On March 26, 2026, Kyiv hosted the conference “Financing Ukrainian Business: Needs, Tools, and Practical Solutions.” The event brought together government officials, international financial institutions (IFIs), banks, and business leaders to tackle the primary barriers to capital access during wartime.

Supported by the UK Government as part of Ukraine’s economic recovery program, the conference gathered top-tier stakeholders including the Ministry of Economy, EBRD, IFC, and both state and commercial banks.

The Financial Ecosystem: Tools Exist, Access is Blocked

The central theme of the discussion was the real-world accessibility of financial instruments. While participants noted that a broad support ecosystem has already been established—comprising bank loans, state programs, IFI tools, and war-risk insurance—there is a significant gap between availability and accessibility.

This “accessibility gap” is particularly devastating for the fuel market, where:

• Businesses operate under extreme risk conditions.
• Infrastructure is frequently damaged or located in frontline regions.
• Massive investments are required just to sustain basic operations.

Fuel Market: Risks the Financial System Overlooks

For fuel enterprises, the financing challenge is unique due to:

1. High Capital Intensity: Gas stations, oil depots, and logistics require heavy upfront investment.
2. Infrastructure Dependency: Business survival depends on stable supply chains and intact facilities.
3. The “Frontline Burn”: A striking example shared was a Kherson-based enterprise with 20 years of history and 100 employees. After the occupation, the company lost two production workshops and was forced to halt operations. Despite having a monthly overhead of approximately 100,000 UAH just to stay afloat, they have been unable to secure recovery financing.

The Systemic Deadlock: Lack of Damage Recognition

The root cause of this struggle is the absence of an effective mechanism to verify war-related damages. In frontline regions:

• Official commissions are often non-functional.
• Without an official “Act of Damage,” businesses are disqualified from support programs.
• Even when companies obtain court expertises or judicial rulings, these documents are frequently rejected by financial programs.

The Systemic Collision: The business proves its losses in court, but the state (and the financial programs it oversees) refuses to recognize them.

Banks and Risk: A Flawed Financing Model

The current financing model relies on traditional creditworthiness and collateral. For the fuel market, this creates a catch-22:

• Damaged Assets = Zero Creditworthiness: Companies with hit infrastructure are automatically deemed “un-creditable.”
• Missing Guarantees: Without recognized losses, there is no access to risk-sharing guarantees.
• Banks as Judges: Banks are effectively forced to assess war losses—a task they are neither equipped for nor authorized to do.

FEBA’s Strategic Conclusions

The Fuel and Energy Business Association (FEBA) emphasizes that while the 2026 risk-sharing architecture and co-financing mechanisms are promising, they will remain out of reach for much of the industry without systemic change.

FEBA calls for:

• Alternative Verification: Acceptance of court rulings and independent expertises as proof of damage.
• Functional Commissions: Ensuring damage assessment teams actually operate in frontline zones.
• Role Separation: Defining a clear boundary between state responsibilities and banking functions in the financing process.
• Tailored Tools: Adapting financial instruments to the specific capital needs and risks of the fuel sector.

Financing is no longer just an economic metric; it is a strategic pillar of Ukraine’s energy security. Without access to resources, infrastructure stays broken, competition withers, and the entire energy sector remains vulnerable.