Dear Friends!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In late June the Polish city of Gda\u0144sk hosted the annual Ukraine Recovery Conference 2026. How the country\u2019s recovery will unfold depends on the strategic decisions being made at these meetings. Today, two main approaches are clear: the exploitative approach and the sustainable approach. The first proposes the active exploitation of the country\u2019s natural environment and resources\u2014from rivers to soil. The second aims to make the country\u2019s future healthier, greener and more environmentally harmonious. The exploitative approach emphasizes the rapid economic benefits that Ukraine will \u201cneed\u201d once hostilities end. Sustainable development offers long-term benefits, citing, among other things, climate and economic standards that will help accelerate the country\u2019s integration into the European Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The difference between these two approaches can be seen clearly. One of the most striking examples is the Kakhovka Reservoir <\/strong>along the Dnipro River. The exploitative approach involves rebuilding the hydropower plant and flooding the Velyky Luh<\/strong>\u2014 the \u201cGreat Meadow\u201d that has regrown on the bottom of the former reservoir\u2014citing the purported economic benefits of the plant\u2019s operation and the restoration of water supply to nearby villages and fields. Supporters of the sustainable approach\u2014which include environmental organizations and initiatives, including UWEC Work Group\u2014call for preserving the Velyky Luh as an ecological and cultural monument. On the anniversary of the Kakhovka disaster, a coalition launched a petition calling for UNESCO to recognize the restored forests and the Dnipro floodplain as a cultural and natural monument. They are still seeking additional sign-ons by international organizations and activists. Read more:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Acting as donors and partners in this process, major international banks will play a crucial role in Ukraine\u2019s recovery. Environmental organizations are actively seeking to influence decision-making, including specifically which projects to support, be they sustainable or exploitative in nature. Researchers and experts work to evaluate and demonstrate the benefits of a variety of positions. The NGO Ecosocium <\/strong>(Cherkasy, Ukraine) and the UWEC Work Group conducted one such analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness of the sustainable approach. The Dnipro Hydropower Cascade\u2014a series of hydroelectric power plants, one of which is the Kakhovka HPP, the very plant at the center of the debate over whether to restore it or not\u2014was selected as the study\u2019s focus. The research showed that while restoration is of little utility either for resuming the operation of agricultural irrigation systems or from an energy production perspective, it could potentially devastate Ukraine\u2019s environment and landscapes. At the same time, there are serious concerns that, given the large financial investments involved, some of the funds will simply \u201cdisappear.\u201d Almost monthly corruption scandals in Ukraine confirm this worry. The study also provides recommendations on how to address energy and agricultural issues without restoring the Kakhovka HPP and clearly calls on international banks to adhere to the principle of \u201cDo No Significant Harm\u201d (DNSH). The destruction of renewed ecosystems is completely at odds with DNSH. Read more about the study:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ukraine\u2019s \u201cgreen recovery\u201d and the question of its feasibility are issues that have been actively debated for several years now. Of course, no restoration project describes itself as unsustainable or exploitative. Their proponents all present their work as caring for nature and people. Nevertheless, this \u201ccare\u201d often results in the destruction of ecosystems and greenwashing. Ukrainian environmental organizations are watching such projects with concern. The fact that Ukraine abolished its Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment is seen as a bad sign, suggesting that the country\u2019s \u201crestoration\u201d could be just as destructive as the full-scale invasion. Global practice shows that such \u201cblind restoration\u201d is doubly dangerous, as it can not only destroy a country\u2019s natural environment but also has cross-border effects and can have global consequences, including accelerating climate change. UWEC expert Oleksiy Vasilyuk<\/strong> explores the dangers of \u201cblind restoration\u201d and proposes solutions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both the reconstruction process and the analysis of the environmental consequences of Russia\u2019s full-scale invasion of Ukraine are directly linked to international framework conventions. It is these conventions that should aid in holding the aggressor country accountable and compelling it to pay reparations that can be used for reconstruction. Despite such conventions, Russia\u2019s full-scale invasion\u2014now ongoing for over four years and the larger war in Ukraine for 12 years\u2014has shown that international legal norms are too slow and cumbersome to respond quickly to military conflicts. Nevertheless, they continue to form the legal framework that environmental organizations use to protect nature. One example is the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, signed in 1991 in Espoo, Finland. It is virtually ineffective in wartime, but once a war ends, it can be utilized by environmental organizations. Exclusively for UWEC Work Group, Polina Tsybulska<\/strong> examines the Espoo Convention\u2019s role in addressing the environmental consequences caused by Russia\u2019s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n