Blog entry

True electricity market integration requires environmental compliance

Before the EU’s CBAM definitive regime began on 1 January this year, many stakeholders questioned whether CBAM should be delayed in the electricity sector. Some even questioned whether electricity should even remain included at all. After all, the Energy Community Treaty has for 20 years promoted integration of the Western Balkans’ energy markets with those of the EU, rather than adding new barriers.

Although CBAM is likely impacting this process to some extent – it’s too early to tell how much – much of the debate currently focuses on its negative impacts, without acknowledging the positive potential of CBAM to drive forward alignment with EU energy and climate policy. The right of Western Balkan renewable energy producers to export electricity to the EU unhindered is also often taken as a given in the debate.

Our new position paper, signed by 63 civil society organisations, therefore seeks to highlight another side of the story: that electricity market integration is desirable, but it must go hand in hand with environmental and climate compliance in the electricity sector.

Not playing by the rules

The Western Balkans’ deadly coal power plants are notorious, but it’s not merely a question of fossil fuels versus renewables, but also a wider lack of environmental governance. Despite being a biodiversity hotspot, the countries fail to properly protect their valuable natural areas, and to properly apply basic EU safeguards like strategic and project-level environmental impact assessments. Appropriate assessments under the Habitats Directive and water impact tests under the Water Framework Directive are barely applied at all.

Western Balkan governments want to participate in the EU energy markets without playing by the rules, and this isn’t fair to their people, nature or others who do play by the rules.

The Energy Community Treaty was designed to avoid this situation. And while it has contributed significantly to moving forward the Western Balkan countries’ legislative alignment with the EU, its environmental safeguards are lagging behind. It also lacks financial penalties, allowing its Contracting Parties to procrastinate for years on compliance.

Finally, deadlines with consequences

CBAM has therefore been a breath of fresh air, finally providing clear deadlines for the countries to either face its consequences or gain exemptions for electricity by applying EU energy and climate law, including emissions trading schemes equivalent to that of the EU by 1 January 2030.

Progress has been slow, but Serbia, Montenegro and Moldova have transposed the legislation needed for electricity market coupling – the first precondition for exemption from CBAM. Montenegro has also recently committed to carbon neutrality by 2050.

The EU must therefore not give up on CBAM in electricity, but rather use it to the maximum to help move forward compliance with EU energy and climate policy. More broadly, the European Commission must make sure the exporting countries finally comply with all the relevant EU rules, including environmental safeguards.

The way forward

Western Balkan governments may not realise it yet, but the Commission would be doing both the EU and the region a favour by applying the CBAM exemption criteria and reductions in CBAM charges strictly. Insisting that the countries meaningfully advance on decarbonisation in order to gain CBAM exemptions for electricity will help to make up for the lack of enforcement mechanisms in the Energy Community Treaty, and introducing carbon pricing would help them mobilise resources to fund a just energy transition.

More broadly, the Commission also needs to apply joined-up thinking. Access to EU funds for energy must be conditioned on enforcement of the Energy Community Treaty, and full transposition and enforcement of nature and water protection safeguards in the countries, to improve renewable energy sustainability.

The EU also needs to avoid creating uncertainty about its own policy directions. Recent calls by Italy’s government and others to suspend the ETS are totally irresponsible. They largely result from countries’ own misguided investments in gas, and would increase the EU’s dependence on imported fossil fuels, and vulnerability to price shocks like the current one.

Although the Western Balkan countries need to mobilise their own resources for just transition via carbon pricing, the EU also needs to show it is serious about supporting a just transition in the region by earmarking financial support for carbon-intensive regions in the next EU long-term budget. Only this way can we ensure a level playing field in the electricity sector and a more socially and environmentally sustainable energy transition.

How a pioneering Slovak town is modernising its district heating system

How Slovakia’s coal phase-out changed the game

Partizánske is a mid-sized town in western Slovakia, located along the Nitra River in the Upper Nitra region. It was founded in the 1930s as an industrial town connected to the nearby Nováky coal power plant. Home to roughly 20,000 residents, the town has its own municipally owned district heating system, which today is powered by 66% fossil gas and 34% biomass.

In December 2018, the Slovak government announced that coal would be phased out by 2023 at the latest, giving the Nováky plant a five-year countdown until its shutdown. This meant that all municipalities connected to the plant needed to find a new heating source. However, unlike some neighbouring towns, Partizánske was no longer directly dependent on domestic brown coal for its district heating.

Yet, the national coal phase-out changed the outlook for the entire region. With coal leaving the energy mix, district heating systems across the region would have to reinvent themselves. By December 2023, all of the municipalities had successfully built plans for replacement systems for all of the affected households across the region.

However, the reinvention could not stop at just transitioning to gas. With the EU’s target of a complete decarbonisation by 2050, the transformation of these systems could not stop at fossil gas. Therefore, the municipalities also had to start planning how to modernise their district heating systems towards sustainable, renewable and modern technologies.

Planning for the future

Partizánske started by working with the Slovak non-governmental organisation Friends of the Earth–Centre for Environmental Public Advocacy (Friends of the Earth–CEPA). It prepared a pre-feasibility study in-house outlining a structured plan for transforming the town’s district heating system. The study mapped :

Heat consumption across individual buildings and zones

Technical condition of boiler rooms

Equipment efficiency and emissions

Operating costs

Precise pipeline routing

Collisions with underground utilities

Terrain constraints

Three core ideas emerged: interconnection of the two currently separate heating systems, utilising geothermal resources and, in the long term, recovering waste heat from the town’s wastewater treatment plant. The next step was to consult external experts to assess the viability of these conclusions.

In February 2023, Partizánske reached out to the European Investment Bank (EIB). Typically, the EIB advisory services primarily focus on larger infrastructure projects in major cities. Yet, the EIB and European Commission had recently launched the Technical Assistance for Regions Undergoing a Green Energy Transition (TARGET) programme – launched for regions that were historically dependent on fossil fuels like coal, peat, and oil shale, which includes the Upper Nitra region.

As the municipality increasingly demonstrated readiness, clarity and technical preparation, interest grew. Eventually, a formal technical assistance agreement was signed in August 2024 under the Energy Efficiency and Energy Advisory division of the EIB’s Energy Department. By September 2024, the terms of reference had been approved, with external experts procured up until March 2025. A kick-off meeting followed in April 2025, and the final feasibility study was published in February 2026.

The technical assistance confirmed the conclusions of the earlier Friends of the Earth–CEPA study: the need to interconnect the existing heating systems, and the potential to use geothermal energy and recover heat from wastewater. This endorsement will help the municipality apply for funding, as it gives investors and partners confidence in the viability of the planned project, which the EIB estimates at around EUR 6.1 million.

Next steps

After this feasibility study, Partizánske is moving forward by preparing a technological concept. This will define specific technologies, required capacities and preliminary cost estimates, helping the municipality to secure building permits and negotiate financing, including an application to the Slovak Environmental Fund’s district heating modernisation financing schemes from the EU’s Modernisation Fund.

Other immediate major structural decisions have already been agreed. The current four-pipe system will be replaced with a two-pipe system, simplifying infrastructure and improving efficiency. Boiler rooms in critical or emergency condition will be prioritised and integrated first.

Additionally, Partizánske is now preparing a communication strategy aimed at residents, with the goal of building long-term public support through clear, accessible information – a particularly important step as municipal elections approach.

This pathway shows that even small municipalities can use services from the EU such as the TARGET programme. Thanks to thorough preparation and municipal readiness, Partizánske is set to become a first mover in Slovakia in decarbonising its district heating system. This approach has potential for replication across Europe, where additional EU support programmes are available through the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO), the Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS) programme, Horizon Europe, and networks like the EU Covenant of Mayors.

Can the EU’s Social Climate Fund reach vulnerable households in Estonia?

Like other EU Member States, Estonia has submitted its social climate plan to the European Commission. The plan, which has recently undergone changes based on the Commission’s recommendations, is expected to focus primarily on building renovation and energy efficiency measures, while also addressing the broader complexities of energy and transport poverty.

The Estonian Green Movement is currently working closely with national decision makers to answer a fundamental question: How can the Social Climate Fund – one of the EU’s first major instruments linking climate policy with social justice – best reach vulnerable households?

To find an answer, we hosted a round-table discussion on 13 January 2026 in Tartu. The event brought together regional and national representatives to identify and evaluate successful solutions and innovative measures adopted in countries across central and eastern Europe.

Regions left behind

While Estonia has made major strides in the renovation of multi-apartment buildings in recent years, the benefits have not been distributed equally. A clear gap remains in regions with high levels of energy poverty, such as in Ida-Virumaa – Estonia’s just transition region – as well as in the south-east of the country.

Our recent round-table event focused on these weaker regions, identifying two key bottlenecks: first, regional authorities urgently require greater technical assistance and knowledge; second, the current ‘first-come-first-served’ approach to funding often leaves regional authorities with less administrative capacity behind. Participants also agreed that future measures must be intentionally designed to target vulnerable households.

In these regions, the high proportion of older people are typically reluctant to invest in large-scale building renovations. Additionally, many of the regions’ five-storey multi-apartment buildings contain as few as 10 households, making the individual financial outlay required to renovate a property prohibitively high, which also discourages residents from the idea of renovating in the future. However, regional officials noted that the existence of a renovated roof is often a sign that an apartment association is cooperative and potentially open to a deep renovation.

While Estonian cities offer examples of neighbourhood-based initiatives successfully tackling building renovations – notably the SOFTAcademy project in Tallinn – regional authorities indicate that these urban models are difficult to replicate in rural areas.

Finally, the language barrier must also be taken into account. According to 2021 statistics, 73% of the population in Ida-Virumaa are native Russian speakers. All of the regional authorities agreed that information must be accessible in Russian to be effective. Success in these areas also depends on informal engagement and sharing information among the local community. Establishing a ‘friendly connection’ at the regional level is not only possible but essential for building trust.

A fairer way to fund renovations

Researchers at the Centre of Applied Social Sciences at the University of Tartu recently released the results of a new data-driven model aimed at improving how renovation subsidies for apartment buildings are allocated in Estonia. Already tested in Tallinn’s Annelinn and Karlova neighbourhoods, the model seeks to direct financial support towards households experiencing the highest rates of energy poverty.

According to the model’s creator, Mariia Chebotareva, Estonia’s existing renovation support scheme focuses solely on the technical parameters of buildings and fails to reflect the socio-economic status or financial capacity of households. The new model seeks to address this gap by combining socio-economic data with building-level technical parameters. Using specific datasets, the model generates a ranking of apartment buildings based not only on their energy efficiency, but also on the risk of energy poverty among households.

This innovative model is a first for Estonia. If implemented, it would replace the existing performance-based approach – aptly described in the Estonian language as a ‘race of nimble fingers’ – with a more socially just system. Though the researchers note that accessing and integrating the data required will be a challenge, simplifying the system for regional authorities could help them better identify and support those most at risk.

Making EU money work

Ensuring that EU funds deliver equitable benefits to the regions and people of Estonia is crucial. The model introduced by the Centre of Applied Social Sciences has the potential to become a ‘best practice’ in Estonia and inspire similar models across central and eastern Europe. At the Estonian Green Movement, we’re committed to making sure that EU policy translates into real benefits at the local level – and that those who need the most support are not overlooked. As the cost of living in Estonia continues to rise, the design and implementation of future measures is now more important than ever.

Deregulation endangers Latvia’s forests

Latvia’s forests, in particular, are coming under increasing threat from short-sighted policy proposals that prioritise short-term profit over long-term sustainability.

Latvia joins EU deregulation drive

The push to increase competitiveness by simplifying regulation has sat high on the EU agenda in recent years, translating into initiatives at both EU and national levels. The European Commission, for example, has proposed a number of ‘omnibus’ packages aimed at streamlining legislation, with EU Member States simultaneously reviewing which requirements can be reduced to improve operating conditions for businesses and boost economic growth.

Capitalising on this deregulation trend, Latvia’s Ministry of Agriculture has put forward a series of far-reaching proposals aimed at reshaping forestry policy.

Forestry safeguards under pressure

In October 2024, the Ministry proposed amendments to logging regulations that would have significantly weakened safeguards, including more than doubling the maximum size of clearcuts in many forests as well as expanding canopy gaps – openings in tree cover – to a quarter of the permitted size.

The amendments also sought to considerably lower thresholds for declaring forest stands unproductive, effectively making them eligible for harvest sooner. Additionally, under the pretext of disease prevention, the rules for harvesting tree species like aspen and spruce were set to be eased. According to the Ministry, the aim was to grant forest owners greater freedom and to accelerate the permitting process.

Fortunately, sustained pushback from environmental organisations, certain political parties within the government, and concerned institutions led to the postponement of these amendments. The Ministry is currently organising another round of discussions with stakeholders, with a significantly reduced set of amendments now under consideration.

But these are not the only restrictions the Ministry is intent on loosening. In September 2025, the Ministry proposed amendments to the Forest Law, allowing a consultation period of just three working days. The proposals included a substantial reduction in the minimum harvest age for several tree species and a highly restrictive and baseless definition of ‘old-growth forests’, setting a minimum area of 30 hectares along with other excessive requirements.

The proposals also attempted to introduce an unlawful provision, namely that any forest management activities compliant with the Forest Law would automatically satisfy nature protection legislation, even though many key protection measures are not covered under the Law. As before, efficiency was used as a justification for deregulation.

Once again, due to numerous objections from environmental organisations, institutions and other stakeholders, the amendments were withdrawn. A key counter-argument in both cases was the precedent set by a 2024 Constitutional Court case, in which amendments significantly reducing minimum tree diameters for harvesting were repealed due to the lack of a proper environmental impact assessment.

Defence at all costs?

Similar trade-offs have emerged in the context of efforts to increase logging, but under a different pretext – generating additional revenue to support Latvia’s defence spending. While investment in defence infrastructure is undeniably necessary in today’s geopolitical climate, funding sources should seek to avoid creating long-term damage elsewhere. In May 2025, the Minister of Agriculture made the first of several attempts to significantly increase allowed harvesting volumes in state forests until 2030, arguing it would raise over EUR 100 million, including funds for defence.

However, the proposal was met with widespread criticism: not only on ecological grounds, but also from an economic perspective. Critics contend that such a short-term approach – one reliant on a sudden intensification of harvesting – would likely lower timber prices as well as anticipated profits, and limit harvesting potential in the coming years.

Another objection concerns the lack of existing capacity within the country to harvest and process such volumes. This will likely result in delays and an increased share of low-value timber exports, given that most of Latvia’s exported timber is already minimally processed wood, including roundwood, fuel-wood, sawn wood, and plywood.

Governing without a plan

Notably, all of the Ministry’s legislative efforts have been pursued without an updated mid-term forestry policy planning document. Latvia’s existing forest policy guidelines cover the period from 2015 to 2020, yet no new document has been adopted since.

Draft guidelines released for consultation in autumn 2025 were widely criticised – including by other state institutions – for neglecting the social and ecological functions of forests emphasised in the national forestry policy. Pushing through legal amendments in the absence of clear, balanced and updated policy guidelines provides yet another example of irresponsible and short-sighted governance in action.

How far will deregulation go?

This period has proved demanding for both forestry institutions and nature protection organisations, but the fight is far from over. Removing environmental safeguards may indeed make economic activity easier in the short term, but at what cost?

Nature is not limitless – ecosystem capacity and natural resources are finite, and recovery can take decades. This is why it’s so essential to balance the environmental with the social and economic – the latter two being entirely dependent on the first. Clean air, fresh water, healthy soils, and resilient ecosystems are prerequisites for human well-being.

Latvia’s forests are a national treasure, and should offer far more than just short-term economic gains for the privileged few. State-owned forests, comprising roughly half of the country’s total forest area, should lead by example. They must provide benefits that go beyond timber profits and instead serve to safeguard Latvia’s rich local biodiversity.

Time for action

In Latvia, individuals and civil society organisations have the right to participate in public consultations and decision-making processes, defending their right to a healthy environment. They can also make their voices heard through elections and by supporting political parties that act responsibly and plan for the long term.

Similar opportunities exist at the EU level. While the EU’s recent call for feedback on simplification has now closed, engagement remains possible through initiatives such as the Hands Off Nature petition, which calls on EU policymakers to halt the erosion of environmental safeguards. Now is the moment to speak up and push back – before short-term political choices turn into irreversible environmental damage.

Fear and fossil fuels in Romania

A 3-page draft law initiated by former energy minister, Sebastian Burduja, last week sent shockwaves among coal dependent communities and climate activists alike. Accompanied by 50 pages of justification, wrapped in national security rhetoric and delivered with a side dish of geopolitical fear tactics, the draft law aims to derogate from the country’s Decarbonisation Law. It re-opens the possibility of building new coal power plants and operating new and existing ones alike, under vaguely formulated conditions.

But strip away the alarmist language about Russian invasions and infrastructure attacks, and what remains is a cynical attempt to derail Romania’s energy transition, betray coal-dependent communities, and potentially defraud the EU of EUR 2.14 billion – Romania’s allocation under the Just Transition Fund.

Manufacturing crisis for political gain

The 50-page justification opens with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the shock it delivered to EU energy markets. However, it omits to acknowledge that since then European energy markets have recovered and diversified. The EU’s response wasn’t to resurrect coal, it was to accelerate renewables.

Romania itself has surpassed its renewable energy targets, adding more than 1,200 megawatts in 2025 and projecting between 2,500 to 3,800 megawatts this year. The energy landscape is transforming rapidly, but you wouldn’t know it from reading this law’s apocalyptic preamble.

The justification then goes on, suggesting Russia might attack Romania’s electricity infrastructure, therefore reserve coal capacity is needed. This isn’t energy policy, it’s fear-mongering dressed up as strategy.

Arguably, one of the most disturbing details is the law’s citation of a national security strategy from 2010, which indeed mentioned coal stockpiles for security reasons. In 2010, coal contributed roughly 20-25% to Romania’s energy mix. Now it is just 13.7% and keeps falling. Context matters.

In 2025 it was renewables that supplied the largest share of Romania’s electricity mix: wind, solar and hydropower. Interconnection capacity with neighbouring countries has expanded, storage is catching up. The grid looks fundamentally different. Using 2010 data to justify 2026 energy policy is not only outdated, it’s deliberately cherry-picking a moment in time that supports a predetermined conclusion, while ignoring 15 years of transformation.

The Just Transition Fund – taking the money but refusing the transition

In 2022, Romania received an allocation of EUR 2.14 billion from the EU Just Transition Fund (JTF) specifically to support coal phase-out by 2032. This fund is designed to support almost 30,000 workers through retraining and to create approximately 11,000 new jobs. The whole logic behind the JTF funding is Romania’s commitment to transition away from coal. Without coal phase-out, there is no transition to fund. And who will be deceived at the end of this political theatre yet again? Coal-dependent communities, who are regularly given false hopes by politicians that lack courage to plan for the real future.

The State aid paradox

Oltenia Energy Complex, Romania’s main lignite producer, has since 2021 received hundreds of millions of euros in State aid specifically for closure operations. The country’s hard coal mine operator was also granted nearly EUR 800 million State aid for closure in 2024. This money has already been disbursed and spent, justified under EU State aid rules as compensation for the costs of phasing out uneconomic coal operations.

State aid for closures is legal under EU rules precisely because it facilitates an orderly phase out of operations that would otherwise fail in the market. Closure is the key condition for the aid.

Now, Burduja and thirty other parliamentarians want to put coal ‘back on the table and into production’. But what happens to the hundreds of millions in closure aid already received? If coal operations are to continue, that State aid becomes illegal retroactively. It was granted under false pretences. Under EU State aid rules, illegal aid must be recovered, with interest. This additional financial burden could very well destroy the industry they are trying to revive. And the law should explicitly stipulate the mechanism for returning this aid to the state budget. It doesn’t.

So this adds another bill to the tab: EUR 2.14 billion in Just Transition Funds received under commitments this law would violate, and over EUR 3 billion for restructuring of Oltenia Energy Complex and closure of hard coal mines. This is over EUR 5 billion that is likely to be lost if this law is adopted.

The communities politicians claim to protect

Every year that politicians delay the inevitable coal phase-out is another year of distraction from genuine alternatives. Every legislative attempt to extend coal operations signals to potential investors that Romania isn’t serious about transition.

The cruel irony is that this law, which will be used in political discourse as protecting coal workers, ensures their continued precarity and prolongs a structural limbo. For some, this has been going on for over a decade. It perpetuates dependence instead of facilitating transition. It offers the illusion of security while postponing the hard work of creating actual alternatives.

Ruling by fear

This coal revival law didn’t arrive in isolation. It was submitted to parliament on the same day as another Burduja initiative: a law to classify hydropower plants as military objectives of national security. Both laws invoke ‘national security’ to bypass environmental procedures in force, protected areas regimes and property law. Both weaponize fear of war, enemies, and sabotage. ‘National security’ has become a new catchphrase that short-circuits democratic deliberation, environmental protection, and transparency.

What about ‘We need coal for grid stability’?

Romania’s grid is already diversifying rapidly, renewable capacity is expanding by thousands of megawatts annually and interconnection with neighbouring countries has improved significantly. Grid stability doesn’t come from clinging to 20th-century baseload thinking, but from diversification, storage solutions, smart grid technology, and interconnections that allow for flexibility and resilience.

The choice ahead

The choice to phase out coal was made years ago, and is justified by economics, climate imperatives, and EU commitments that make this trajectory inevitable. The real question is whether this will happen in an orderly, just manner that supports affected workers and communities or whether politicians will delay until crisis forces chaotic closures without support systems in place.

This draft law offers the illusion of security while guaranteeing instability. It invokes the protection of workers while blocking their access to transition support. It wraps itself in national security rhetoric while undermining Romania’s actual long-term energy security. Finally, it is financially reckless, facing the prospect of having to give back billions of euros in closure aid. If Romania is to stay on the path of prosperity and sustainable development, this law must be rejected.

Empowering communities: Using digital innovation to drive Ukraine’s green recovery

Communities with populations of up to 30,000 people account for around 95% of all communities currently under Ukrainian control. Yet they often remain invisible to major investors, despite being the very places where the country’s resilience is forged.

Communities at the epicentre of change

The Regional Centre for Economic Research and Business Support is a non-profit foundation that works with communities across Ukraine, and we have first-hand knowledge of the local investment and recovery challenges they face. Despite the war, these communities are increasingly taking the initiative. Rather than waiting for solutions from above, they’re independently seeking ways to achieve energy independence and environmental security.

However, showing initiative doesn’t always translate into results. Our recent assessments of municipal capacity and investment readiness reveal a significant gap between the ambition of these communities and their current capacity to effectively prepare projects that meet the requirements of potential donors, particularly the demanding compliance criteria of commercial and international banks.

This deficit is largely due to a critical shortage of qualified personnel and a lack of accessible tools. Local communities simply cannot afford expensive consultants, while state support mechanisms tend to prioritise large-scale infrastructure projects, resulting in local initiatives being overlooked.

Driving results, not just spending

Our view of the current state of public investment management reform in Ukraine is clear: the system must transition from a ‘patching holes’ model to one driven by data management. We welcome the development of Ukraine’s public investment management system – the Digital Recovery Ecosystem for Accountable Management (DREAM) – which represents a significant step forward in transparency. However, for a community project to be considered for inclusion in this ‘showcase’ and to attract investors, it must be technically and economically flawless.

We’ve also identified another systemic challenge: state institutions don’t always have the time or resources to provide communities with high-quality methodological support. To address this gap, we’ve launched the ‘project navigator’ designed to level the playing field, providing communities with comprehensive training in effective project management.

Advantages of an independent tool

Community representatives from across the country are already using the project navigator to organise and guide their recovery projects. First, the tool provides direct access to expertise. Second, as a completely independent tool, it helps stakeholders resolve the problem of ‘information overload’ and filter out unreliable data.

After entering their project data, communities can assess their compliance with basic sustainability requirements in a matter of hours. And the feedback has been unanimous: there’s a huge appetite for a digital solution that not only removes administrative burdens, but also pinpoints areas where projects can be improved. Some of its key advantages include:

Independent and objective: With no political mandate, the tool provides an accurate reflection of a community’s actual readiness – one based on data rather than lobbying.

Enhanced project readiness: Projects developed using the tool are primed to receive high scores in the DREAM system. The tool’s rigorous and transparent feasibility framework results in higher-quality project submissions that stand a much greater chance of being selected for the state’s public investment portfolio and securing funding.

Impact monitoring: The tool enables donors not only to provide funding, but also to track the effectiveness of their investments through integrated monitoring modules.

From strategy to investment

This structured approach allows communities to develop their first green project portfolios. This means local waste management plans and energy strategies no longer just exist on paper; they become fully functioning roadmaps that serve as a credible foundation for securing project financing.

Ensuring that Ukraine’s public investment management reform truly benefits communities requires a far greater collective effort – from the state, its partners, international financial institutions, civil society, and the communities themselves. The success of any recovery project – particularly in the case of Ukraine – should solely depend on the quality of its strategy and the transparency of its plans.