Ukrainian civil society calls for transparency and public trust in wartime recovery

Through the New Democracy Fund, IMS supports five Ukrainian civil society organisations working on transparency, accountability and democratic oversight during war, recovery and Ukraine’s European path.

Ukraine is rebuilding while defending itself. At the same time, reforms are underway that will shape the country’s future place in Europe. These processes meet in very concrete places: defence governance, procurement, reconstruction, courts, local decisions and the daily conduct of public institutions.

Here, transparency is not decoration. It is essential to public trust. Resources must be used well. Decisions must be open to scrutiny. And those who hold power must be held to account, including – and maybe especially – when war creates pressure for speed, secrecy and exceptional measures.

IMS is handling the NDF’s support to strategic grantees, through which five key Ukrainian civil society organisations are supported: the Independent Anti-Corruption Commission, NAKO; Technology of Progress; Centre for Democracy and Rule of Law, CEDEM; Civil Control Platform; and Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

They work from different positions: defence oversight, recovery monitoring, public administration reform, local procurement, citizen participation, court monitoring and human rights. Together, they point to the same issue. Anti-corruption is not only about uncovering abuse after the damage is done. It is also about creating systems, safeguards and public oversight that prevent corruption from happening in the first place and make abuse far more difficult.

Defence oversight as a test of accountability

A central example is NAKO, which works with civil society-led oversight of Ukraine’s defence sector.

Defence governance is one of the most difficult sectors to demand openness from during war. It involves national security, public trust, international support and military effectiveness at the same time. The stakes are high: corruption risks in this field have direct consequences for Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. NAKO identifies these risks, develops evidence-based recommendations and brings them into dialogue with public institutions and international stakeholders working on defence governance. Its work shows how specialised civil society expertise can support democratic control in a sector where openness is difficult, but trust is essential.

The five supported organisations extend this logic into recovery, public investment management, administrative procedures, rule-of-law monitoring, local procurement, citizen participation, human rights and judicial practice. Together, they form a broader accountability chain, linking national reform with local implementation and public scrutiny.

When partners move the frame

IMS’s work in Ukraine is anchored in our office and staff in Kyiv – and in our daily cooperation with Ukrainian partners. Our work grows out of that shared reality. Defence governance, recovery spending, public institutions and public accountability are no longer separate fields. They meet where democratic societies must remain open to scrutiny and be held to account. Public trust is not a courtesy. It is the basis of legitimacy under immense Russian pressure.

This work pushes IMS to widen our own frame. Public-interest ecosystems are not only made up of media, journalists and media organisations. They also rely on watchdogs, legal experts, civic monitors, reform organisations and human rights defenders – all producing knowledge, documenting risks, engaging institutions and keeping public discourse anchored in evidence.

This resonates with the reasons IMS is in Ukraine. Public-interest work is not only the production of journalism. It is the work of keeping facts alive, making power visible and giving society solid facts and narratives to argue from. Our five partners show how that work is carried through procurement systems, courtrooms, reform processes and defence oversight.

The scale of Ukraine’s recovery is enormous, and of course we cannot carry this alone. But our partners work at the pressure points where public money, public trust and public authority meet – where recovery maintains and gain legitimacy or loses it.