Conclusion

Human displacement, in Ukraine and beyond, is trending upwards over the last decade. Climate-driven disasters, population growth, urbanization, border disputes, competition over dwindling resources, and other major global forces are spurring conflict, displacement, and the destruction of homes and civil infrastructure globally.

To respond to these shocks, and to ensure that victims of conflicts and disasters can rebuild their lives and their homes, the way in which traditional property compensation and return programs are implemented must be dramatically improved.

What should a property compensation and return program look like?

First, it should be simple, rapid, and reliable. Claimants should expect a seamless experience, whether they apply for compensation and restitution online or offline, and the waiting period for compensation should be reduced from years to months or even weeks.

Second, it should be inclusive. Expanding eligibility would ensure that every individual affected by property damage receives the compensation they are entitled to.

Third, it should be cost-effective. By ensuring that compensation funds reach their intended recipients without corrupt diversion, a property compensation scheme retains its integrity while reducing the overall costs associated with rebuilding. Administering a digital-first (not only) program at scale has cost-saving benefits.

Fourth, it should be transparent and accountable. Establishing clear accountability goals and performance metrics is paramount, as is making those metrics and progress toward them broadly accessible. It involves a collaborative effort among the government, local and international civil society organizations, the private sector, and the donor community.

Finally, it should embrace a “do no harm” and conflict-sensitive approach. This ensures that the process of compensation and the return of property actively contribute to mitigating conflict, rather than inadvertently causing new disputes.

Ukraine’s Diia-powered eRecovery system has the potential to meet all these criteria and to transform post-crisis property restitution and compensation not just in Ukraine but globally. The eRecovery program’s digital-first design has improved accessibility, immediacy, transparency, and security, and it has created a more streamlined and effective process for property damage claims and compensation. While eRecovery will face many challenges in the years ahead, it is important to recognize and support its promising start.

Ukraine’s eRecovery model could also have significant global implications for e-governance systems generally. For example, last year USAID announced a program to support countries in developing their own e-government systems modeled after Diia. The first countries exploring the solution include Colombia, Kosovo, and Zambia, with others possibly joining later.

While Diia’s success is rooted in Ukraine’s specific wartime context and has undergone rapid conflict-related transformation, its core principles and functionalities are widely applicable in the provision of public services and programs. Nations keen on advancing or bolstering either nascent or more mature e-governance measures should view Diia not just as a tool but as a potential playbook to what’s achievable when technology meets governance with a vision for resilience and efficiency.

Diia’s adaptability in the face of adversity is a testament to the potential of accessible and inclusive digital public infrastructure, even as the impact of the platform extends beyond the context of wartime governance. Diia is also a tool to strengthen economic mobility, combat corruption, and uphold democracy. It offers insights into how comprehensive digital solutions can be pivotal for governments managing various challenges, from the provision of public programs to being responsive to the needs and will of the people in the face of crisis.

For Ukraine, the success of eRecovery is intrinsically tied to the resiliency of the country. The system represents a fast, fair, and cost-effective way to restore communities, homes, and rebuild the country. The strength of recovery efforts may also be connected to renewing Ukraine’s potential paths toward accession to the European Union. Moreover, a path toward a peaceful and reconstructed Ukraine would signal a reliable and stable future that could inspire millions of Ukrainians, whether refugees or expatriates, to return home and contribute to the recovery efforts.

Ultimately, Ukraine must determine what works best for Ukrainians and be willing to course-correct if needed to ensure that the eRecovery program is implemented fairly, transparently, competently, and inclusively. The country’s long-term recovery depends on it.