Stanislav Viter, Viktoria Hubareva
The area of forest destroyed by fire resulting from combat activity in Ukraine is constantly increasing. In this article, we explore the future of Ukraine’s forests, the possibility of natural restoration processes, and the government’s actions to restore these lost resources.
Note: This piece uses forest destruction data provided by the Ukrainian State Forestry Agency (USFA) in response to an official request. This data was not collected nationwide, but only in areas where it was possible to conduct detailed field surveys. An article previously published by UWEC Work Group provided other data on forest fire damage that significantly exceeds official state data. Both options have the right to exist, given that they were collected using different methods. The article’s authors expect that as territories in Ukraine are de-occupied, the figure provided by the USFA will increase.
According to USFA, almost 900 hectares (ha) of forest have been completely destroyed to the point of growth cessation since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to UWEC Work Group’s preliminary estimates, 104,000 ha of forests have been damaged (including surface fires that do not cause complete destruction of forest stands). Is it possible to restore these forests and what is the state doing about it?
Forests are affected by military tactics during war. They are easily destroyed and difficult to restore, and consequently suffer more harm than other types of ecosystems. According to information provided by USFA, Ukraine has already lost forests valued at $60 billion USD.
Forests have been used in wars across all eras of human existence. Firstly, the forest itself is a convenient natural shelter for armies, helping to enable the “surprise factor”. Secondly, forest resources (game, wild fruits, timber) have helped people to survive in many wars and, ultimately, to restore the local economy as quickly as possible.
Russia’s war against Ukraine is no exception. During the full-scale invasion, enemy targeting of Ukraine’s largest cities caused the most damage to near-urban forests. Forested areas around Kharkiv and Kyiv, as well as in the Siversky Donets and Oskil river valleys in Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk oblasts all burned, located as they were along the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ main lines of defense. Forests in the Dnipro River valley on the approaches to the city of Kherson suffered no less. In essence, these forests today play a role similar to that played by abatis defenses along the southern borders of the Russian Empire and Ukraine, where forests defended against raiding by steppe nomads.
Forests that stretch densely along natural barriers such as rivers are excellent terrain elements for camouflaging equipment, cover for defense forces, and constructing defensive fortifications. The trees themselves become additional protection from enemy bullets and shrapnel.
The enemy also uses forests to get as close as possible to the positions of Ukrainian defenders. As a result, forested areas become the site of particularly protracted combat, ultimately leading to the destruction of most natural and relatively natural forests along the entire line of contact.
According to USFA data provided to UWEC Work Group, as of June 2024, 708,900 ha of forests were directly affected by the war, of which 893.9 ha are considered completely destroyed, and the total damage to forests is valued at 2.457 million hryvnia ($59,580 in USD). The agency also noted that this figure may fluctuate, because widespread landmines render accurate calculations impossible.
Fighting destroyed almost 900 ha of forest to the point of growth cessation. That said, the figure seems small when compared to forests destroyed in peacetime.
UWEC Work Group calculated (see the processed satellite imagery below) that at least 3,600 ha burned and were then felled after a fire in the Izyum Forestry Enterprise alone between 1990 and 2020. Given long-term experience with forest restoration in this area, as well as the fact that during the full-scale invasion it again became an epicenter for forest conflagrations, the Izyum Forestry Enterprise can be a model for research and restoration planning.
Despite replanting burned areas in the 1990s over the course of almost two decades, there are still large sandy wastelands there without a single tree. The heat, dry sandy soil, and absence of water and nutrients make any attempt to reestablish forest extremely difficult.
What happens in forests destroyed by fighting?
As yet unpublished scientific research provides an ambiguous picture of what is happening in the organic world of forest ecosystems that includes plants, fungi, and animals.
For example, satellite imagery of the Izyumsky forest shows that relatively young coniferous reforested stands are primarily affected. Such areas possess lower biological diversity. In most cases, current forestry management regulations call for clear-cutting Scots pine stands at the age of 60 to 100 years, depending on the condition of standing timber. Such forests are the most common forest type in Ukraine’s eastern frontline regions.
At the same time, such forest stands are the most effective for establishing military positions, as pines, unlike deciduous trees, have green crowns year-round. Young and middle-aged pine stands grow much more densely than old-growth – usually sparse pine forests with numerous clearings. In old pine forests with rich biodiversity, there is no advantage for either the occupiers or the Ukrainian Armed Forces to set up positions that are readily visible thanks to reconnaissance drones.
The tactical advantages or disadvantages of certain forest types have shifted the destructive impacts of the war to relatively young forests that are less biologically diverse. Forest managers prefer to harvest timber in older forest areas, resulting in the focused destruction of areas with the greatest biodiversity. For example, while peacetime incidents of destruction of nests used by white-tailed eagles (two cases) and imperial eagles (three nests) were documented in this area, not a single nesting site used by these species was destroyed in Izyum due to military actions.
A unique situation occurred in the Luhansk-area Serebryansky Forestry Enterprise, where the frontline moved continuously through the forest, gradually engulfing all types of forest stands, both young and old. But such a devastating impact is limited to a relatively small area on the immediate line of contact.
What are the barriers to forest regeneration?
Before restoration of any natural areas can occur, they must first be demined – the safety of forestry workers is critical. It should be noted that forests are third “in line” for demining after populated areas and agricultural lands.
According to Professor Valentina Meshkova, head of the forest protection laboratory at the G. M. Vysotsky Ukrainian Research Institute of Forestry and Agroforestry, demining is one of the biggest problems in post-war forest restoration.
“In Germany, there are still places waiting since the end of World War II to be cleared of mines. So in Ukraine, this process could last for decades…,” Professor Valentina Meshkova explained during an interview with UWEC Work Group. She recently took part in the German-Ukrainian Dialogue (APD) on land issues to study fieldwork experience in clearing territories of explosive objects and the prospects for using this experience in Ukraine.
Meshkova hopes for natural regeneration of forests when areas remain inaccessible for forestry over the long term, as is happening in the Chornobyl zone.
“Of course, without tending, forests will not have the composition and productivity that the forest industry desires, but they will perform ecological functions, even if they are represented by so-called ‘low-value’ species,” Meshkova believes.
Deadwood will not hurt such forests either. Some foresters note that such wood should be removed, but she commented that areas where trees have been completely burned are not pest hosts. On the contrary, rare species may develop there:
“The presence of dead fuel (primarily dead wood) is not dangerous. If a tree is dead (missing its crown), but the wood retains moisture, rare species can develop. Some of them are associated with fungi involved in wood decomposition or other groups of organisms.”
It is premature to discuss the possibility of large-scale forest restoration in these areas, primarily because of the dense concentration of mines. War-affected forests are not dangerous hotbeds of “pests”, and in some cases, on the contrary, they can be a refuge for rare flora and fauna.
Can warfare positively impact forests?
In some cases, war has even had a positive impact on the biodiversity of frontline forests, in the form of following transformations:
- Destruction of artificially created same-year forests consisting of single-species stands. Usually such forests are dense stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) which lack rich biodiversity and are more connected to old sparse forest areas. For example, some rare plants, such as meadow pasqueflower (Pulsatilla pratensis) and open pasqueflower (Pulsatilla patens), as well as feather grass (Stipa capillata) and sand feather grass (Stipa borysthenica) prefer sparse pine forests, glades, and clearings. The same can be said about a rare snake species – common smooth snake (Coronella austriaca). A very rare and majestic bird of prey, the imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) prefers to nest in the remains of old pine forests scattered in open sandy steppe lands, clearings, and burnt-out areas. The replacement of sparse forests with open sands containing dense pine stands led, in particular, to the disappearance of a rare bird species on the Sivirsky Donets and Oskil rivers – the Eurasian stone curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus).
- Mines render it almost impossible to conduct intensive forestry in pine forests in the valley of the lower Dnipro, Sivirsky Donets and Oskil rivers. As a result, insects and other terrestrial invertebrates, birds, small mammals, mushrooms, and plants will remain free of anthropogenic pressure for a time. Mines do not threaten, but rather, are an ongoing factor that will, at least for a time, ensure the preservation of their habitats, places that have survived many years of “peaceful forestry” and military operations. At the same time, large animals, especially elk, suffer greatly from mines and may even be wiped out locally.
- Raise awareness of forest conservation challenges. Awful images of forests burned and mutilated by explosions attract attention not only to the need for restoring damaged forests, but also to the need for a caring attitude toward surviving forests and their comprehensive protection in the peaceful future of Ukraine.
In sum, a somewhat strange situation has arisen: some areas of frontline forests have burned to ashes, while others, on the contrary, are increasingly reminiscent of protected areas.
Why can’t today’s forest regeneration in Ukraine be called “useful”?
Despite the possibility of natural forest regeneration out of ashes and the dense minefields in many areas, artificial forest restoration (afforestation) has already begun.
According to data provided to UWEC by USFA, 61.7 ha of war-damaged forests were restored in 2023, and 66.2 ha in the first half of 2024.
The problem is that afforestation is taking place not only where forests existed prior to the war, but also where forests have never before existed. State authorities are encouraging the creation of new forests of “billions of trees” in every possible way, including as a way of contributing to afforestation and counteracting global warming. It has also been envisioned as compensation for war-time losses of forest cover since the war began in 2022. These efforts are specifically aimed at creating new forests on non-forested lands, some of which had no history of woody vegetation coverage in the historical period.
According to USFA, 10,900 ha of new forests were created in 2021-2023. To a large extent, these areas are new, previously unforested areas. And for the most part, these are, unfortunately, not former quarries, terrakon slag heaps or degraded farmland, but steppe balki ravines, that is, valuable natural open landscapes and territories, of which so few remain among Europe’s spectrum of natural biotopes. It is in these refuges where one-third of all rare species of animals and plants in Ukraine are preserved. So the creation of forests where there were none before harms nature, rather than helps.
Oleksiy Vasyliuk, director of the NGO Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group notes: “It’s logical to use tree replanted stands as a reclamation strategy for slag heaps, quarries, and other industrial sites, as well as for the restoration of forests destroyed by war or clear cut.” Degraded agricultural lands that have lost fertile soils can also be used to create new forest areas. While soil conditions generally allow planting certain types of trees, in some places it is impossible to create viable stands of Scots pine. For example, planting in fairly dense and organically rich agricultural lands is unsuitable, because this pine is specifically adapted to growing in sandy soils. On fertile soils, pines sicken and die.
Valentina Meshkova confirms this thesis: “Forests on former agricultural lands often grow normally for up to 30 years, and then they become vulnerable to pathogens, particularly pathogens that cause root rot (pine fungus). One reason for the rapid spread of diseases is thought to be the presence of a soil layer compacted by many years of plowing at a single depth. Tree roots cannot break through this layer, and weakened trees are infected by pathogens. Arable soil layers enriched with organic matter can also create an environment favorable for the development of pathogenic fungi. Even though these soils are more suited to the growth of deciduous trees and bushes, pine is mainly planted on such lands,” the professor notes.
At the same time, Valentina Meshkova believes that forests for economic use should be planted on reclaimed lands. This will prevent soil erosion processes, and trees will perform environmental services and create favorable conditions for the growth of other species of plants, animals, and fungi. From an aesthetic point of view, says Meshkova, such areas will look better.
Experts fundamentally oppose the creation of new forests in steppe areas: “First of all, we note that in Europe, steppes are the landscape most damaged by human activity. Currently our continent contains less than 10% of the steppes found here 200 years ago. In such conditions, even common steppe species of plants and animals have lost most of their habitat and must be recognized as rare,” says Oleksiy Vasyliuk.
One of the “iron-clad” arguments made by supporters of “steppe afforestation” or the creation of forests in place of steppes is the ability of forests to effectively accumulate carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide as a product of photosynthesis) and deposit it in wood – an excellent mechanism for reducing the concentration of atmospheric carbon. However, Vasyliuk argues that for forest-based carbon in arid steppe climate conditions, especially against the backdrop of global warming, depositing carbon in the form of timber is an extremely unprofitable investment: “Trees grow and deposit carbon, mainly in the form of hardwood. But climate aridity and high summer temperatures are more and more extreme every year. And then one fine day a forest fire breaks out in a steppe-land stand, and all the carbon that was deposited in that wood over the course of many years returns to the atmosphere in a matter of hours.… Moreover, it immediately takes the ‘convenient form’ of the greenhouse gas CO2,” says Oleksiy.
According to Vasyliuk, some war-damaged territories and degraded farmland in the steppe zone should not be converted into forest, but rather should be used to recreate steppe areas. That is, rewilding methods should be used, returning damaged territories to their natural state, while restoring the rarest steppe vegetation in Europe to high levels of biodiversity. Experts believe that this would be a good alternative to “steppe afforestation”.
And again, restoration of steppe vegetation is more practical as a means of counteracting global warming in natural steppe zone conditions. As Vasyliuk noted, each natural zone possesses its own characteristic vegetation that serves as the best repository for carbon. In steppes, herbaceous plants deposit carbon mainly in the form of humus and underground parts of plants (roots, tubers, bulbs, rhizomes). Research has shown that during steppe fires neither underground plant parts nor humus burn, and therefore most of the carbon deposited over the years will not return to the atmosphere.
For their part, government forestry institutions are very actively promoting the concept of afforestation of all open (non-forest) territories. And the reasons for such unanimity among “foresters” is obvious: ̉state budget financing of existing and potential forestry program funding. According to the USFA, in 2021, 43,565,600 hryvnias (approximately one million US dollars) were allocated for the creation of new forests and the restoration of previously cut down and war-destroyed forests, in 2022 – 25,770,200 hryvnias, in 2023 – 76,045,000, and in 2024 – 163,400,00 hryvnias. That is, financing of the creation of new forests in Ukraine is gaining momentum. Naturally, agencies involved in such projects are very interested in promoting new forest creation, given processes that last many years, as can their budget financing.
In any case, the new forest creation has absolutely nothing to do with the war’s consequences and the forests damaged during the fighting. In other words, forests were damaged in one place, and there are proposals to “restore” them in another, more convenient place, where funds allocated for restoration can be used. Unfortunately, such an approach not only destroys valuable steppe areas, but also does not help solve the problems facing forests, which really did suffer colossal damage during the war.
What future awaits forests in post-war Ukraine?
First of all, we note that any natural ecosystem has a “safety margin” and quite a few natural mechanisms for self-restoration, as long as humans do not foolishly interfere with this complex process. The war certainly caused great damage to many forests in eastern and some southern parts of Ukraine. But hope for the natural regeneration of forests remains, even if man cannot directly do it himself.
Russian aggression has indeed led to the loss of a number of forest areas, areas partially destroyed by fires, explosions, and unplanned logging without subsequent reforestation. But the scale of these losses in terms of biodiversity impacts is significantly smaller than those resulting from logging and various fires in peacetime. At the same time, an opportunity for natural restoration of forests remains, something that is especially important in conditions where large areas of damaged forest stands and natural forests are inaccessible for human restoration due to the presence of densely laid land mines.
When it comes to human-led forest regeneration, a differentiated approach will need to be created. In many areas of dry sands, for example in the Oleshkovsky Sands and in places in forests in Izyum, it will not be possible to restore the burnt-out tree stands, and it is more rational to allow the sandy steppe to restore itself with small groves of birch, aspen, and alder in damp lower reaches and ravines.
The war has made the problem of natural reforestation and new forest creation – afforestation – more urgent. Unfortunately, the impossibility of quickly eliminating the consequences of Russian aggression in Ukraine’s forests has shifted the emphasis on damaged forest restoration to the creation of new forest areas, and new forests are often planted where afforestation is strictly prohibited, for example, on valuable steppe habitat in Ukraine’s last remaining steppes. At the same time, scientists suggest tactical changes and afforestation of reclaimed lands (in slag heaps, quarries), as well as some areas of degraded agricultural land where appropriate soil conditions are present.
Finally, it is high time to work toward the creation of new natural protected areas and to expand the protected areas network in both remaining old forests and in the last remaining steppe areas.
Translated by Jennifer Castner
Main image: A forest area near the village of Oskil (Krasny Oskil), Izyumsky District. The photo shows the scale of forest destruction and the relatively young pine stands that were damaged. Old pine forests survived despite flames raging nearby. Credit: Stanislav Viter
