Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Many peacekeepers are deployed in areas where ongoing armed conflicts or other situations of violence, including attacks against peacekeepers, have constrained their capacity to implement their mandate and protect themselves. This has led some troop-contributing countries (TCCs) to raise concerns about the high-risk environments to which their troops are deployed. One of the most critical issues when deploying troops to nonpermissive environments is ensuring they have the right capabilities and mindset.

This paper interrogates TCCs’ perspectives on capabilities and mindsets and explores their implications for peacekeeping policy and practice. The goal is not only to deepen understanding of the UN’s progress on implementing the A4P+ priorities but, more importantly, to assess the state of play of peacekeeping in nonpermissive environments, drawing on the diverse perspectives of TCCs.

The paper concludes by considering how capabilities and mindsets relate to accounta­bility for and accountability of peacekeepers. Failure to properly train, equip, and support troops being deployed to nonpermissive environments raises questions about whether the UN and TCCs are accountable to peacekeepers. Likewise, it is unclear to what extent peacekeepers should be held accountable for their performance when they have not been provided the proper equipment, training, and mindset.

Download

Die Ampel-Koalition einigt sich im Koalitionsausschuss auf das weitere Vorgehen in der Klimapolitik. Dazu ein Statement von Claudia Kemfert, Leiterin der Abteilung Energie, Verkehr, Umwelt im DIW Berlin:

Man werde ein großes „Werkstück“ präsentieren, hatte Olaf Scholz kurz vor Ende der Verhandlungen im Kanzleramt verkündet und damit die Spannung geschürt. Doch das nach 30 Stunden Beratung und nach langen, harten Vermittlungen präsentierte Konsenspapier ist fürwahr kein Klima-Wumms.

Die Aufweichung der Sektorziele durch die geplante Anpassung des Klimaschutzgesetzes ist problematisch, da sie den Verkehrssektor aus der Verantwortung entlässt. Die notwendige Verkehrswende wird so nicht erreicht werden. Auch die Klimaziele werden so nicht erreicht.

Zwar ist es gut, dass es mehr Geld für den Schienenverkehr geben wird, aber gleichzeitig 144 Autobahnprojekte zu beschließen, ist alles andere als eine echte Verkehrswende. Da nützt es auch nichts, neben neuen Autobahnen Photovoltaikanlagen zu bauen. Ein Salatblatt im Burger ist keine Ernährungsumstellung. Genauso wenig bedeuten Solarpaneele neben der Autobahn eine Energiewende. Und die wäre jetzt dringend nötig.

Nun hatte Deutschland schon 16 Jahre lang eine Möchtegern-Klima-Kanzlerin, die die aufblühende Solarindustrie nach China verjagte, Windenergie nicht ausbaute und Wasserstoff nicht förderte, aber gleichzeitig Gaspipelines nach Russland bauen ließ. Der ehemals selbst ernannte Klima-Kanzler Scholz lässt sich vom kleinsten Koalitionspartner an der Nase herumführen. Deren Verbrenner-Liebe führte Europa gerade an den Rande einer existenziellen Krise. Es müsste endlich ein Ruck durch Deutschland gehen. Aber die Politik zaudert sogar, wenn es darum geht, 30 Jahre alte Ölheizungen durch moderne Wärmepumpen zu ersetzen. Die Blockade-Partei FDP verwechselt die Pedale und steht jetzt dauerhaft auf der Bremse, obwohl sie angeblich jedes Tempolimit hasst. Die SPD beschränkt ihr soziales Engagement auf klimaschädliche Gaspreisbremsen. Aber wo ist das Klimageld? Das war doch einmal beschlossen. Selbst die Finanz- und Autoindustrie fordert endlich enkeltaugliche Generationengerechtigkeit und wünscht sich klimataugliche Recht- und Ordnungspolitik. Aber deren einzig verbliebener möglicher Verbündeter, die Partei der Grünen, übt sich in gewaltfreier Kommunikation und konsensfähigem Vokabular, um lächelnd zu übertünchen, dass sie in dieser Koalition nicht wirklich viel zu sagen hat.

Das ist keine Fortschrittskoalition, sondern eine Sillstands-Koalition. Dieses Land braucht nicht schöne Worte, dieses Land braucht endlich überzeugende Taten.

Event Video 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-vskmjy").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-vskmjy").fadeIn(300);});});

IPI together with the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Botswana to the UN cohosted a ministerial-level policy forum on March 27th entitled “The Kimberley Process to Eradicate Conflict Diamonds: Twenty Years of Challenges and Achievements.”

UN General Assembly Resolution 55/56 addressed the role that diamonds can play in fueling armed conflict by creating the Kimberly Process (KP), an international certification scheme to limit the illicit trade in rough diamonds. This process has not only significantly reduced the number of conflict diamonds on the open market but also helped economies thrive based on the trade of this mineral. Current Kimberley Process chair Winston Chitando expressed his perspective that the KP mechanisms “have been largely successful,” while recognizing a Review Committee would be valuable to confront the challenges ahead.

Some countries still heavily rely on the diamond trade: in Botswana, for instance, it generates more than half of government revenue and accounts for more than one in twenty jobs. The Kimberley Process has faced criticism, however. Some argue that it does not take into account environmental impacts, labor rights, and human rights concerns in mining communities. Drawing on the example of energy for comparison, Cristina Duarte stressed the need to change the business model of natural resource management in Africa to increase domestic value creation.

On the week of the UN General Assembly resolution calling for reforms to enhance the effectiveness of the Kimberley Process, the question remains: Is the Kimberley Process still relevant after more than 20 years of existence? The KP is an institution which must be used as a vehicle for peace and sustainable development; review and reform will lead to a more relevant and effective process, emphasized Dr. Kwape.

Participants in this ministerial-level policy forum discussed how the Kimberley Process has helped weaken the link between conflict and diamonds and transformed local economies. They also discussed how issues such as environmental protection and human rights can become part of the certification scheme. IPI Vice President Adam Lupel noted that a critical issue for KP reform will be the debates around expanding the definition of “conflict diamond” beyond the funding of “rebel groups.” Ensuring the ethical and sustainable sourcing of diamonds is also a matter of improving state practices, listening to affected communities, protecting human rights, and safeguarding the environment.

Speakers:
H.E. Lemogang Kwape, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Botswana
H.E. Winston Chitando, Minister of Mines and Mining Development, Zimbabwe
H.E. Cristina Duarte, UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser on Africa

Moderator:
Adam Lupel, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, International Peace Institute

The transition towards a more sustainable world economy is a fact, as the internationally community has realized that business as usual practices will lead to ecological disasters, from global warming, loss of bio-diversity to the contamination of  maritime water bodies. Research, development and innovations are powerful tools to align the needs of a growing world population with the necessities of keeping global development within the planetary boundaries. There is, however, a huge and  growing - rather than diminishing - divide in both inputs and outputs to the science and innovation systems. Developing countries, which are most severely affected by the multiple ecological crises cannot invest very high financial and human  resources to address their specific challenges though research and development. This calls for determined international action and North-South cooperation in science, technology and innovation. The paper analyses the North-South divide in research  and development and discusses, how international cooperation may strengthen the capabilities of the Global South to respond to the challenges and, wherever possible, take advantage of new economic opportunities in a world transitioning towards  more sustainable growth patterns.

The transition towards a more sustainable world economy is a fact, as the internationally community has realized that business as usual practices will lead to ecological disasters, from global warming, loss of bio-diversity to the contamination of  maritime water bodies. Research, development and innovations are powerful tools to align the needs of a growing world population with the necessities of keeping global development within the planetary boundaries. There is, however, a huge and  growing - rather than diminishing - divide in both inputs and outputs to the science and innovation systems. Developing countries, which are most severely affected by the multiple ecological crises cannot invest very high financial and human  resources to address their specific challenges though research and development. This calls for determined international action and North-South cooperation in science, technology and innovation. The paper analyses the North-South divide in research  and development and discusses, how international cooperation may strengthen the capabilities of the Global South to respond to the challenges and, wherever possible, take advantage of new economic opportunities in a world transitioning towards  more sustainable growth patterns.

The transition towards a more sustainable world economy is a fact, as the internationally community has realized that business as usual practices will lead to ecological disasters, from global warming, loss of bio-diversity to the contamination of  maritime water bodies. Research, development and innovations are powerful tools to align the needs of a growing world population with the necessities of keeping global development within the planetary boundaries. There is, however, a huge and  growing - rather than diminishing - divide in both inputs and outputs to the science and innovation systems. Developing countries, which are most severely affected by the multiple ecological crises cannot invest very high financial and human  resources to address their specific challenges though research and development. This calls for determined international action and North-South cooperation in science, technology and innovation. The paper analyses the North-South divide in research  and development and discusses, how international cooperation may strengthen the capabilities of the Global South to respond to the challenges and, wherever possible, take advantage of new economic opportunities in a world transitioning towards  more sustainable growth patterns.

The transition towards a more sustainable world economy is a fact, as the internationally community has realized that business as usual practices will lead to ecological disasters, from global warming, loss of bio-diversity to the contamination of  maritime water bodies. Research, development and innovations are powerful tools to align the needs of a growing world population with the necessities of keeping global development within the planetary boundaries. There is, however, a huge and  growing - rather than diminishing - divide in both inputs and outputs to the science and innovation systems. Developing countries, which are most severely affected by the multiple ecological crises cannot invest very high financial and human  resources to address their specific challenges though research and development. This calls for determined international action and North-South cooperation in science, technology and innovation. The paper analyses the North-South divide in research  and development and discusses, how international cooperation may strengthen the capabilities of the Global South to respond to the challenges and, wherever possible, take advantage of new economic opportunities in a world transitioning towards  more sustainable growth patterns.

The transition towards a more sustainable world economy is a fact, as the internationally community has realized that business as usual practices will lead to ecological disasters, from global warming, loss of bio-diversity to the contamination of  maritime water bodies. Research, development and innovations are powerful tools to align the needs of a growing world population with the necessities of keeping global development within the planetary boundaries. There is, however, a huge and  growing - rather than diminishing - divide in both inputs and outputs to the science and innovation systems. Developing countries, which are most severely affected by the multiple ecological crises cannot invest very high financial and human  resources to address their specific challenges though research and development. This calls for determined international action and North-South cooperation in science, technology and innovation. The paper analyses the North-South divide in research  and development and discusses, how international cooperation may strengthen the capabilities of the Global South to respond to the challenges and, wherever possible, take advantage of new economic opportunities in a world transitioning towards  more sustainable growth patterns.

The transition towards a more sustainable world economy is a fact, as the internationally community has realized that business as usual practices will lead to ecological disasters, from global warming, loss of bio-diversity to the contamination of  maritime water bodies. Research, development and innovations are powerful tools to align the needs of a growing world population with the necessities of keeping global development within the planetary boundaries. There is, however, a huge and  growing - rather than diminishing - divide in both inputs and outputs to the science and innovation systems. Developing countries, which are most severely affected by the multiple ecological crises cannot invest very high financial and human  resources to address their specific challenges though research and development. This calls for determined international action and North-South cooperation in science, technology and innovation. The paper analyses the North-South divide in research  and development and discusses, how international cooperation may strengthen the capabilities of the Global South to respond to the challenges and, wherever possible, take advantage of new economic opportunities in a world transitioning towards  more sustainable growth patterns.

In recent years, global production of plastics has surged and is expected to increase further over the following years, with over a quarter being attributed to plastic packaging. Plastic packaging poses environmental risks due to the fossil fuels consumed in its production and the impact on eco-systems due to its inappropriate disposal. A large share of mismanaged plastic waste can be attributed to a few developing and emerging countries (DECs) in Asia. Their expected income and population growth, as well as associated increase in consumption and urbanisation, is expected to further strain inadequate waste management systems. In response, young ventures offering circular business models in packaging have emerged to tackle plastic packaging pollution. These ventures are embedded in an entrepreneurial ecosystem in which policies are, among others, determining enablers, and policy-makers have a key role in setting optimal framework conditions for circular business models in packaging to succeed. At the same time, policy agendas that address resource efficiency and the circular economy are on the rise in multiple DECs. For this reason, this paper addresses the question of the extent to which existing policies are supporting and enabling circular business models. This paper first discusses opportunities, risks, and challenges of existing circular business models in packaging in terms of waste hierarchy levels – reducing and dematerialising, reusing and refilling, replacing, and recycling – before examining the entrepreneurial ecosystems in which they operate. With a focus on policy as an enabler for circular business models in packaging, a holistic overview of possible policies in the circular packaging context is provided. Against this conceptual background, India is examined as a case-study. In recent years, multiple Indian start-ups have emerged, offering reusable packaging solutions or bio-based packaging alternatives, while other ventures seek to improve waste management and recycling. India’s previously introduced policies, including the Plastic Waste Management Rules, Swacch Bharat Mission, extended producer responsibility and a ban on single-use plastic, are the first stepping stones towards an enabling ecosystem for circular business models in packaging. However, this paper points out further opportunities – so far, India’s key policies have been addressing the downstream on the macro level. This study showed that macro-level policies need further enforcement and should be complemented by upstream policies. Meanwhile, meso-level and micro-level policies have been rather neglected. Policy-makers and development cooperation are encouraged to take action now, given the limited window of opportunity to establish a supporting framework for circular economies in development policy.

In recent years, global production of plastics has surged and is expected to increase further over the following years, with over a quarter being attributed to plastic packaging. Plastic packaging poses environmental risks due to the fossil fuels consumed in its production and the impact on eco-systems due to its inappropriate disposal. A large share of mismanaged plastic waste can be attributed to a few developing and emerging countries (DECs) in Asia. Their expected income and population growth, as well as associated increase in consumption and urbanisation, is expected to further strain inadequate waste management systems. In response, young ventures offering circular business models in packaging have emerged to tackle plastic packaging pollution. These ventures are embedded in an entrepreneurial ecosystem in which policies are, among others, determining enablers, and policy-makers have a key role in setting optimal framework conditions for circular business models in packaging to succeed. At the same time, policy agendas that address resource efficiency and the circular economy are on the rise in multiple DECs. For this reason, this paper addresses the question of the extent to which existing policies are supporting and enabling circular business models. This paper first discusses opportunities, risks, and challenges of existing circular business models in packaging in terms of waste hierarchy levels – reducing and dematerialising, reusing and refilling, replacing, and recycling – before examining the entrepreneurial ecosystems in which they operate. With a focus on policy as an enabler for circular business models in packaging, a holistic overview of possible policies in the circular packaging context is provided. Against this conceptual background, India is examined as a case-study. In recent years, multiple Indian start-ups have emerged, offering reusable packaging solutions or bio-based packaging alternatives, while other ventures seek to improve waste management and recycling. India’s previously introduced policies, including the Plastic Waste Management Rules, Swacch Bharat Mission, extended producer responsibility and a ban on single-use plastic, are the first stepping stones towards an enabling ecosystem for circular business models in packaging. However, this paper points out further opportunities – so far, India’s key policies have been addressing the downstream on the macro level. This study showed that macro-level policies need further enforcement and should be complemented by upstream policies. Meanwhile, meso-level and micro-level policies have been rather neglected. Policy-makers and development cooperation are encouraged to take action now, given the limited window of opportunity to establish a supporting framework for circular economies in development policy.

In recent years, global production of plastics has surged and is expected to increase further over the following years, with over a quarter being attributed to plastic packaging. Plastic packaging poses environmental risks due to the fossil fuels consumed in its production and the impact on eco-systems due to its inappropriate disposal. A large share of mismanaged plastic waste can be attributed to a few developing and emerging countries (DECs) in Asia. Their expected income and population growth, as well as associated increase in consumption and urbanisation, is expected to further strain inadequate waste management systems. In response, young ventures offering circular business models in packaging have emerged to tackle plastic packaging pollution. These ventures are embedded in an entrepreneurial ecosystem in which policies are, among others, determining enablers, and policy-makers have a key role in setting optimal framework conditions for circular business models in packaging to succeed. At the same time, policy agendas that address resource efficiency and the circular economy are on the rise in multiple DECs. For this reason, this paper addresses the question of the extent to which existing policies are supporting and enabling circular business models. This paper first discusses opportunities, risks, and challenges of existing circular business models in packaging in terms of waste hierarchy levels – reducing and dematerialising, reusing and refilling, replacing, and recycling – before examining the entrepreneurial ecosystems in which they operate. With a focus on policy as an enabler for circular business models in packaging, a holistic overview of possible policies in the circular packaging context is provided. Against this conceptual background, India is examined as a case-study. In recent years, multiple Indian start-ups have emerged, offering reusable packaging solutions or bio-based packaging alternatives, while other ventures seek to improve waste management and recycling. India’s previously introduced policies, including the Plastic Waste Management Rules, Swacch Bharat Mission, extended producer responsibility and a ban on single-use plastic, are the first stepping stones towards an enabling ecosystem for circular business models in packaging. However, this paper points out further opportunities – so far, India’s key policies have been addressing the downstream on the macro level. This study showed that macro-level policies need further enforcement and should be complemented by upstream policies. Meanwhile, meso-level and micro-level policies have been rather neglected. Policy-makers and development cooperation are encouraged to take action now, given the limited window of opportunity to establish a supporting framework for circular economies in development policy.

Die Wasser-Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen will Wege zur nachhaltigen Nutzung der Ressource aufzeigen. Dazu ein Statement von Astrid Cullmann, wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin der Abteilung Energie, Verkehr, Umwelt im DIW Berlin:

 

Die Tatsache, dass sich die Vereinten Nationen mit ihrem Wassergipfel zum ersten Mal seit fast 50 Jahren ausschließlich mit der wertvollen Ressource Wasser beschäftigen, zeigt: Wir stehen vor enormen Herausforderungen. Nicht nur im globalen Süden ist die Lage alarmierend, auch in Deutschland wird Wasser durch einen Überverbrauch und Schadstoffbelastungen in manchen Regionen immer knapper.

Zahlreiche Regionen wie unter anderem Brandenburg müssen sich darauf einstellen, dass es durch den Klimawandel trockener und heißer wird. Dadurch steigt zum Beispiel der Wasserbedarf für die landwirtschaftliche Bewässerung, während das -angebot sinkt. Um künftig Wassernutzungskonflikte zu vermeiden, müssen gezielte Maßnahmen ergriffen werden. Dazu zählen mehr Transparenz und Kontrolle der Wasserentnahme. Insbesondere sollte die Vorzugsbehandlung der Industrie, die derzeit große Mengen Wasser zu sehr niedrigen Preisen verbraucht, aufgehoben werden.

Ein weiteres Problem ist die Wasserverschmutzung durch Spuren- und Nährstoffe von Düngemitteln und Kläranlagenabläufen. Die intensive Landwirtschaft ist Hauptverursacher der Nährstoffeinträge, die durch stickstoffhaltigen Dünger auf landwirtschaftlichen Flächen in die Umwelt gelangen. Um die Nitratbelastung zu reduzieren, müssen bereits bestehende verschärfte Vorgaben zur Düngung konsequent umgesetzt werden, insbesondere in den ohnehin schon nitratbelasteten Zonen. Zudem kann Ökolandbau einen Beitrag leisten, Überdüngung zu reduzieren, wie Studien des DIW Berlin gezeigt haben.

Auch in der wissenschaftlichen Forschung finden Wasserknappheit und Wasserverschmutzung überraschend wenig Beachtung – vor allem im Vergleich zur Luftverschmutzung. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass der UN-Wassergipfel wachrüttelt und Impulse zur nachhaltigen Nutzung gibt.

Rebuilding Ukraine starts now – even if it is being undertaken against a backdrop of conflict, violence and destruction, with Russia continuing to wage its war of aggression. In granting Ukraine European Union (EU) candidate status, the EU has also made the country’s recovery one of its own priorities. If this reconstruction project is to succeed, then it is necessary to take into account specific contextual conditions, along with experiences from other recovery processes, such as those in the Western Balkans and Iraq.
• Functional statehood: Ukraine is better placed in this regard than many other countries, particularly given the functional and widely accepted statehood throughout much of its territory. Reconstruction assistance can kick-start a forward-looking, sustainable green transformation in the economy and society. At the same time, there is a risk that massive external cash flows could feed old networks of corruption and patronage and create new ones. Clear accountability structures are required, along with sanctions for the misuse of funds, if this is to be counteracted.
• Agile planning over linear phase model: Rebuilding work is taking place in an atmosphere of great uncertainty. Consequently, planning processes must be flexible in order to adapt to different war scenarios. A linear sequence of recovery phases fails to properly address the situation. This is already visible when it comes to efforts to secure critical infrastructure. Its proper functioning is essential to people’s daily lives and to all forms of reconstruction, yet this infrastructure could become a target for attacks again at any time.
• Ukraine as a self-confident partner: As a result of the war’s trajectory, the Ukrainian Government is adopting a self-assured demeanour in its dealings with international donors. While this is essentially a positive thing, it can also give rise to a resistance to reform. The prospect of EU accession creates a common objective to work towards and can also establish coherent criteria for the recovery process, but only as long as accession remains a credible prospect.
• Managing reconstruction assistance: Recovery funds have proven an effective means of coordination, though it remains to be seen whether there will be a single fund or several complementary ones. A central Ukraine fund should be (co-)managed on the donor end by the European Commission, as it has at its disposal the strongest reform incentive, namely EU accession. In the meantime, the EU needs to ensure that the Commission and the member states also provide the majority of the funding between them.
• Diversity and inclusion: The governance structures of the reconstruction project should be designed to afford participation and a say to pluralist political institutions and civil society voices, and strengthen gender equality. In order to counter brain-drain, it is also imperative that young, mobile population groups (including refugees abroad) feel included.
• Social equity: Incorporating social factors into the recovery process will also be essential. Vulnerable groups will require particular support, given the alarming level of impoverishment among the population as a result of the war.
• Investment incentives: Essential reconstruction services have to be provided by the private sector. This requires that clear incentives be created, not least by providing investment guarantees.
• Developing trauma sensitivity: The rebuilding work is taking place in a context of violence and trauma. This requires that all stakeholders develop a particular sensitivity in dealing with survivors of violence and engaging with a traumatised society. 

Rebuilding Ukraine starts now – even if it is being undertaken against a backdrop of conflict, violence and destruction, with Russia continuing to wage its war of aggression. In granting Ukraine European Union (EU) candidate status, the EU has also made the country’s recovery one of its own priorities. If this reconstruction project is to succeed, then it is necessary to take into account specific contextual conditions, along with experiences from other recovery processes, such as those in the Western Balkans and Iraq.
• Functional statehood: Ukraine is better placed in this regard than many other countries, particularly given the functional and widely accepted statehood throughout much of its territory. Reconstruction assistance can kick-start a forward-looking, sustainable green transformation in the economy and society. At the same time, there is a risk that massive external cash flows could feed old networks of corruption and patronage and create new ones. Clear accountability structures are required, along with sanctions for the misuse of funds, if this is to be counteracted.
• Agile planning over linear phase model: Rebuilding work is taking place in an atmosphere of great uncertainty. Consequently, planning processes must be flexible in order to adapt to different war scenarios. A linear sequence of recovery phases fails to properly address the situation. This is already visible when it comes to efforts to secure critical infrastructure. Its proper functioning is essential to people’s daily lives and to all forms of reconstruction, yet this infrastructure could become a target for attacks again at any time.
• Ukraine as a self-confident partner: As a result of the war’s trajectory, the Ukrainian Government is adopting a self-assured demeanour in its dealings with international donors. While this is essentially a positive thing, it can also give rise to a resistance to reform. The prospect of EU accession creates a common objective to work towards and can also establish coherent criteria for the recovery process, but only as long as accession remains a credible prospect.
• Managing reconstruction assistance: Recovery funds have proven an effective means of coordination, though it remains to be seen whether there will be a single fund or several complementary ones. A central Ukraine fund should be (co-)managed on the donor end by the European Commission, as it has at its disposal the strongest reform incentive, namely EU accession. In the meantime, the EU needs to ensure that the Commission and the member states also provide the majority of the funding between them.
• Diversity and inclusion: The governance structures of the reconstruction project should be designed to afford participation and a say to pluralist political institutions and civil society voices, and strengthen gender equality. In order to counter brain-drain, it is also imperative that young, mobile population groups (including refugees abroad) feel included.
• Social equity: Incorporating social factors into the recovery process will also be essential. Vulnerable groups will require particular support, given the alarming level of impoverishment among the population as a result of the war.
• Investment incentives: Essential reconstruction services have to be provided by the private sector. This requires that clear incentives be created, not least by providing investment guarantees.
• Developing trauma sensitivity: The rebuilding work is taking place in a context of violence and trauma. This requires that all stakeholders develop a particular sensitivity in dealing with survivors of violence and engaging with a traumatised society. 

Rebuilding Ukraine starts now – even if it is being undertaken against a backdrop of conflict, violence and destruction, with Russia continuing to wage its war of aggression. In granting Ukraine European Union (EU) candidate status, the EU has also made the country’s recovery one of its own priorities. If this reconstruction project is to succeed, then it is necessary to take into account specific contextual conditions, along with experiences from other recovery processes, such as those in the Western Balkans and Iraq.
• Functional statehood: Ukraine is better placed in this regard than many other countries, particularly given the functional and widely accepted statehood throughout much of its territory. Reconstruction assistance can kick-start a forward-looking, sustainable green transformation in the economy and society. At the same time, there is a risk that massive external cash flows could feed old networks of corruption and patronage and create new ones. Clear accountability structures are required, along with sanctions for the misuse of funds, if this is to be counteracted.
• Agile planning over linear phase model: Rebuilding work is taking place in an atmosphere of great uncertainty. Consequently, planning processes must be flexible in order to adapt to different war scenarios. A linear sequence of recovery phases fails to properly address the situation. This is already visible when it comes to efforts to secure critical infrastructure. Its proper functioning is essential to people’s daily lives and to all forms of reconstruction, yet this infrastructure could become a target for attacks again at any time.
• Ukraine as a self-confident partner: As a result of the war’s trajectory, the Ukrainian Government is adopting a self-assured demeanour in its dealings with international donors. While this is essentially a positive thing, it can also give rise to a resistance to reform. The prospect of EU accession creates a common objective to work towards and can also establish coherent criteria for the recovery process, but only as long as accession remains a credible prospect.
• Managing reconstruction assistance: Recovery funds have proven an effective means of coordination, though it remains to be seen whether there will be a single fund or several complementary ones. A central Ukraine fund should be (co-)managed on the donor end by the European Commission, as it has at its disposal the strongest reform incentive, namely EU accession. In the meantime, the EU needs to ensure that the Commission and the member states also provide the majority of the funding between them.
• Diversity and inclusion: The governance structures of the reconstruction project should be designed to afford participation and a say to pluralist political institutions and civil society voices, and strengthen gender equality. In order to counter brain-drain, it is also imperative that young, mobile population groups (including refugees abroad) feel included.
• Social equity: Incorporating social factors into the recovery process will also be essential. Vulnerable groups will require particular support, given the alarming level of impoverishment among the population as a result of the war.
• Investment incentives: Essential reconstruction services have to be provided by the private sector. This requires that clear incentives be created, not least by providing investment guarantees.
• Developing trauma sensitivity: The rebuilding work is taking place in a context of violence and trauma. This requires that all stakeholders develop a particular sensitivity in dealing with survivors of violence and engaging with a traumatised society.