Ukraine is working on a possible compensation and insurance framework for war risks affecting port and near-port infrastructure. The issue was discussed at another meeting of the Coordination Council on developing a competitive environment and creating equal conditions for business activity in Ukrainian seaports.
The topic is highly practical for the maritime sector. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukrainian ports have continued to operate under constant security pressure, but the cost of risk has become one of the main barriers for recovery, investment and stable logistics planning. Damage to terminals, warehouses, berths, energy systems, rail links and service infrastructure can disrupt exports even when navigation itself remains open.
According to Deputy Minister for Communities and Territories Development Andrii Kashuba, the ministry is already in dialogue with international partners on covering the needs of the state sector. At the same time, the ministry is ready to consider a broader approach with two parallel tracks: one for state assets and one for private port businesses.
This distinction is important because public and private infrastructure cannot always be financed through the same tools. State-owned assets may be covered through budget support, grants or intergovernmental assistance. Private terminals, stevedoring companies, logistics operators and near-port businesses may need separate portfolios, commercial insurance structures, concessional finance or targeted donor programmes.
As K2Cargo News previously reported in Ukrainian Ports Handle Over 40 Million Tons of Cargo Despite Ongoing Attacks, maritime logistics remains one of Ukraine’s key economic lifelines. A clearer war-risk mechanism could help protect that lifeline and attract more predictable financing into the sector.
Why the Mechanism Is Needed
The problem is not only physical damage. It is also uncertainty.
A port terminal may be operational today, but investors, banks, insurers and cargo owners still need to understand what happens if the asset is damaged tomorrow. Without a clear mechanism, each company faces risk individually. That makes financing more expensive, slows restoration and discourages long-term investment.
War-risk insurance and compensation can change this logic. Insurance can cover future losses or reduce exposure for private operators. Compensation mechanisms can support recovery after damage has occurred. Together, they can create a more predictable environment for port businesses that continue to work under wartime conditions.
For exporters, this matters because delays or damage in ports directly affect shipment schedules. For importers, it affects the reliability of supply chains. For carriers and logistics companies, it influences route planning, storage costs and contract risk. For the state, it affects export revenues and the resilience of critical infrastructure.
State and Private Tracks May Differ
The ministry’s idea of two parallel tracks is one of the most important elements of the discussion.
Ukraine’s port system includes assets of different ownership and function. Some infrastructure belongs to the state or state-owned enterprises. Other assets are operated by private terminal companies, stevedores, warehouse operators, transport firms and service providers.
The damage profile is also different. A berth, railway approach or navigation infrastructure may require a public-sector recovery solution. A private grain terminal, logistics warehouse or equipment park may require a different financial instrument.
That is why a single universal mechanism may not be enough. The state sector can be represented in negotiations through ministries and public agencies. The private sector needs structured information, project portfolios and documented evidence of damage or investment needs.
According to the ministry’s approach, if business provides sufficiently structured information, the government may use it in talks with international partners. This could open the door to grants, technical assistance, concessional loans, humanitarian and donor support, sponsorship programmes, cross-sector initiatives and even “terminal-to-terminal” cooperation.
Business Must Prepare Project Portfolios
For private operators, the next step is not only to wait for government decisions. It is to prepare data.
International partners usually need clear project descriptions, verified damage records, ownership documentation, cost estimates, recovery priorities and an explanation of economic impact. A general request for support is rarely enough. A structured portfolio can show which projects are urgent, which assets are critical for exports, which companies are ready to co-finance recovery and which risks require insurance coverage.
This is especially important for private businesses in ports. International donors and financial institutions often separate humanitarian needs, public infrastructure recovery and private-sector investment. If companies want to be included in future mechanisms, they will need to show why their assets are critical to the logistics system.
For example, a damaged terminal crane is not only a company asset. It can be part of the national export chain. A warehouse near a port may support grain, metal, containers or humanitarian cargo. A rail link or loading facility may determine whether cargo moves on time.
The better the sector can describe these links, the stronger its case will be in negotiations with partners.
Registers of Damage Become the Foundation
A compensation or insurance mechanism cannot work without reliable evidence.
Ukraine already has tools for recording and verifying damage. Businesses are being encouraged to document losses in national and international registers. There is also a separate register of damage in the Lower Danube area, developed in cooperation with the Secretariat of the Danube Commission.
This documentation is not just bureaucracy. It is the basis for future claims, donor decisions, compensation models and insurance products. Without verified data, international partners cannot assess the scale of the problem or design a credible financing structure.
For port operators, this means that every damaged asset should be recorded carefully. Photos, technical reports, ownership documents, repair estimates, proof of business interruption and official confirmation of damage can all become important later.
The same applies to near-port infrastructure. Rail access, storage sites, power supply, roads, equipment and service facilities may not always be visible in broad statistics, but they can be critical for cargo flows.
A Link With Wider Recovery Finance
The port-risk discussion is also connected to broader recovery finance.
From July 1, Ukraine introduced a new financial mechanism for enterprises affected by attacks. Small and medium-sized businesses can attract loans for restoring destroyed or damaged property under the “Affordable Loans 5–7–9%” programme, with a preferential rate of 0.1% during the first two years and a later transition to 5%.
For port and near-port companies, this may become one of several available instruments, although larger infrastructure needs will likely require additional support. Ports involve expensive equipment, specialized facilities and long investment cycles. A single loan programme cannot cover every need.
That is why the discussion with international partners is important. Ukraine needs a combination of tools: emergency repair funding, insurance against future attacks, concessional finance, grants, technical expertise and private-sector participation.
Why Ports Are a Strategic Priority
Ukraine’s ports are not ordinary infrastructure. They are a central part of the country’s trade system.
Even during wartime, maritime logistics supports exports of grain, metals, agricultural products, industrial goods and other cargo. Ports also connect Ukraine with global markets and provide revenue for businesses, communities and the state budget.
When a port asset is damaged, the effect can spread quickly. A destroyed warehouse reduces storage capacity. A damaged berth limits vessel handling. A damaged rail approach disrupts inland logistics. A damaged energy facility can stop operations even if cargo and vessels are available.
This is why port recovery and war-risk coverage should be treated as part of national economic resilience. The goal is not only to repair what has been destroyed. The goal is to keep logistics functioning despite the threat of future attacks.
What International Partners May Look For
International partners will likely assess several factors before supporting a compensation or insurance mechanism.
First, they will need transparency. Project portfolios must show who owns the asset, what damage occurred, how much recovery costs and what economic function the asset performs.
Second, they will look for prioritization. Not every project can be funded at once. Critical infrastructure, export bottlenecks and high-impact assets will likely receive more attention.
Third, they will assess risk-sharing. Donors and financial institutions usually expect some combination of public oversight, private responsibility and measurable outcomes.
Fourth, they will consider governance. A mechanism involving state and private assets must avoid unequal access, duplication and conflicts of interest.
If Ukraine can build a clear structure, it may turn port risk from an individual business problem into a managed sector-level challenge.
A Step Toward More Resilient Maritime Logistics
The discussion at the Coordination Council shows that Ukraine is moving from emergency response toward systemic risk management.
In the first phase of war, the priority was keeping ports alive and cargo moving. Now the maritime sector needs instruments that can support reconstruction, reduce investor fear and make private participation possible even under wartime conditions.
A compensation and insurance mechanism for war risks will not eliminate the threat of attacks. But it can reduce the financial paralysis that often follows uncertainty. It can help businesses plan repairs, banks assess projects, insurers price risks and international partners channel assistance more effectively.
For Ukraine’s port sector, this could become a major step. The country needs not only functioning ports, but also a financing architecture that protects the infrastructure behind them.
The key condition is preparation. If businesses provide structured data and the state presents a credible portfolio to partners, Ukraine may be able to build parallel public and private tracks for port recovery. That would strengthen maritime logistics, improve investor confidence and support the country’s export resilience during the war.
Read also: Ukrainian Ports Handle Over 40 Million Tons of Cargo Despite Ongoing Attacks
