Attachments
Executive Summary
After 2014 and following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has faced massive humanitarian needs alongside extensive damage to infrastructure, livelihoods, and institutions. Ukraine is a unique scenario with national and local authorities that remained functional and engaged during the war, strongly involved international community, substantial development-focused aid and high humanitarian funding.
Engagement with HDP actors has allowed to invest early in recovery, protecting institutional and human capital in Ukraine while responding to urgent needs and maintaining the social fabric. Ukraine’s experience shows that the HDP Nexus can gain traction during an active, high-intensity conflict when state institutions remain functional and recovery is embedded early.
Progress has been most visible in recovery- and solutions-oriented coordination. The Durable Solutions architecture enabled evidence-based prioritization and alignment across national, oblast, and Hromada levels. Large-scale joint assessments, such as Rapid Damage and Needs Assessments and the Human Impact Assessment, and the Social Cohesion and Reconciliation Index, opened the analytical landscape beyond immediate humanitarian needs toward recovery and resilience. The UN Recovery and Peacebuilding Programme, EU4Recovery, and subsequent recovery frameworks, demonstrated how livelihoods, governance, service delivery, and social cohesion can be addressed simultaneously during wartime.
The financing landscape has led to opportunities to preserve development gains and provide space for future peace dividends, but financing streams have largely remained siloed between humanitarian and development.
HDP coordination efforts also remained confined to specific agendas and their long-term institutionalization and scalability are still uncertain.
Ukraine illustrates the potential of the HDP Nexus to move beyond crisis response toward recovery and resilience during active conflict. By linking humanitarian assistance with recovery, governance, and social cohesion, the Nexus can reduce dependency, support returns and reintegration, and protect development gains. The case also highlights that without aligned financing, shared metrics, and sustained coordination, even well-resourced contexts risk fragmented responses that fall short of transformative impact.
UNDP has been a key actor in translating Nexus principles into recovery-oriented action. By supporting government-led frameworks, convening coordination around solutions, engaging in joint assessments and data sharing, and pushing for the mobilization of financial support for recovery, UNDP has played a strong role in driving a transition from emergency-focused intervention to recovery and a path to development and peacebuilding. Its engagement in recovery programming, social cohesion, displacement solutions, and energy sector rehabilitation have positioned UNDP as a key peace actor and a bridge between emergency response and long-term investment.