For a long time, the debate on Ukraine’s reconstruction has naturally focused on funding. How much is needed? Where can it be found? How much will international partners contribute? What can the state finance? How can private capital be attracted?

These questions remain relevant. According to the latest RDNA5 estimate, Ukraine’s total recovery and reconstruction needs are approaching USD 588 billion.

However, alongside the financial shortfall, another deficit is becoming increasingly apparent.

Do we have enough developed projects and sufficient capacity to convert available funding into completed roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, housing, water supply systems, and energy infrastructure?

A new report by the RISE Ukraine Coalition “Ukraine’s Reconstruction Architecture” provides interesting material for this discussion.

In my view, the most important aspect of the study is not even the individual figures. It is the bigger picture that emerges from them.

There is a long chain between the decision to rebuild and the finished project

In the RISE report, the reconstruction framework is divided into a sequential chain of steps: prioritisation, project selection, funding, procurement, implementation, disclosure of information, and accountability.

On paper, it all looks logical. In practice, every link in the chain requires people, skills, data, procedures, and accountability. This is where the difficulties begin.

Ukraine has already made significant progress in establishing this system. Reforms to public investment management are underway. Medium-term plans, project portfolios, and a single project pipeline are being developed. The DREAM system is also being worked on. Approaches to setting priorities and allocating public resources are changing.

In other words, a response is gradually emerging to the question: what should the country prioritise in terms of funding?

The next question is far more practical: to what extent are the selected projects ready for implementation?

RISE identifies uneven project development quality, limited institutional capacity, data gaps, and insufficient coordination between different levels of governance as challenges to reform implementation. These constraints are particularly acute at the local level.

This is no longer just a theoretical problem.

If a community has an urgent need but lacks well-prepared documentation and a team capable of making procurement, organising implementation, and managing the project, the mere availability of financial resources does not in itself guarantee a result.

Project readiness becomes a resource

The latest changes to the public investment system are, in fact, steering Ukraine precisely in this direction. Between the desire to build a facility and the decision to allocate funds for it, something that has long been lacking is gradually emerging: an assessment of the project’s readiness, priority, and feasibility. This is a very important change.

After all, when reconstruction needs far exceed available resources, the state and international partners must inevitably ask not only “how necessary is this project?”, but also “are we capable of implementing it?”

For communities, this means that project development quality is gradually becoming just as much a practical prerequisite for accessing funding as reconstruction need itself.

However, this raises another problem that cannot be solved by a government resolution or a new digital system. The problem is people.

Not only are projects becoming more complex; the role of the client is also becoming more complex

The RISE report highlights the shortage of architects, engineers, lawyers, procurement specialists, financial analysts, and project managers in particular. This is a very important signal.

While we often talk about the labour shortage in the construction sector in terms of a lack of manual labourers, this report highlights a shortage of skilled professionals. However, the reconstruction effort will also lack individuals with the skills required to prepare, organise, and manage complex projects.

This will be particularly acutely felt by communities.

More and more is expected of the client these days: to identify needs, prepare a project, justify the investment, undergo an assessment, organise procurement, conclude a contract, monitor its implementation, and manage changes, deadlines, costs, and reporting.

However, a small local community’s staff size does not automatically increase when new requirements arise.

Therefore, the issue of the client’s capacity is gradually becoming one of the central issues in reconstruction.

International financial organisations have long viewed it in precisely this way. Alongside providing funding, they impose requirements relating to project preparation, procurement, contracting, environmental and social standards, management, monitoring, and reporting. This is clearly evident in RISE’s analysis of the role of international partners in the reconstruction process.

Procurement is also ceasing to be merely a tender process

Another interesting change is happening in procurement.

In September, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development introduced updated Procurement Policies and Rules for projects financed by the Bank. The logic behind the changes is clear. The EBRD increasingly views procurement as a strategic part of the project implementation process. In other words, the process does not end with the selection of a winner.

It also covers procurement planning, choosing the right model, qualifying bidders, contracting, contract administration, monitoring contract performance, and dealing with claims and disputes.

This is a fundamentally different approach.

Even if the procurement process is flawless, the resulting project may be poorly executed if the procurement is disconnected from how the project will subsequently be carried out.

Notably, even RISE highlights the need to move away from the dominance of the lowest price in its recommendations for the construction sector, and to take into account cost, quality, energy efficiency, and the contractor’s capacity and proven experience.

Therefore, from many different angles, we arrive at one question: what exactly are we buying – a procedure or the ability to deliver a result?

International funding comes with international rules

This is yet another reality that Ukraine needs to take into account.

A significant proportion of the reconstruction effort will be funded internationally. Moreover, international financial organisations do more than just finance projects: they also operate in accordance with their own rules governing project preparation, procurement, contracting, risk management, and oversight.

One recent example of this is the International Fund for Agricultural Development’s decision to extend and expand its agreement with FIDIC on the use of standard contracts for a further five years. Eight FIDIC contract forms will now be included in the Fund’s standard tender documentation.

This is important not because Ukraine needs to mechanically copy any international practice.

The principle itself matters.

Funding, the implementation model, procurement, contracts, and project management are regarded as parts of a single system.

The more Ukraine works with international funding, the more important it will become for our clients, engineers, consultants, designers and contractors to be able to operate in such a system.

The next challenge of reconstruction

Ukraine still needs hundreds of billions of dollars.

However, we will also need to address the issue of building the capacity to deliver projects of the appropriate scale and complexity.

One solution alone will not be enough to achieve this.

We need well-prepared projects. Capable clients. Professional teams. Appropriate procurement models. Contracts that reflect the nature of the project. Risk and change management. Engineering and management expertise.

Some of these functions can be provided by a strong client. Some projects require project offices, external consultants, consulting engineers and other professional stakeholders. The model may vary.

The principle remains the same: the complexity of a project must be matched by an appropriate level of management capacity.

Therefore, when considering reconstruction, it is important not to focus solely on the billions invested and the number of planned projects.

A whole system exists between funding and the completed project.

The success of our reconstruction efforts will depend largely on Ukraine’s ability to manage this system effectively.

The column reflects the opinion of its author only. The author is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information. The views expressed in the column may not coincide with those of the editorial staff of the Decentralisation Portal.