Ukraine’s system for selecting recovery projects is effectively not functioning, while key institutions perform only a formal approval role. This was stated by Viktor Maziarchuk, Head of the Fiscal Policy Research Center, during the roundtable discussion “Public Investment Management (PIM) in Ukraine: Lessons of 2025 and Priorities for 2026–2027.”
“We do not have a properly functioning project selection process. The Strategic Council and the interagency council perform formal political approvals. It simply does not work,” he emphasized.
According to Maziarchuk, the absence of clear criteria and procedures leads to non-transparent decisions and the chaotic formation of project lists. These issues have also been highlighted in recent audits by the Accounting Chamber.
“The process of selecting construction projects was non-transparent and inconsistent, and was carried out without unified prioritization criteria, proper verification, or publication of documentation,” he quoted from the Accounting Chamber’s report.
“To me, that sounds like a very serious diagnosis,” Viktor Maziarchuk added.
Maziarchuk also drew attention to funding planning, which, in his view, further aggravates these problems. In particular, he referred to a major project of the Ministry for Communities and Territories Development with a total financing volume of around UAH 14 billion, most of which is scheduled for the end of the year.
“October, November, December — UAH 8.2 billion. That is the main financing for this project. Will it actually be used? I highly doubt it. This is about management, about basic things,” he said.
In his opinion, such a concentration of funds in the final months of the year raises serious doubts about the realistic ability to use them effectively.
Another challenge, he noted, is the lack of high-quality information for managerial decision-making.
“The monitoring and reporting system did not provide sufficient and reliable information for timely management decisions,” he quoted from the report.
He also stressed that digital recovery tools fail to ensure consistency of data.
“Digital management of the recovery process did not provide a unified and reliable information space. The DREAM system does not reflect the real state of financing data, project implementation status, or commissioning certificates. I could go on quoting this for much longer,” he said, referring to the conclusions of the Accounting Chamber audit.
Viktor Maziarchuk emphasized that these issues are systemic and require not isolated fixes, but a broader change in the approach to managing reconstruction.
“We understand that it will not function perfectly in the coming years. But we need to understand what can be improved so that it moves in the right direction,” he concluded.
