To recover from the war in Ukraine and rebuild the country smarter and more resilient than before, the Ukrainian government will need to procure, prioritise, and spend an estimated $411 billion – $1 trillion+ over the next decade. 1 This provides a transformational opportunity and responsibility that will impact the country’s civic life for generations to come. We believe connecting the Rebuild Ukraine effort to the principals of “Infrastructure for Good,” could be useful to the Government of Ukraine by helping to compare and identify best international practises for infrastructure development that delivers maximum impact and social good
As part of the Ukraine Recovery Plan materials of the “Construction, urban planning, modernisation of cities and regions” working group2, the restoration and development of settlements will be based on best international practises, using modern solutions and “green” technologies, which will enable a significant transformational leap for communities and regions of Ukraine. The working group’s key principles needed for recovery and development are based on several aspects:
Several challenges presented in executing this ambition are: how can the Government of Ukraine (“GOU”) assess which countries are leading the way in terms of best international practises for infrastructure development and financing, identify gaps in current plans, inform decision making, and reshape the way infrastructure projects are evaluated to ensure invested funds reach maximum impact and achieve social good?
A framework to address some of these challenges has recently been developed called, the Infrastructure for Good (“IFG”) Barometer, developed by Economist Impact and supported by Deloitte and Duke University. We believe it could be very useful to the GOU in comparing and identifying international best practises for infrastructure development. Combining the insights from this data rich barometer, with the right advisory support can help decode the best global practises currently utilised to effect infrastructure that achieves positive outcomes for citizens, communities, and the environment.
When looking at the Infrastructure for Good data, social and community impact indicators accounted for the weakest scores across the 30 countries, with 60% of countries only engaging in consultation with local communities on an ad-hoc basis. The barometer indicates that countries that performed poorly could deliver better outcomes by prioritising community engagement, providing protection for workers and communities, and enhancing general access to public services – critical planning gaps, that Ukraine can learn from and implement systemically.