Before rebuilding: the work of counting what was lost
Reconstruction had not begun in the first weeks and could not have. What did begin was the assessment work underneath it — the registers, the methodologies and the damage accounting that everything later would rest on.
I want to be honest about this quarter: reconstruction had not started. It could not have. Nobody rebuilds a bridge while the question of who controls the riverbank is open.
What did start was the work underneath it, and it is more important than it sounds. Ukrainian research institutions, working with international partners, began recording destroyed and damaged infrastructure systematically — buildings, roads, bridges, power installations, schools, hospitals — to a methodology that could stand up to external audit. The World Bank began the process that would become the recurring damage and needs assessment.
Why the accounting comes first
Every euro of reconstruction financing that arrived later required an evidence base: what was destroyed, where, at what replacement cost, verified by someone other than the party asking for the money. A donor cannot fund a number that a government simply asserts.
The decision to build that discipline in the first weeks, rather than improvise it later, is one of the quieter reasons Ukraine reconstruction financing has been as credible as it has.
Share this analysis
Comments