Home » Archives for user » Page 2

Ukraine is accumulating millions of tons of debris from the destruction. But the main question is no longer just how to clear the rubble. The question is this: will the country be able to transform the war’s destruction into a regulated market for recycled materials—with standards, laboratories, traceability, and industrial demand? This is precisely how the European Union is already approaching the issue.

The war has created one of the most complex resource challenges for Ukraine in recent decades. According to RDNA5 estimates, in the residential sector alone, approximately 14% of the housing stock has been damaged or destroyed, with total losses estimated at $61.1 billion.

These figures are usually interpreted as a measure of the scale of destruction. But for the reconstruction economy, they mean something else: Ukraine has received a massive, albeit tragic, influx of materials—concrete, brick, metal, wood, glass, plastic, plaster, insulation, remnants of utility networks, and hazardous contaminants.

As of April, over 6 million tons of debris from the destruction have been recorded in Ukraine. And these are only the volumes that have already been moved to temporary storage sites. The actual scale, given the nature of the destruction in different regions, is significantly greater.

That is precisely why the announcement by the Ministry of Community and Territorial Development regarding the results of the pilot project with JICA and preparations for the next phase of cooperation for 2027–2029 has a much broader significance than mere technical assistance. It concerns the potential launch of a separate market—the market for secondary raw materials for reconstruction.

A Lesson from Europe: Construction Waste Is Not Trash, but a Resource Bank

In the European Union, construction and demolition waste has long ceased to be viewed merely as a landfill problem. It is one of the largest waste streams in the EU, accounting for more than a third of all waste generated in EU countries.

This stream includes concrete, brick, wood, glass, metals, plastic, gypsum, insulation materials, and other building components. In modern European thinking, this is not simply “construction debris,” but a resource bank from which some materials can be returned to production.

For Ukraine, this is a fundamentally important benchmark. If the EU views construction and demolition waste as a resource base, then Ukraine cannot afford to treat debris from destruction merely as rubble that needs to be hauled away. In a country in need of large-scale reconstruction, every ton of usable material must be valued not only as a disposal cost but also as a potential resource.

But European practice has a downside. Formally, the EU demonstrates high rates of recovery for construction and demolition waste. However, these figures often do not indicate true circularity. A significant portion of materials is used in low-value applications—for example, as backfill, fill material, or for construction work where it does not return to the production of high-value-added products.

This is where the key lesson for Ukraine lies: a system cannot be built around the metric of “how many tons were collected.” What matters more is this: how many tons of waste have been transformed into safe, standardized, and reusable material.

Otherwise, the country risks repeating the European model’s weak point—formally high recycling rates without creating a truly high-quality market for secondary raw materials.

Not a crusher, but an audit: where real recycling begins

The European model of construction waste management begins not with equipment, but with the identification of materials. Audits prior to renovation or demolition, as well as selective demolition, play a crucial role.

The logic is simple: first, you need to understand what materials are present at the site, which can be reused, which can be recycled, and which are hazardous. Only then can decisions be made regarding crushing, sorting, transportation, or disposal.

For Ukraine, this is even more challenging than for peaceful European cities. Waste from destruction caused by shelling is not the same as the controlled demolition of a building according to a plan. It is often a mixed stream where concrete, wood, metal, glass, plastic, paint residues, insulation, asbestos-containing materials, combustion products, and other contaminants may all be present.

Therefore, the simple solution of “crushing and using the debris in road construction” can be dangerous unless a system for inspection, sorting, and laboratory testing is established beforehand. In fact, this is precisely why equipment, training for specialists, monitoring, analysis, and the handling of hazardous materials are so important in the Ukrainian-Japanese partnership.

As noted by Olena Koltyk, Head of the Ukraine Support Team, Ukraine must view the debris from the destruction not only as a problem of post-war recovery, but as part of the state’s future resource policy.

“Ukraine cannot view debris from the destruction merely as a problem of clearing rubble. This is a matter of community safety, the environment, and the future of the reconstruction economy. European practice shows that the key is not simply to remove or crush materials, but to establish a complete cycle—from inventory, sorting, and laboratory testing to reuse in construction and industry. It is precisely this approach that will allow us to turn the consequences of destruction into a resource for reconstruction, rather than a new environmental problem,” noted Olena Koltyk, Head of the Ukraine Support Team.

For the market, this means that the quality of recycled materials must be proven, not merely claimed. Without this, recycled materials will remain a local experiment rather than a fully-fledged part of the reconstruction economy.

Asbestos: A Test of the System’s Maturity

Asbestos is a separate issue. For Ukraine, this is one of the most difficult challenges in managing demolition waste. In many old buildings, asbestos-containing materials may have been used in roofs, pipes, insulation, and other components. After demolition, such materials end up in the general waste stream, and without laboratory testing, they are difficult to identify quickly.

European practice shows that if construction and demolition waste is not properly sorted, it may contain hazardous components, including asbestos. This creates environmental risks, complicates recycling, and calls into question the safety of the final product.

This means that scaling up the Ukrainian system must begin with a unified protocol: how to detect asbestos, how to isolate it, who is authorized to conduct analysis, where to dispose of it, how to document the origin of materials, and who is responsible for the final product.

This means that scaling up the Ukrainian system must begin with a unified protocol: how to identify asbestos, how to isolate it, who is authorized to conduct analyses, where to dispose of it, how to document the origin of materials, and who is responsible for the final product.

The problem is that Ukraine lacks laboratories for rapid analysis of hazardous materials. Some of the testing still has to be done abroad. That is why the transfer of equipment from JICA and the expansion of training programs for Ukrainian specialists can have a systemic effect: this is not just aid to individual communities, but a key element in building trust in the future market for recycled materials.

Without laboratories, protocols, and transparent accountability, Ukraine will not gain trust in recycled raw materials. And without trust, there will be no market.

Digital Material Passport: Where the EU Is Headed

Another important European trend is the digital traceability of construction products. The EU is moving toward a model where construction materials have not only physical characteristics but also a digital history: origin, composition, technical parameters, environmental characteristics, and reusability.

For Ukraine, this is important not only in the context of construction. It is the same approach that is already taking shape in the timber market: origin, traceability, quality, environmental footprint, and compliance with standards.

This means that scaling up the Ukrainian system must begin with a unified protocol: how to identify asbestos, how to isolate it, who is authorized to conduct analyses, where to dispose of it, how to document the origin of materials, and who is responsible for the final product.

The problem is that Ukraine lacks laboratories capable of rapidly analyzing hazardous materials. Some of the testing still has to be done abroad. That is precisely why the transfer of equipment from JICA and the expansion of training programs for Ukrainian specialists can have a systemic effect: this is not just aid

In fact, the European market is moving toward a model where materials without verified origin and characteristics will gradually lose access to the high-quality segment. This applies to wood, construction materials, recycled raw materials, composites, and infrastructure products.

Therefore, the correct framework for Ukraine is as follows: demolition waste must go from being an “unknown mixed stream” to a material with a quality certificate. Only then can it become a resource for business, rather than just a problem for communities.

Government procurement can create demand

Even the best recycling system won’t work without demand. European practice shows that the secondary raw materials market is driven not only by environmental standards but also by government procurement, infrastructure projects, and material requirements.

This is particularly relevant for Ukraine. The reconstruction of housing, roads, bridges, public infrastructure, and industrial facilities will inevitably create enormous demand for materials. If the government does not establish rules for the use of safe recycled materials in public procurement, this demand will automatically shift to virgin raw materials: cement, crushed stone, sand, metal, wood, and other materials.

But if standards and requirements for the use of recycled materials are established, part of this demand could form a new industrial sector. This requires technical specifications, laboratories, certification, transparent accounting, and end-of-waste rules—that is, the point at which waste legally ceases to be waste and becomes a product.

This is where the main economic challenge lies. Ukraine can either spend money on transporting and storing millions of tons of waste, or create a market where some of these materials are repurposed into roads, concrete mixes, landscaping, engineering structures, and the production of new building materials.

Communities should not be left to face the problem alone

A pilot project on managing demolition waste, which has been implemented since 2024 in the Kyiv region and five cities—Odesa, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Kherson—has allowed for the development of initial practical approaches. Ukraine has received equipment, conducted training for specialists, begun implementing systematic monitoring, and developed material recycling.

In Borodianka, a processing cycle has already been established for materials that can potentially be reused in the production of road pavement. This is an important example, but it cannot remain a local experiment.

According to representatives of the Ministry of Development, virtually every community is dealing with debris from the destruction, as there is no region completely free of the consequences of the destruction. That is precisely why solutions must be scalable to the entire country.

“Today, virtually every community is dealing with debris from the destruction. But communities should not be left to face this problem on their own. We need uniform rules, technical standards, access to laboratory diagnostics, training for specialists, and clear economic incentives for businesses. If this isn’t done, the country will end up not with a secondary raw materials market, but with a chaotic accumulation of hazardous materials in local areas,” emphasized Olena Koltyk, Head of the Ukraine Support Team.

That is precisely why the Ukrainian model should be built not around one-off pilot projects, but around a national system for managing material flows from demolition.

Ukraine does not need to catch up with the EU; it can build a more modern model right from the start.

Paradoxically, Ukraine has the opportunity not just to copy the European model, but to learn from its mistakes. The EU has already shown that a high formal recovery rate does not guarantee true circularity. If materials are used primarily in low-quality applications, that is better than a landfill, but it is not yet a fully-fledged circular economy.

Ukraine can immediately adopt a different logic:

not “how many tons were removed”;

not “how many tons were shredded”;

but “how many tons were returned to production as safe, standardized, traceable material.”

It is precisely this model that can serve as the foundation for a new circular economy sector. And here, Ukrainian-Japanese cooperation with JICA is important not only as equipment assistance. It can serve as a testing ground for a new system: from accounting and sorting to standards, community education, technical requirements, and the creation of industrial demand.

Conclusion: Reconstruction requires not only materials but also a new resource policy

Ukraine can no longer afford to think in terms of a linear economy: extract, use, discard. The scale of the destruction, the cost of recovery, and the path toward the EU are forcing the country to transition to a different model—one where materials have a provenance, a certificate of origin, quality, and a second life.

Waste from destruction is a painful consequence of war. But in the reconstruction economy, it can become a source of secondary raw materials. To achieve this, Ukraine needs not just crushers and sites, but a complete system: audits, sorting, laboratories, asbestos protocols, technical standards, digital record-keeping, government demand, and clear rules for businesses. The key question is this: will Ukraine become a country that simply clears away the rubble, or a country that creates a new market for reconstruction materials from it?

On May 28 in Kyiv, the UST team, together with representatives of WWF-Ukraine and the Independent National Law Firm Arzinger, presented the results of the project “Reducing the Use of Forest Biomass in Ukraine.”

The project aimed to develop analytical reports outlining measures to support forest conservation, reduce firewood consumption, and promote sustainable energy alternatives.

“Unfortunately, due to the war with the occupiers, Ukraine cannot completely abandon the use of forest biomass for energy purposes. However, this situation compels us to rethink our approach to the efficient use of energy resources. In our research, the main goal was to identify the most economically viable solutions that would enable more efficient and rational energy consumption,” noted Olena Koltyk, Head of UST, during the presentation.

The UST experts were responsible for preparing the analytical report “Assessing the Potential for Reducing Forest Biomass Consumption.”
The relevance of this study was driven by three key factors:

1. Energy challenges, particularly the need to reduce biomass use;
2. The need to conserve forests;
3. The fight against illegal logging.
   
   

A key value of the report lies in the methodology developed for identifying and selecting territorial communities where it is most appropriate to implement projects aimed at reducing the use of firewood as fuel. This methodology includes detailed regional and local selection criteria. Focusing on regional indicators, the report presents a ranking of Ukrainian oblasts, with Kyiv, Zakarpattia, and Zhytomyr making the top three.

The report also proposes practical solutions to reduce firewood consumption in public and private buildings. These include:

• modernization of heating systems,
• improvement of building insulation, and
• adoption of renewable energy sources.

From a monitoring and accountability perspective, the project developed tools to enhance transparency and oversight, including satellite analytics, digital wood tracking systems, and public monitoring mechanisms.

This project was funded by the Advisory Assistance Programme (AAP) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) for environmental protection in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and other neighboring countries of the European Union.
It was supervised by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) and the German Environment Agency (UBA).

The authors of this publication bear full responsibility for its content.

On May 29, 2025, a public discussion was held on the Waste Management Concept for the Novobilouska Rural Territorial Hromada in the Chernihiv region.
The document was developed by the Ukraine Support Team (UST) in cooperation with the NGO ReThink, with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation.

Participants in the discussion included representatives of the Novobilouska, Kyselivska, and Kyinska hromadas, the Chernihiv Regional State Administration and District Administration, the municipal utility ATP 2528, and Chernihiv Polytechnic.
The event marked an important step toward establishing intermunicipal cooperation in the field of waste management.

“We didn’t just help the hromada comply with the new legal requirements — we gave them a tool for planning and systemic change,” emphasized Olena Koltyk, head of the UST coalition.
“This Concept is the first step toward environmentally responsible local waste management. It provides the community with clear guidance: what infrastructure is needed, what resources are required, and how to build a system that meets real needs.”

During the discussion, Dmytro Fedorov, Head of the Novobilouska Hromada, stated:
“For our community, addressing the issue of waste management is highly relevant and important. Within the framework of the new waste management reform, working with experts helped us structure our understanding and see how planning is carried out according to the new standards — this was extremely valuable. We hope to establish intermunicipal cooperation with neighboring communities to tackle waste-related challenges together.”

Reform Context: Planning Instead of Chaos
The Concept was developed in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Waste Management”, which came into force in July 2023.
The law introduced a new planning hierarchy encompassing the national, regional, and local levels.

In December 2024, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved the National Waste Management Plan, and within a year, each oblast must adopt its own regional plan. After that, it will be the turn of the hromadas, as the implementation of reforms takes place primarily at the local level.

The Concept for Novobilouska Hromada is designed to help the community transition from reactive responses to strategic waste management.
The document includes an analysis of the current situation, a forecast of waste generation for the coming years, and tailored recommendations aligned with the draft Regional Waste Management Plan for Chernihiv Oblast through 2030

“The biggest challenge was the lack of complete statistical data in the community,” said Ihor Satin, the scientific lead of the development team.
“However, thanks to the openness and engagement of the community, we were able to build a realistic model and provide concrete, actionable recommendations.”

The Concept will serve as the foundation for the future development of a Local Waste Management Plan (LWMP). This will enable the community to:

• build well-justified waste management infrastructure;
• plan resources and attract investment;
• collaborate with neighboring hromadas to reduce costs and apply modern technologies.

The document lays the groundwork for real change: less landfilling — more recycling, greater efficiency — less environmental harm.


The project was implemented with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation.

Reducing the use of forest biomass (firewood, logging residues, and wood processing waste) is not only a step toward forest conservation and climate change mitigation, but also an opportunity to enhance energy independence and improve the quality of life in communities.

WWF-Ukraine, in collaboration with the NGO UST – Ukraine Support Team and the independent national law firm Arzinger, presented the results of the project “Reducing the Use of Forest Biomass in Ukraine.” As part of the project, experts prepared two in-depth analytical reports:

🔅 Analytical Report: “Assessment of the Potential for Reducing Forest Biomass Use”

A study outlining the current state of forest biomass use for energy purposes in Ukraine, along with practical recommendations for its optimization.

🔅 Analytical Report: “Legal Regulation of Measures to Improve Energy Efficiency and Financing Mechanisms for Energy Efficiency Projects Aimed at Reducing Forest Biomass Use in Ukraine”

An analysis of legal and financial instruments to support the creation of a transparent and effective sub-grant system for energy efficiency measures in Ukraine.

We invite you to explore the full studies on the official website — https://wwf.ua/stay-tuned/news/?18279891/vykorystannia-lisovoi-biomasy

Approximately six months ago, the Ukraine Support Team (UST) began a project to develop an Energy Plan for Ivanivska hromada, covering the period through 2030. To define the energy development goals and assess the current situation, our team conducted data collection, processing, and analysis. Based on this, UST experts identified measures and targets aimed at enhancing the community’s energy potential.

The planning process was particularly challenging due to limited access to energy data and the fact that Ivanivska hromada was under Russian occupation for 25 days. During the project’s presentation, Olga Babiy highlighted the unique nature of this initiative: nearly all key information had to be reconstructed from scratch, as most of the documentation needed for the Energy Plan had been destroyed during the fighting and occupation in 2022. Despite these difficulties, the UST team managed to recover the necessary analytics and formulate a comprehensive energy plan, including detailed assessments and project recommendations.

The significance of energy planning was also emphasized by the Head of Ivanivska hromada, Olena Shvydka, who expressed gratitude to the UST team for their support in improving local energy efficiency and for the practical consulting assistance provided during project implementation.

“We understand how difficult it is for communities to implement the decisions made at the central level. That’s why our team helps to develop concrete action plans that are adapted to the real conditions in each community,” said Olena Koltyk during the presentation.

A key highlight of the event was the overview of 23 proposed projects aimed at improving the community’s energy efficiency. These initiatives are expected to reduce energy consumption by 424 MWh. Special attention was given to heating system upgrades, building thermal modernization, and the implementation of renewable energy projects.

During the presentation, Tamara Burenko emphasized: “Our main goal is the gradual yet steady reduction of energy consumption. Every hromada must start preparing its Municipal Energy Plan (MEP) now, as they are expected to be approved by November 2025.”

It is important to note that the report developed by the UST team is intended to serve as the foundation for the preparation and official adoption of Ivanivska hromada’s local energy plan.

The project is implemented with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation.

Ukraine Support Team (UST), in collaboration with Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation, has developed and published Guidelines for Assessing the Recovery Needs of Territorial Communities, adapted for use by civil society organizations.

This methodology responds to the need for a systematic approach to selecting and implementing recovery projects — especially under conditions of limited resources. It helps structure the process of identifying communities’ critical needs, forming well-founded priorities, and building effective cooperation with local authorities and international partners.

The guidelines cover key sectors, including:

• Education
• Healthcare
• Housing and utility infrastructure

The document provides practical tools for:

• Data collection and analysis
• Technical assessment of facilities
• Prioritization of recovery needs
• Procurement and contractor management
• Stakeholder engagement at all stages of the project

The methodology is developed in line with Ukrainian legislation and international standards, and is designed to be useful for civil society organizations, local government representatives, donor agencies, and recovery clusters.

You can view the English version.

The year 2024 was marked by systemic work and meaningful change. We focused on strategic recovery of communities, developed solutions for efficient resource use, launched new partnerships, and expanded our coalition.

📊 This presentation highlights the key figures, achievements, and approaches we implemented throughout the year.

Can debris from destroyed buildings be used for reconstruction?

Together with Ukrainian and international partners, we are looking for a practical answer to this question.

Last week, as part of a collaboration between Sintef (a Norwegian research institute), the company NOCON, and the Ukraine Support Team (UST), we conducted a series of meetings and site visits to better understand how debris and demolition waste in Ukraine can be efficiently recycled and reused in construction. Our focus is not only on removal, but also on reusing secondary materials such as concrete, recycled aggregates, and other structural solutions.

We engaged with relevant ministries and other stakeholders to discuss:

• What legal and economic conditions are needed to launch this market;
• How similar practices are implemented in other countries;
• What must change in Ukraine to ensure that secondary materials genuinely become part of the recovery process.

We thank the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine for their willingness to develop an economically viable model that will enable businesses to operate in the field of recycling.

We also thank the Ministry for Communities and Territories Development of Ukraine for supporting the idea of adapting construction standards to European norms regarding the use of secondary materials.

We also visited several sites where recycling is already taking place. Together with our Norwegian colleagues and other partners, we visited two operational recycling facilities:

• A recycling site in the Borodianka community, managed by a municipal enterprise of Kyiv Oblast. The equipment provided by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) impressed us with its capacity. With the right technological approach, it can ensure high-quality secondary raw materials. We express our sincere thanks to our Japanese partners at JICA, the Kyiv Regional State Administration, and the entire team that helped organize the visit!
• A recycling site in the city of Bucha, where just a year ago the temporary waste storage area was literally covered with debris brought in from across the community. Today, it is a clean and organized site, with recycling operations running at a high level. This has become possible thanks to the support of UNDP Ukraine.

We sincerely thank our colleagues at UNDP for their contribution to recovery efforts and support for the community!

We also visited sites of destruction in Chernihiv, where dismantling and recycling are still urgently needed. We are convinced that through joint efforts, these processes can be accelerated — while complying with environmental and construction standards.

Our colleagues from SINTEF highly appreciated the quality of the equipment already available in Ukraine. They see potential not only for temporary solutions (such as road sub-base) but also for producing full-fledged construction materials.

Who are we, and why are we doing this?

The Ukraine Support Team (UST) is a coalition of experts helping communities and the country recover effectively. We bring together stakeholders — local authorities, academia, businesses, international partners, and government — to develop systemic solutions.

We work at the intersection of:

• Waste management
• Sustainable energy transition
• Community development planning

If you’re interested in making Ukraine’s recovery smart, modern, and sustainable — follow our page. More case studies, data, and solutions are coming soon.

Together with the Ivanivska community in the Chernihiv region, we are launching a project to develop Energy Planning for the period until 2030 aimed at sustainable energy development.

The main goal is to provide the community with strategic solutions to improve energy efficiency, reduce emissions, and implement renewable energy sources. As part of the project, an analysis of the energy status will be conducted, baseline consumption levels identified, and priority actions for the community’s energy security developed.

This project will not only enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure energy supply but also serve as a foundation for the development of a Municipal Energy Plan and a “green” recovery strategy.
We are grateful to the International Renaissance Foundation for their support and to the Ivanivska Village Council for their trust.

Is it possible to effectively plan recovery without understanding how the community will develop in the future? How can we forecast the capacities of social and critical infrastructure, which is built for decades, without prior assessments of the community’s demographic situation, economic potential, and development prospects? The Ukraine Support Team coalition and partners have begun working on an economic modeling project for the recovery and development of the Borodianka community to address this issue.

As part of the UST coalition’s work, we have extensively assisted communities in prioritizing their recovery needs. In the context of war and limited resources, rebuilding everything at once is an unattainable task and, in some cases, impractical. Is it worth investing millions in rebuilding a school for 600 students if we don’t know how many children will study there in five years? How many hospital beds should the new hospital have?

“It is very difficult to assess what needs to be rebuilt and where to invest effort and funds first when there is no understanding of how the community will develop under different circumstances. That is why we have undertaken a new ambitious project — economic modeling for community recovery and development. By developing economic scenarios for Borodianka, we hope to create a kind of checklist for other communities: what they need to know about themselves; how to plan their future; determine what needs to be restored and proposed to donors and potential investors,” says the head of the coalition, Olena Koltyk.

Based on this data, our experts will model economic development scenarios up to 2030 and test them with residents, business representatives, and other stakeholders, selecting the most promising and suitable for the community.

We are confident that this approach will allow local governments to build a more effective management strategy and establish better communication with donors and potential investors, ensuring the community increases its capacity and develops sustainably.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5