service is more agile, responsive and includes a wide range of people and groups.
An analysis of how the "Public Consultations" pages on the official websites of executive authorities are used in practice shows wide variance in terms of how consultations are published and what information is provided, how citizens can provide feedback, and whether government bodies report back on consultation outcomes. For example, some Ministries require citizens to log in through a portal with their social media accounts to provide feedback, while others instruct citizens to send emails to a dedicated address or call dedicated contact points. Citizen inputs (i.e., their feedback to consultations) are also not reported on in a consistent manner.
Developing a uniform approach to these pages is crucial for several reasons. First, it can reduce access barriers, as standardising formats and processes reduces the learning curve for those less familiar with government processes, and makes participation opportunities more user-friendly. Second, it can build trust and ensure long-term engagement – predictable and familiar processes enable citizens to know what to expect, building credibility over processes and increasing the likelihood that they will engage again. Third, it can increase clarity and transparency by standardising approaches to publishing policy proposals and ensuring governments provide feedback on outcomes, citizens can more easily identify gaps in accountability and transparency. Finally, standardisation on how and what kind of citizen feedback is collected enables better information sharing across the public sector, which in turn can lead to more informed transversal policy approaches and solutions. An ongoing reform to centralise participation opportunities via the cross-government citizen participation platform (see following section) will eventually require that executive authorities and state collegial bodies phase out their own participation pages and instead use the aforementioned participation platform, providing links to their Ministry-specific websites. This will not be compulsory for other government entities conducting public consultations (including at the local level), who are given the option to publish consultation opportunities either on their own websites or in the cross-government citizen participation platform. While this reform takes place, the SCMU has centralised links, recommendations and resources through a “Recommendations and Best Practices” portal to support public bodies in strengthening participation practices (SCMU, 2026[88]).
Government-wide initiatives are being launched to centralise participatory portals
Centralised participation platforms – where public institutions publish consultations and engagement opportunities – are a widespread practice among OECD member and partner countries. In fact, 27 out of 32 OECD countries (85%) have reported having government-wide participation portals where all ministries at the national level publish consultation opportunities (OECD, 2023[51]). These portals can act as ‘one-stop-shops’ for citizens and stakeholders to learn about past, current, and future opportunities for participation, and can be useful tools to inform the public on how their inputs were considered. In addition to the adoption of centralised participation platforms, some OECD countries have begun incorporating civic technology, including AI, blockchain and virtual reality, to enhance participation. Findings suggest such technologies can be leveraged to reduce barriers to participation, increase capacities in government, and ultimately empower citizens with more intelligible and accountable participatory processes (OECD, 2025[89]).
Since the onset of Russia’s full scale-invasion in 2022, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable technological innovation to continue providing services and information to citizens to foster societal resilience. In 2024, Ukraine ranked first in the world, ahead of 193 other countries, in the E-participation Index of the UN E-Government Knowledgebase6 (UN, 2024[90]), reflecting a strong commitment from the country on digital government.
Source: (UN, 2024[90])
As part of Ukraine’s Roadmap for Public Investment Management Reform, as well as the OGP Action Plan for 2023-2025, the country has launched a digital platform called the ‘State Digital Restoration Ecosystem for Accountable Management’ (DREAM), which centralises all restoration and modernisation projects in Ukraine. DREAM enables to follow progress on these projects at all stages, from the planning, development and implementation to ensure accountability at the national, regional and local level. The platform represents an innovative and forward-looking tool to enable citizens and stakeholders (including at an international level) to know more about the different restoration projects in Ukraine. A plan to develop an e-democracy component as part of the DREAM platform in collaboration with RISE Ukraine, a coalition of approximately 50 CSOs, is underway. In accordance with Resolution No. 522 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine is developing a Unified Geoinformation System for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Development of Regions and Territorial Communities. Based on geospatial information presented in the form of multilayer maps, the system aims to enable residents of territorial communities, business representatives, and other stakeholders to visualise and use analytical tools to better understand the state and territorial development priorities.
While no centralised government platform for participation exists in Ukraine yet, the Law on Public Consultations includes in its provisions to develop a centralised e-democracy platform to engage with citizens and stakeholders. This platform is currently in development, with plans to be fully operational once martial law is lifted.
The Ministry of Digital Transformation already operates the Unified State Portal of Electronic Services Diia (Дія) (see Chapter 1 of the Review). Diia serves as a one-stop-shop for citizens enabling them to access all public services, government documents, and digital government identification (e.g., update drivers licenses, tax numbers) tools in Ukraine. The website also provides trainings to citizens, including on building citizenship skills (See Box 4.9 for further information). The Diia website also enables citizens to provide feedback on public services through polls, although these are not considered official consultation mechanisms in the government.
The development of the cross-government citizen participation platform has the potential to significantly change citizen and stakeholder participation in government decisions by simplifying processes, increasing transparency, and addressing access barriers. It could also be used as an internal tool as a reference for public officials to access guidelines and promote good practices. At the same time, its effective implementation and long-term success will require policymakers to also adapt their approach to participation to enable more informed participation processes.
Important demographic considerations must also be considered to ensure this platform is accessible to all. While 82.4% of the population in Ukraine has access to an internet connection, significant variance exists among age groups, with younger (ages 15 – 24) people being significantly more connected (at 99.5%) than older population groups (83% for 25-74 and 19% for 75 and above) (ITU, 2024[91]). To ensure that technological innovations in the participation space engage all relevant people and groups, public officials could always ensure to provide non-digital alternatives. These can include, for instance, phone consultations, in-person meetings, or paper mail.
Estonia’s E-participation Platform rahvaalgatus.ee
Rahvaalgatus.ee is a digital government platform that allows Estonian citizens to propose, discuss, and collaboratively shape new laws and policies. The platform has collected over 500,000 signatures since its development, with 119 initiatives sent to the Parliament and 60 to local municipalities. The platform enables citizens to propose policies and track progress on their proposals. It also fosters collaboration between users to prepare petitions, leading to more well-rounded and comprehensive policy proposals. It is integrated into Estonia’s digital infrastructure, such as the electronic ID card system, SIM card centred mobile-ID and its newer smartphone-centred counterpart: the Smart-ID, making it easier for citizens to participate. The Estonian Parliament has also been responsive to proposals from the platform, including for instance by banning fur farms and legalising same-sex marriage.
Finland’s National Dialogues Platform
Finland’s National Dialogues are structured discussions used to engage a wide range of societal actors in Finland and build a common understanding of different social issues, challenges and opportunities. They can be organised by any national or local government body, as well as non-government institutions. To enable a co-ordinated approach to National Dialogues, the Ministry of Finance has developed an online platform to centralise all Dialogues taking place at any given time. The platform issues guidance and technical support for implementers wishing to launch a Dialogue, and provides information to the public on how Dialogues work, what their purpose is, and how citizens can take part. The platform includes social media templates for prospective organisers to raise awareness of the Dialogues and disseminate opportunities to take part. It also includes a template and guidance on how to report on outcomes. An OECD report on trust in government and a civic space scan in Finland from 2021 point to the Dialogues model as a strong positive driver for trust in government. The Platform’s guidelines ensure that good practices are maintained, and that policymakers have the capacities to continue developing these initiatives.
Public councils
The establishment of public councils within Ministries, other central executive bodies, the Council of Ministers, and regional authorities is required by Resolution No. 996 of 2010 (amended in 2019 and 2022). Other laws and resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministries (e.g., the Law On Central Executive Bodies and On Local State Administrations) enables public bodies to establish consultative or advisory bodies including youth councils, IDP councils, councils of entrepreneurs and so on. These councils are varied in their composition across public bodies, but must include civil society representatives among their membership. They serve as a consultative body to inform draft legislation and policies, and can propose the launch of public consultations on relevant topics. During martial law, the formation of new councils established under Resolution No. 996 has been suspended, and existing ones have had their terms extended. This restriction does not apply to other consultative or advisory bodies established under different legal bases.
What are Public Councils (PCs) and how do they operate
Public councils are consultative and advisory bodies working under executive authorities in Ukraine. They are typically formed by up to 35 members who serve 2-year terms, they can be composed of representatives from public associations, religious and charitable organisations, creative unions, trade unions and employers’ organisations, other non-government associations, and the media. Members are selected through rating voting at constituent meetings (92% of councils) and online (8%).
As of the first quarter of 2025, PCs existed under 62 executive authorities, including 12 out of 19 ministries, 30 of 42 other central executive bodies, and 19 regional and Kyiv city state administrations (except for the Dnipropetrovsk, Zhytomyr, Zaporizhzhia, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Lviv regional state administrations).
How do PCs engage with public authorities
PCs are usually required to meet at least once a quarter, although this has been challenged by restrictions under martial law. Ukrainian government data compiled since 2014 shows that this requirement is relatively well fulfilled. For instance, in the first quarter of 2025, 39 out of 61 PCs for which data was available met one or more times.
In most executive bodies, 1-2 employees are responsible for interacting with public councils. Most (85%) of PCs surveyed in 2024 cited collaborating with other divisions beyond the designated liaison unit.
Examples of positive impact
Public councils are regularly provided the opportunity to inform the activities and decisions of executive authorities. For instance, in the first quarter of 2025, 32 executive authorities engaged their public councils in consultations regarding draft regulatory acts. In addition to their advisory function, PCs may also work with public authorities on activities to build social resilience during the war (e.g., on IDPs, co-ordination of humanitarian aid).
There is also a strong statutory basis enabling such work. Resolution No. 976 empowers public organisations or public councils, based on the results of public expertise of the activities of executive bodies, to prepare expert proposals regarding executive body activities across policy areas. The executive body is obligated to consider such proposals and prepare a plan for their implementation.
Evidence collected by the Ukrainian Government, existing studies, and OECD interviews with civil society and relevant international organisations shows that PCs have served as a mechanism to ensure continued involvement of the public in government decisions during the war, by regularly contributing targeted expertise in the form of proposals and analytical materials. They are also key to monitoring public activities and enhancing the transparency of government processes. The vast majority also frequently work to enhance public consultations, through organising consultation activities, and collecting and summarising citizens’ feedback. Over two-thirds (67.8%) of respondents to a survey to representatives of PCs rated their interaction with the government as above average (4 or 5 out of 5) (OSCE, 2024[97]).
Nonetheless, such evidence also points to a number of challenges. For instance, opportunities exist to increase their impact. At least 30% of PCs reported not performing key functions consistently in 2024 (OSCE, 2024[97]). OECD interviews align with this finding, with CSOs reporting more could be done to ensure the content of meetings enables meaningful and impactful contributions, and that meetings could be managed more efficiently by simplifying bureaucratic processes, and ensuring adequate resources were being provided. Findings also showed more could be done to strengthen the expertise of PC members to ensure that relevant, high-quality proposals are produced.
Providing clearer guidance on the scope and purpose of PCs was also identified as an opportunity. This included a lack of methodological guidance on monitoring and participation processes, weak feedback mechanisms from executive bodies and lack of clarity over how executive bodies followed up on PCs proposals. At a procedural level, more could also be done to clarify processes on forming sub-groups and carrying out regular operations (OSCE, 2024[97]). OECD interviews supported these findings, highlighting in some cases lack of clarity on the advisory role of PCs among CSOs.
Further, OECD interviews with CSOs report more could be done in terms of council member recruitment and selection processes. On the one hand, further efforts can be made to motivate potential high-quality members to become members, including for instance experts from key organisations, which cite a lack of time and resources, and the availability of other communication channels as barriers to joining PCs. On the other hand, more could be done to set more transparent and clear standards for recruitment. This finding was also echoed by preexisting commissioned studies, which point to unclear voting processes and highlight that more clarity should be provided on how members are replaced (OSCE, 2024[97]).
Further attention is also needed in Ukraine regarding considering organised stakeholders’ participation in councils and citizen participation in broader processes as interchangeable or equal, which was a challenge observed through qualitative OECD interviews with Ukrainian authorities in 2024. Stakeholders provide technical expertise and specialised inputs on their subject matter area, and often have stronger capacities to participate in established mechanisms including advisory bodies. Their inputs can be helpful in navigating policy trade-offs and highlight consequences that may not be visible through citizen participation alone. Citizens, on the other hand, may need more investment in terms of resources and time to produce quality inputs, but are the ultimate beneficiaries of government decisions and can provide a unique ‘lived experience’ perspective which is essential to better informing government priorities. Well-designed processes often integrate both citizens and stakeholders strategically to improve participation outcomes.
The Action Plan for the Implementation of the National Strategy for Promoting the Development of Civil Society in 2025-2026 includes a number of commitments to address the aforementioned challenges, including on assessing the effectiveness of PC activities and preparing a set of recommendations on the formation and activities of PCs and other public advisory and consultative bodies in collaboration with key stakeholders and executive authorities. In this process, the Government of Ukraine could prioritise actions standardise rules of procedure for all PCs in consultation with relevant stakeholders to clarify roles and responsibilities,, including by identifying whether these should be crystalised into legislation in alignment with the Roadmap,, mandating reporting by executive authorities on how PC proposals are considered, increase the transparency of voting processes to elect members, and identify opportunities to reduce bureaucratic processes.
Local executive bodies implement more varied but fewer participation opportunities
While this chapter does not focus on participatory practices at the local level, it is important to acknowledge that local executive bodies can play a crucial role in fostering citizen and stakeholder participation. Local-level participation can be more impactful, as local governments are responsible for decisions that have a direct impact on citizens’ everyday lives, including urban planning, community development and local service delivery (Fung, 2006[98]). Ukraine’s decentralisation reforms have expanded participation opportunities at the local level, although findings from OECD interviews with government officials show significant capacity-building will be needed to provide more meaningful participation opportunities.
Data collected by the SCMU for the fourth quarter of 2024 shows that participation exercises are less frequent at the local level compared to the national level, with 226 public consultations being carried out by 26 regional executive bodies compared to 522 by 66 ministries and other central executive authorities. Providing a value assessment of such findings would not be pertinent due to differences in terms of proportionality (e.g., less regional executive bodies were included in reporting compared to the number of ministries and other central executive authorities) and differentiated effects of the war (e.g., at least 5 more regional state administrations are in close proximity active warzones). However, it is clear that there isa greater variety of participation opportunities at the regional and Kyiv city level compared to the national level: Online consultations (95) were still in the majority, although they were closely followed by meetings with public councils and other advisory and consultative bodies (58), meetings with the public (including online) (30), roundtable meetings (12), forums (8), ‘studying public thoughts’ (e.g., surveys) (4) and others (19) (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2025[73]).
SCMU data for both 2024 and before the full-scale Russian aggression also shows that citizen participation at the regional level tends to occur less frequently than at the national level. While data on participation at the local level is not collected by the SCMU, this finding may contrast with trends observed in most OECD countries, where most citizen participation takes place at the regional and local levels (OECD, 2024[5]). The ongoing war has particularly strained local authorities, especially those affected by the war, limiting their ability to engage with the public. However, even before 2022, local authorities faced important structural barriers to delivering meaningful participation opportunities. Key challenges included insufficient administrative capacity and financial resources to meet regulatory requirements on participation, uneven fiscal decentralization and unclear distribution of responsibilities on participation, stark regional economic disparities, and varying levels of democratic experience and civic engagement across regions (OECD, 2022[47]; Alexseev and Dembitskyi, 2024[99]).
The adoption of new participatory practices at the local level has taken place in parallel to decentralisation efforts to reinforce local democracy and promote greater accountability to citizens and stakeholders. For instance, to further improve transparency and communication with the public, several local governments have begun broadcasting their public meetings. Additionally, communities of practice provide platforms for collaboration and knowledge sharing on participation practices.
The institutionalisation of starostas (local community officials representing the interests of residents) in municipalities is another example (Verkhovna Rada, 2024[100]). Starostas are appointed by the municipal council after being nominated by a percentage of the local resident population (which varies depending on the size of the municipality). Their role includes supporting the preparation of proposals for the draft local budget, provision of administrative services, monitoring local development projects and issuing reports, and, most recently, providing services for internally displaced peoples. As of 2021, they may also serve on local executive committees. Despite their role, starostas are not democratically elected, and currently lack formal responsibilities on supporting the implementation of direct citizen participation.
Despite these efforts, the OECD finds that local authorities will continue to face significant challenges to implementing participation opportunities and adhering to new legislative requirements on local-level participation (see Box 4.2). As discussed in previous sections, new legislative amendments establish that local authorities should develop consultative bodies, embed participation into each village, settlement and city councils’ Charters of Municipality, adopt innovative citizen participation methods, and strengthen their engagement with youth and internally displaced peoples. Interviews with government bodies in Ukraine, international experts and CSOs point to the need to improve local authority’s digital proficiency capacities, raise awareness of the purpose of participation exercises, and improve collaboration with CSOs by establishing formal communication channels.
An interesting example that Ukraine could look to regarding building participatory capacities at the local level is Ireland’s Public Participation Networks (PPN) (Government of Ireland, 2025[101]). The Irish Department of Rural and Community Development created the PPN for local authorities to connect with community groups across the country. Community groups – including voluntary groups, local non-government organisations, and groups representing under-heard populations – must register to join the PPN in their local authority area. Once registered, they can access local news updates and receive notifications of upcoming consultations. Each PPN has its own website and must issue an annual report of activities.
In conclusion, Ukraine has made significant efforts to foster and strengthen citizen and stakeholder participation, particularly considering the ongoing full-scale Russian war of aggression. Nonetheless, opportunities exist to adopt a more co-ordinated approach by strengthening governance frameworks and further harmonising fragmented approaches to implementation. Institutionalising participation processes and building public official capacities at the national and local levels is key to ensuring practices are streamlined. Further, while Ukraine has made important strides in embracing digital technologies and innovative participatory practices, such as deliberative democracy and participatory budgeting, ensuring the involvement of all populations, especially those with limited digital access, remains crucial. The chapter concludes that for ongoing citizen participation initiatives to have a lasting impact, they must be adequately funded and embedded into existing governance structures to support more informed, democratic decision-making and foster social cohesion. The following recommendations seek to build on existing innovative practices and respond to the abovementioned challenges, in line with the OECD Recommendation on Open Government.
Immediate priorities to sustain democratic resilience under current conditions
Strengthen the impact of laws on citizen and stakeholder participation and build public sector capacities to meet requirements at the national, regional, district, city, town, and village level:
In alignment with priorities of the Roadmap on Democratic Institutions, define and publish clear implementation steps for the Law on Public Consultations, including a timeline and supporting measures (e.g., developing guidelines for policymakers, mapping implementation barriers, developing mechanisms to report on participation processes and success indicators, identifying the need to adopt additional Resolutions, Ministerial Orders or Instructions, recommendations to local self-government bodies) during the one-year transition period.
Earmark funding within fiscal decentralisation reforms to build local-level capacities for implementing requirements under the Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding Democracy at the Local Self-Government Level.
Promote the involvement of starostas and CSOs to strengthen the engagement of local authorities with underheard groups, including internally displaced peoples (IDPs) by co-developing and implementing targeted outreach plans as part of Charters.
Provide a unified and strategic approach to the promotion of meaningful citizen participation:
Leverage the ongoing development of the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development (2027–2032) to set participation priorities with clear commitments, including regarding meeting new national and local legislative requirements, defining co-ordination mechanisms with CSOs and across government, establishing guidance principles to use participation appropriately through the war efforts and beyond, and setting milestones. This effort could be jointly led by the SCMU and MoJ.
Clarify institutional roles and responsibilities, starting from within the SCMU and across the administration, to streamline participation processes across different levels of government.
Strengthen collaboration with civil society to enable their participation in government decisions:
Convene a working group with CSOs to discuss priorities of the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development (2027–2032), including regarding addressing barriers to opportunities to take part and promoting national, regional and local government participation opportunities.
Deliver more meaningful, representative and effective citizen and stakeholder participation processes at the national, regional and local level:
Update the good practices and recommendations section of the central government website page on Civil Society and Government to become a ‘one-stop-shop’ with practical information on selecting context-appropriate citizen participation methods and meeting national and local legislative requirements on participation.
Map successful and innovative participation practices across all levels of government to showcase in the ‘one-stop-shop’ and support policymakers’ learning. This could be done by the SCMU at national level and the Ministry for Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine (MDCT) at the regional and local level, in collaboration with existing local government networks (e.g., the Association of Ukrainian Cities and the All-Ukrainian Association of Local Governments).
Identify opportunities to expand participatory methods to better inform resilience efforts including, for instance, by engaging citizens and stakeholders earlier on and throughout the policy cycle, lowering access barriers for under-represented groups (e.g., IDPs), and providing more user-friendly and interactive participation opportunities.
Recovery priorities to ensure a participatory approach to the reconstruction
Promote a culture of participation across and outside of the public administration:
Continue streamlining existing and new training programmes on access to information, citizen participation and engagement with CSOs across all public bodies to ensure they meet legislative requirements on participation (once in effect where relevant), and ensure these are posted in the “one-stop-shop” Knowledge Management Portal, with clear information on their different purposes and target audiences.
Embed citizen participation skills into civil service training programmes across the public administration.
Bring together communities of practice on citizen participation for the recovery to enable peer exchanges among relevant national and municipal representatives across Ukraine. This could be led by the SCMU at the national level, and MDCT at the subnational level with collaboration with existing local government networks.
Strengthen citizens’ sense of political voice by building accountability in participation processes:
Develop guidelines for implementing authorities to fulfil legislative requirements to monitor, evaluate and report on participation activities. This could include, for instance, developing quality checklists with guiding questions to report on the planning, implementation and evaluation or processes.
Expand the SCMU’s role to track participation outcomes per participation process, including for instance the number and different characteristics of participants taking part in consultation processes, or the results of a consultation.
Deliver more meaningful, representative and impactful citizen and stakeholder participation processes:
Strengthen the cross-government citizen participation platform by ensuring that, once launched, it operates as a digital public infrastructure for democracy with a clear mandate. The platform should be accessible to all people and groups, offer clear and easy-to-navigate consultations, set transparent expectations, provide feedback on public input, and comply with data protection and mis- and disinformation safeguards. It should build on Diia’s digital identity, state digital signature, and existing user base. Consider partnering with civil society to co-develop content and support ethical design, establishing a helpdesk for technical assistance, and integrating the platform with complementary participatory channels through targeted training and co-ordination with CSOs. The MDCT could lead this work with support from technical experts.
Long-term priorities for open and participatory public sector reforms
Leverage deliberation to promote a culture of meaningful participation across government and society:
Assess the possibility of piloting a Citizens’ Assembly at the national level focused on national post-war recovery efforts. This could be piloted by the MDCT, in co-ordination with the SCMU and other relevant ministries. Involvement from the Verkhovna Rada’s relevant committees, the Office of the President and CSOs could further legitimise and broaden engagement.
Strengthen the impact of legislative arrangements on citizen and stakeholder participation at a national level:
Convene the working group set to review the Law on Public Consultations, led by the Ministry of Justice, to ensure alignment with OECD standards on participation. This could include, for instance, encompassing the full spectrum of participation. Periodic reviews could also be conducted to consider the need to integrate innovative participation methods. This could be led by the MoJ and the SCMU.
Promote a more citizen-centered government:
Upon the conclusion of the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development 2027-32, consider the development of an Open Government Strategy to bring together open government initiatives on public communications, citizen participation, and protecting and promoting civic space, elevating open government priorities to the highest political level.
Consider developing a deliberation participation function within the cross-government participation platform which goes beyond petitions to support structured proposals, discussion and synthesis, is formally embedded in policy and budget decision cycles, and systematically publishes participation and impact metrics.
Co-ordinate the governance of participation and strengthen accountability on the implementation of participation requirements:
Conduct a needs assessment to identify opportunities for developing a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to participation across the public administration, including setting common participation standards and developing a more co-ordinated approach to innovation, to understand whether establishing a Centre for Participation within the SCMU may be relevant.
References
[99] Alexseev, A. and S. Dembitskyi (2024), “Geosocietal Support for Democracy: Survey Evidence from Ukraine”, Cambridge University Press Perspectives on Politics, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592724000422.
[59] Arango, M. (2017), “Territorially Focused Development Plans can transform the countryside and strengthen peace in Colombia”, LSE, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamcaribbean/2017/10/10/territorially-focused-development-plans-can-transform-the-countryside-and-strengthen-peace-in-colombia/.
[21] Ashworth, G., B. Graham and J. Tunbridge (2007), “Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies”, Pluto Press, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18mvnhw.
[73] Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (2025), “Information and analytical materials”, https://www.kmu.gov.ua/gromadskosti/gromadyanske-suspilstvo-i-vlada/konsultaciyi-z-gromadskistyu/informacijno-analitichni-materiali.
[12] Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (2022), On Amendments to the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 996 of November 3, 2010, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/909-2022-%D0%BF#n10.
[15] CEPR (2025), “Policy Insight 140: Replacing foreign aid: A macroeconomic plan B for Ukraine (and Europe)”, https://cepr.org/publications/policy-insight-140-replacing-foreign-aid-macroeconomic-plan-b-ukraine-and-europe.
[48] CoE (2024), Policy Advice on the “Concept of the reform of local self-government and territorial organisation of power in Ukraine”, CENTRE OF EXPERTISE FOR MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE, https://rm.coe.int/cemg-pad-2024-6-ua-reform-concept-eng-final/1680b2b519.
[49] Council of Europe (2025), “Statute in action: the Council of Europe project on civic participation helps to foster local democracy”, https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/statute-in-action-the-council-of-europe-project-on-civic-participation-helps-to-foster-local-democracy.
[80] Council of Europe (2024), “Democracy in action: Ukraine holds its first Citizens’ Assemblies amid war”, https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/-/pioneering-democracy-under-wartime-conditions-ukraine-concludes-its-first-citizens-assembly.
[79] Council of Europe (2024), “Ukraine’s second Citizens’ Assembly in action: How citizens shape decision-making during wartime”, https://www.coe.int/en/web/participatory-democracy/newsroom/-/asset_publisher/uN9zCjAlcUJE/content/ukraine-s-second-citizens-assembly-in-action-how-citizens-shape-decision-making-during-wartime?_com_liferay_asset_publisher_web_portlet_AssetPublisherPortle.
[7] Dembitskyi, S. (2024), Victory-in-freedom: Ukraine’s democratic resilience in the face of war, https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2024.02.040.
[81] Dias, N. (2021), Participatory Budgeting World Atlas 2020-2021, https://www.oficina.org.pt/participatory-budgeting-world-atlas-2019.html.
[75] DILG (2025), “Barangay Project Monitoring and Evaluation Committee”, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/29-0e9f68e16ea0d3f95fde8489616a2fcb/2025/04/Merged-Presentations_Open-Monitoring-and-Evaluation_March-2025.pdf.
[92] EU (2023), “The Five Factors of Success Behind Estonia’s Citizen Empowering Platform”, https://citizens-initiative-forum.europa.eu/citizens-experiences/blogs/five-factors-success-behind-estonias-citizen-empowering-platform_en.
[98] Fung, A. (2006), Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x.
[85] Go Vocal (2023), “24,450 citizens take part in Peñalolén’s participatory budget”, https://www.govocal.com/blog/24450-citizens-take-part-in-penalolens-participatory-budget.
[8] Goodwin, R. et al. (2023), “National resilience in Ukraine following the 2022 Russian invasion”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103487.
[52] Government of Australia (2019), “APS Framework for Engagement and Participation”, https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/aps-framework-for-engagement-and-participation.pdf.
[69] Government of Brazil (2025), “Brazil Participativo”, https://brasilparticipativo.presidencia.gov.br/.
[54] Government of Canada (2025), “Cabinet Directive on Regulation”, https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/laws/developing-improving-federal-regulations/requirements-developing-managing-reviewing-regulations/guidelines-tools/cabinet-directive-regulation.html.
[68] Government of Canada (2025), “Policy Statement and Guidelines for Public Participation”, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/pol.html#:~:text=The%20Policy%20Statement%20and%20Guidelines%20on%20Public%20Participation%20endeavour%20to,Canadians.%22%201%20The%20Department%20already.
[93] Government of Finland (2025), “Finland’s National Dialogues Platform”, https://kansallisetdialogit.fi/en/about-national-dialogues/background-and-report/.
[53] Government of Finland (2025), “Government resolution on a national programme to promote democracy and participation”, https://valtioneuvosto.fi/paatokset/paatos?decisionId=3392.
[61] Government of France (2025), “CIPC”, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/associer-les-citoyens/centre-interministeriel-de-la-participation-citoyenne.
[101] Government of Ireland (2025), “Public Participation Networks”, https://www.gov.ie/en/organisation-information/a58b8-community-groups-public-participation-networks/.
[67] Government of New Zealand (2025), “New Zealand Law Commission: Our Work - Have your say”, https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work.
[60] Government of New Zealand (2023), “Community Engagement”, https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/our-programmes/policy-project/policy-methods-toolbox/community-engagement#expert.
[71] Government of Spain (2025), “Portal de la Transparencia”, https://transparencia.gob.es/transparencia/transparencia_Home/index/Gobierno-abierto/que-es_organizacion.html#:~:text=La%20Comisi%C3%B3n%20Sectorial%20de%20Gobierno,en%20materia%20de%20gobierno%20abierto.
[63] Government of Ukraine (2026), Knowledge Management Portal, https://pdp.nacs.gov.ua/.
[70] Government of Ukraine (2025), “Good practices on civil society engagement (international and domestic)”, https://www.kmu.gov.ua/gromadskosti/gromadyanske-suspilstvo-i-vlada/rekomendatsii-ta-krashchi-praktyky/krashchi-praktyky.
[96] Government of Ukraine (2025), “Information and analytical materials on the Activities of Public Councils”, https://www.kmu.gov.ua/gromadskosti/gromadyanske-suspilstvo-i-vlada/gromadski-radi/informacijno-analitichni-materiali.
[50] Government of Ukraine (2025), Methodological recommendations for the development of the Charter of the territorial community, https://mindev.gov.ua/storage/app/sites/1/uploaded-files/metodicni-rekomendacii-statutu-tg.pdf.
[65] Government of Ukraine (2025), ROADMAP FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, https://www.cvk.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Roadmap-FDI-EN.pdf.
[57] Government of Ukraine (2024), Action plan for the implementation of the National Strategy for Promotion of development of civil society in Ukraine for 2021–2026, https://www.kmu.gov.ua/gromadskosti/gromadyanske-suspilstvo-i-vlada/spriyannya-rozvitku-gromadyanskogo-suspilstva/natsionalna-stratehiia-spryiannia-rozvytku-hromadianskoho-suspilstva-v-ukraini-na-2021-2026-roky/natsionalna-stratehiia-ta-plany-zakhodiv-z-i.
[56] Government of Ukraine (2021), DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE No. 487/2021 On the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development in Ukraine for 2021 – 2026, https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/4872021-40193?fbclid=IwAR3dUq5oXC-zqVy6tw2eU2h55AqnRCLS1s6Z3b6zLYVGP2W3RAeXCz8GWo0.
[16] Grandvoinnet, H. and M. Chasara (2019), Engaging Citizens in Countries Affected by Fragility, Conflict, and Violence, The World Bank, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/569791584046574547/pdf/Engaging-Citizens-in-Countries-Affected-by-Fragility-Conflict-and-Violence.pdf.
[1] Grandvoinnet, H. and M. Chasara (2019), Engaging Citizens in Countries Affected by Fragility, Conflict, and Violence, The World Bank, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/569791584046574547/pdf/Engaging-Citizens-in-Countries-Affected-by-Fragility-Conflict-and-Violence.pdf.
[72] Hub na nOg (2025), “About us”, https://hubnanog.ie/about-us/.
[14] IMF (2023), “IMF Executive Board Concludes the 2023 Article IV Consultation and the Second Review under the Extended Fund Facility Arrangement for Ukraine”, https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2023/12/11/pr23433-ukraine-2023-article-iv-consultation-and-the-second-review-under-the-eff-arrangement.
[91] ITU (2024), “Ukraine”, https://datahub.itu.int/data/?e=UKR.
[83] Khutkyy, D. and K. Avramchenko (2019), “Impact Evaluation of Participatory Budgeting in Ukraine”, https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/61443529/Khutkyy_Avramchenko_2019_Impact_Evaluation_of_Participatory_Budgeting_in_Ukraine-libre.pdf?1575653674=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DKhutkyy_Dmytro_and_Kristina_Avramchenko.pdf&Expires=174.
[2] Kim, J., J. Shim and J. Park (2021), Exploring the role of citizen participation in the policy acceptance process: the case of Korean nuclear facilities, https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2021.1996868.
[78] KNOCA (2025), “Evaluations”, https://www.knoca.eu/resources#evaluations.
[3] Kostyuchenko, N., K. Reidl and R. Wüstenhagen (2024), Does citizen participation improve acceptance of a Green Deal? Evidence from choice experiments in Ukraine and Switzerland, Energy Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114106.
[42] Krainii, P. (2025), The Law of Ukraine “On Public Consultations” and its impact on the evolution of the right to participate in the management of public affairs: theoretical and practical analysis, Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law, https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.86.3.55.
[41] Kushniriuk, V. (2023), THEORETICAL AND LEGAL BASIS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN UKRAINE, https://kpu-journal.com.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/4/4.
[10] Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine (2024), Analysis of the formation of youth councils in Ukraine, https://mms.gov.ua/news/analiz-utvorennia-molodizhnykh-rad-v-ukraini.
[64] National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service (2024), “The NASC presented the results of the quantitative composition of civil servants”, https://nads.gov.ua/news/u-nads-predstavyly-rezultaty-kilkisnoho-skladu-derzhavnykh-sluzhbovtsiv.
[45] OECD (2025), “OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2025”, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/56b60e39-en.
[89] OECD (2025), “Tackling civic participation challenges with emerging technologies: Beyond the hype”, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/ec2ca9a2-en.
[5] OECD (2024), Exploring new frontiers of citizen participation in the policy cycle: Discussion paper, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/reinforcing-democracy-initiative/Exploring-New-Frontiers-of-Citizen-Participation-Discussion-Paper.pdf.
[74] OECD (2024), “Innovative Capacity And Participatory Policymaking in Armenia”, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/12/innovative-capacity-and-participatory-policymaking-in-armenia_5c8215de/1efeba1a-en.pdf.
[4] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[62] OECD (2024), “Public Administration in Ukraine: Assessment against the Principles of Public Administration”, SIGMA Monitoring Reports OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/078d08d4-en.
[13] OECD (2024), Ukraine, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/en/countries/ukraine.html.
[40] OECD (2023), Open Government for Stronger Democracies: A Global Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5478db5b-en.
[51] OECD (2023), Open Government for Stronger Democracies: A Global Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5478db5b-en.
[18] OECD (2022), “OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes”, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[47] OECD (2022), Rebuilding Ukraine by Reinforcing Regional and Municipal Governance, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/63a6b479-en.
[95] OECD (2021), “Civic Space Scan of Finland”, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/f9e971bd-en.
[94] OECD (2021), “Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in Finland”, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/52600c9e-en.
[77] OECD (2020), “Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave”, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.
[46] OECD (2020), “Regulatory Impact Assessment, OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy”, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a9638cb-en.
[19] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, OECD Legal Instruments, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[17] OECD (2016), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268104-en.
[44] OECD (2012), “Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance”, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264209022-e.
[76] OGP (2025), “End of Commitment Report – Increasing Access to Participation in Monitoring Infrastructure Projects at the Barangay Level”, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/end-of-commitment-report-increasing-access-to-participation-in-monitoring-infrastructure-projects-at-the-barangay-level/.
[55] OGP Independent Reporting Mechanism (2024), Independent Reporting Mechanism Action Plan Review Ukraine 2023-25, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/ukraine-action-plan-review-2023-2025/#_edn2.
[97] OSCE (2024), “REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH ON THE PRACTICE OF ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC COUNCILS AT EXECUTIVE AUTHORITIES”, https://www.kmu.gov.ua/storage/app/sites/1/17-civik-2018/rubrik_grom-rad/zvit_grom_rad.pdf.
[86] Participedia (2021), “¡En mi barrio, Yo decido! - Online Participatory Budgeting in Peñalolén”, https://participedia.net/case/en-mi-barrio-yo-decido-online-participatory-budgeting-in-pealoln.
[87] Penalolen, G. (2025), “Penalolen mas cerca”, https://penalolenmascerca.cl/.
[32] Rada, V. (2007), Cabinet Resolution On Approval of the Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/950-2007-%D0%BF#Text.
[58] Rettberg, A. (2025), “Building peace, building states? Examining the Humanitarian – Development – Peace Nexus in Colombia’s PDET regions”, Globalizations, 1–24., https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2025.2459569?af=R#abstract.
[6] Schmäing, S. (2023), Urban democracy in post-Maidan Ukraine: conflict and cooperation between citizens and local governments in participatory budgeting, European Societies, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2023.2183972.
[66] SCMU (2026), Information and analytical materials, https://www.kmu.gov.ua/gromadskosti/gromadyanske-suspilstvo-i-vlada/konsultaciyi-z-gromadskistyu/informacijno-analitichni-materiali.
[88] SCMU (2026), Recommendations, https://www.kmu.gov.ua/gromadskosti/gromadyanske-suspilstvo-i-vlada/rekomendatsii-ta-krashchi-praktyky/rekomendaciyi.
[39] SCMU (2025), “On Approval of the Action Plan for the Implementation of the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development in Ukraine for 2021-2026 in 2025-2026”, https://www.kmu.gov.ua/npas/pro-zatverdzh-spryiannia-rozvytku-hromadianskoho-suspilstva-v-ukraini-na-20212026-roky-i-246.
[84] SocialBoost (2025), “Participatory Budgeting Ukraine”, https://pb.org.ua/#rec53485515.
[9] Szostek, J. and L. Toremark (2025), “Democracy in Ukraine”, Chatham House, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/11/democracy-ukraine.
[90] UN (2024), “Ukraine - E Governance knowledgebase”, https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data/Country-Information/id/180-Ukraine.
[22] UNDP (2022), “Human Development Index - Global Report 2022”, https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-document/hdr2021-22sp1.pdf.
[20] UNESCO (2022), “Ukraine: over 150 cultural sites partially or totally destroyed”, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ukraine-over-150-cultural-sites-partially-or-totally-destroyed.
[35] Verkhovna Rada (2025), Law On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine on Democracy at the Level of Local Self-Government, 2025, No. 4, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/3703-20%23Text#Text.
[11] Verkhovna Rada (2024), Analytical Report ’Activities of Councils on Internally Displaced Persons’, https://www.rada.gov.ua/uploads/documents/75353.pdf.
[30] Verkhovna Rada (2024), Law of Ukraine about public consultations, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3841-IX#Text.
[100] Verkhovna Rada (2024), “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine”, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/280/97-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text.
[29] Verkhovna Rada (2023), Law of Ukraine About the all-Ukrainian referendum, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1135-20#Text.
[43] Verkhovna Rada (2023), “On the Principles of State Regulatory Policy in the Field of Economic Activity”, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1160-15#Text.
[27] Verkhovna Rada (2022), Cabinet Resolution on Conducting Consultations of Executive Authorities with Representative Bodies of Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1018-2022-%D0%BF#n10.
[28] Verkhovna Rada (2022), Cabinet Resolution on Procedure for Conducting a Survey on Initiatives Aimed at Solving Public Administration Issues in Various Spheres of Public Life on the Unified State Web Portal of Electronic Services, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/90-2022-%D0%BF#Text.
[38] Verkhovna Rada (2020), “On Approval of the Regulations on the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/850-2009-%D0%BF#n11.
[34] Verkhovna Rada (2011), Law of Ukraine On Access to Public Information, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2939-17#Text.
[25] Verkhovna Rada (2010), Cabinet Resolution On Ensuring Public Participation in the Formation and Implementation of State Policy, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/996-2010-%D0%BF#Text.
[31] Verkhovna Rada (2004), Law of Ukraine On the Principles of State Regulatory Policy in the Field of Economic Activity, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1160-15#Text.
[37] Verkhovna Rada (1997), , https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/554/97-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text.
[26] Verkhovna Rada (1997), Law of Ukraine On Local Self-Government, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/280/97-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text.
[24] Verkhovna Rada (1996), Constitution of Ukraine, https://rm.coe.int/constitution-of-ukraine/168071f58b.
[33] Verkhovna Rada (1996), Law on Citizens Appeals, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/393/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text.
[36] Verkhovna Rada (1991), On trade unions, their rights and guarantees of activity, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1045-14#Text.
[82] Volodin, D. (2019), “Deliberative democracy and trust in political institutions at the local level: evidence from participatory budgeting experiment in Ukraine”, Contemporary Politics, Vol. 25: 78–93, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780367822354-6/deliberative-democracy-trust-political-institutions-local-level-evidence-participatory-budgeting-experiment-ukraine-dmytro-volodin.
[23] Wing, S. (2008), “Originating Participation: The Sovereign National Conference. In: Constructing Democracy in Transitioning Societies of Africa.”, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230612075_4#citeas.
← 1. According to the 2024 OECD Public Governance Review Survey to Ukraine.
← 2. The (Forthcoming) OECD Citizen Participation Barometer provides the following definitions: Popular Initiative: A popular initiative is a bill, statute, or constitutional amendment supported by a group of citizens that offers an alternative to the status quo. Citizens are allowed to decide directly at the ballots on matters of concern to them, without the consent of the country’s main political officials. They serve as a proactive institution on certain topics. Optional Referendum: Unlike popular initiatives, optional referendums allow citizens to reject a law passed by the legislature (called the "people’s veto" or "popular referendum"). Citizens move second, i.e., they react to a previous move by the authorities. It is a defensive instrument in the hands of citizens. Obligatory Referendum: Obligatory referendums are, in most cases, limited to specific topics in the constitution or, as in Switzerland, Uruguay, and all but one of the American States (Delaware), to an amendment of the constitution. Strictly speaking, it is not a right the population uses in any active way. Rather, it is a defensive right or a veto right. Authorities’ Plebiscite: Authorities’ plebiscites are mechanisms of direct democracy that allow authorities to pose a question to the citizenry to answer. These institutions are not necessarily related to popular sovereignty in its traditional sense, which is why it can be claimed that this cannot be characterised as belonging to the direct democratic world. Though leaders can use plebiscites perversely, during the vote itself, citizens exercise their sovereignty and are thus still fulfilling the definition of direct democracy.
← 3. New Zealand’s range of participation is aligned with the International Association for Public Participation, which classifies the different types of engagement as such: Informing: Providing information to help understand issues and solutions. Consulting: Obtaining public feedback on analysis and decisions. Involving: Working directly with the public to understand their concerns and aspirations. Collaborating: Partnering with the public in the design or decision-making process. Empowering: Placing decision-making in the hands of the public.
← 4. As reported by the Higher School of Public Administration, Module 2 discusses Council of Europe standards including the Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation in the Decision-Making Process and Guidelines on Civil Participation in Political Decision-Making, as well as European Commission principles including the General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consultation by the Commission with Interested Parties and the Better Regulation Guidelines.
← 5. This section refers to local participatory processes in sovereign Ukrainian territories.