Support, balance, and working together toward results — what I discussed with partners at URC 2026

This year’s Ukraine Recovery Conference (URC 2026) in Gdansk, Poland, was a special one for us in the sector. Above all, because two major developments took place just before the conference, and they shifted the focus of our conversations with international partners in a meaningful way.

The first was the opening of the Fundamentals negotiating cluster, which effectively launched Ukraine’s official EU accession process. For the Transparency International Ukraine team, this is an enormously significant step. Fighting corruption is an inseparable part of this stage of the negotiations. So once the cluster opened, a number of changes we’ve been advocating for years became binding conditions for Ukraine’s further progress toward the EU.

The second development was the adoption of the new Law on Public Procurement. It’s directly linked to the first, since procurement is one of the chapters within that same Fundamentals cluster. The new law — which we call the “third procurement revolution” — is a real step toward harmonizing Ukrainian legislation with EU requirements. We discussed this in detail with partners at our side event, Trust by Design: How EU-Aligned Procurement Underpins Ukraine’s Recovery.

But there’s still a great deal of work ahead, and that, too, was a recurring theme in our conversations in Gdansk.

Ahead of the conference, we prepared, as we do every year, a short report on Ukraine’s progress in fighting corruption. I discussed its key points actively with international partners, both on discussion panels and in the hallways. But beyond the facts laid out in the report, my colleagues and I also talked with conference guests about how to actually implement the anti-corruption reforms Ukraine so urgently needs. The new context — direct negotiations on EU accession — is changing both the approach and the vision going forward.

Here are the three main messages I brought to our European partners and Ukrainian officials, given Ukraine’s new status.

1. Passing strong legislation matters, but implementation is the hardest part

The decision to open Cluster 1 and tie key rule-of-law and anti-corruption reforms to the Ukraine Facility Plan is extremely important for Ukraine. But beyond legislative change, the real challenge now is implementing what’s been promised.

The closer the deadlines get, the greater the temptation will be to pass a law that formally checks the box without delivering genuine transformation. This is exactly where our European partners can help — if they focus not just on whether a law was voted through, but on whether it actually strengthens institutions, accountability, and the rule of law.

2. It’s essential to preserve the role of international experts in selection processes during EU integration

One of the most successful innovations in Ukraine’s reforms has been involving international experts in the selection of judges and heads of anti-corruption and oversight bodies. The experience of NABU, SAPO, and the HACC proves how critical it is to support independent appointments based on candidates’ integrity and professionalism.

But the situation is changing, and we’re seeing a growing number of attempts to weaken these safeguards. International participation — including the decisive vote of experts delegated by international partners in assessing candidates’ integrity for top positions — must be preserved throughout Ukraine’s entire EU accession process.

3. A balanced approach: highlight where progress is lacking, and support where there are successes

Progress across different reform areas will inevitably be uneven. The EU should keep pressing for change where processes have stalled — and this applies above all to the rule of law and the fight against corruption. Despite the government’s stated readiness, real movement over the past year has been so limited that experts have even started talking about a crisis.

A balanced approach to supporting reforms has always been a key factor in their success, and it remains essential to maintaining momentum in the negotiations. The principle of meeting conditions still holds. But so does the principle of recognizing success. Ukraine needs both.

This material is funded by Norway. Its content is the sole responsibility of Transparency International Ukraine and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Norwegian Government.