Analysis of Climate Integration in DREAM Projects
A review of the Unified Project Portfolio (UPP) and Sectoral Portfolio (SP) on the DREAM platform shows that a large-scale and structured pipeline of recovery projects is taking shape.
At the time of analysis, the portfolio comprised 3,529 projects at regional and national levels. The majority fall under the regional level — 2,143 projects (approximately 61%). The sectoral portfolio accounts for 1,072 projects (approximately 30%), while the national level covers 314 projects (approximately 9%).
By sector, the largest share of projects is concentrated in education and science (1,885 projects, over 53%), followed by healthcare (464), transport (299), social services (191), and municipal infrastructure (150). Strategically important sectors — including energy (99 projects), environment (38), agriculture (14), digitalisation (13), and mine action (1) — remain underrepresented in terms of project count.
The total estimated value of the portfolio is approximately UAH 6.3 trillion, with a high degree of concentration: over 90% of the value falls across three sectors — healthcare (49%), energy (25%), and transport (16%). Healthcare projects are predominantly formed at the regional level, while energy and transport are concentrated at the national level, reflecting their strategic character.
The portfolio combines a large number of socially oriented projects with a limited number of capital-intensive infrastructure investments, primarily in energy and transport.
Climate and Environmental Integration
Despite the portfolio's significant scale, the integration of climate and environmental considerations remains limited.
Of the 3,529 projects, only 45 (approximately 1%) include calculations of greenhouse gas emissions or emission reductions. Of these, 34 declare a potential positive contribution to climate or environmental objectives, indicating partial alignment between calculations and declared impact. Only 3 projects have undergone an environmental impact assessment.
Overall, a significant share of projects declares a positive contribution to climate and environmental goals, but these claims are largely unsupported by quantitative indicators or systematic assessment.
National Level
At the national level, the portfolio combines large-scale social projects with strategic infrastructure investments.
By project count, the dominant areas relate to the restoration of social infrastructure — healthcare (202 projects) and education. Among infrastructure projects, road restoration is the most prominent (146 projects).
By value, energy and transport dominate. The construction of new generating capacity (over UAH 1 trillion) and road infrastructure development (UAH 668 billion) form the core of investment. Significant resources are also directed toward energy infrastructure modernisation and transport system development.
Climate integration at this level is somewhat higher than at the local level, but remains unsystematic. Only 21 of 568 projects include emission calculations, predominantly in the energy sector. The Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) principle is applied in a limited number of cases (9 projects), while environmental impact assessments have been completed for 27 projects, with a further 39 planned.
A significant number of projects declare a positive contribution to climate and environmental goals — including climate adaptation, pollution prevention, and climate change mitigation — but without systematic quantitative confirmation.
Regional and Local Level
At the regional and local levels, the portfolio has a clearly defined socially oriented structure.
Education is the dominant sector, accounting for the majority of projects both in number and coverage. The largest concentrations are in school canteen development (460 projects), construction of shelters in educational facilities (407), provision of school buses (201), and modernisation and construction of educational infrastructure.
The analysis reflects communities' focus on meeting basic needs — safety, accessibility, and service quality. The portfolio broadly fits a "mass recovery" model, where a large number of relatively small projects are local and applied in nature.
Climate integration at this level is limited. Only 7 projects include emission calculations, all in the education sector, while most projects lack such assessments. DNSH assessments are largely formal in character (25 projects), and environmental impact assessments have been completed for 28 projects, with 16 more planned.
A significant share of projects declares a positive contribution to climate and environmental goals, but without adequate quantitative justification.
General Conclusions
The DREAM portfolio reflects a structured investment framework with a clear division of roles between the national and local levels: the national level focuses on strategic infrastructure, while the local level addresses basic social service delivery.
The analysis shows that despite the portfolio's significant scale and the presence of declared climate and environmental commitments, their integration into DREAM projects remains limited and unsystematic.
Key challenges include a low rate of greenhouse gas emission calculations, limited application of the DNSH instrument, insufficient use of environmental impact assessments, and a gap between declared impact and its quantitative confirmation.
This underscores the need for stronger institutional and methodological frameworks for integrating climate considerations into project development and assessment.
Published on