Dear Friends!
In late June the Polish city of Gdańsk hosted the annual Ukraine Recovery Conference 2026. How the country’s 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’s natural environment and resources—from rivers to soil. The second aims to make the country’s future healthier, greener and more environmentally harmonious. The exploitative approach emphasizes the rapid economic benefits that Ukraine will “need” once hostilities end. Sustainable development offers long-term benefits, citing, among other things, climate and economic standards that will help accelerate the country’s integration into the European Union.
The difference between these two approaches can be seen clearly. One of the most striking examples is the Kakhovka Reservoir along the Dnipro River. The exploitative approach involves rebuilding the hydropower plant and flooding the Velyky Luh— the “Great Meadow” that has regrown on the bottom of the former reservoir—citing the purported economic benefits of the plant’s operation and the restoration of water supply to nearby villages and fields. Supporters of the sustainable approach—which include environmental organizations and initiatives, including UWEC Work Group—call 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:
Acting as donors and partners in this process, major international banks will play a crucial role in Ukraine’s 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 (Cherkasy, Ukraine) and the UWEC Work Group conducted one such analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness of the sustainable approach. The Dnipro Hydropower Cascade—a 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—was selected as the study’s 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’s environment and landscapes. At the same time, there are serious concerns that, given the large financial investments involved, some of the funds will simply “disappear.” 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 “Do No Significant Harm” (DNSH). The destruction of renewed ecosystems is completely at odds with DNSH. Read more about the study:
Ukraine’s “green recovery” 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 “care” 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’s “restoration” could be just as destructive as the full-scale invasion. Global practice shows that such “blind restoration” is doubly dangerous, as it can not only destroy a country’s natural environment but also has cross-border effects and can have global consequences, including accelerating climate change. UWEC expert Oleksiy Vasilyuk explores the dangers of “blind restoration” and proposes solutions:
Both the reconstruction process and the analysis of the environmental consequences of Russia’s 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’s full-scale invasion—now ongoing for over four years and the larger war in Ukraine for 12 years—has 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 examines the Espoo Convention’s role in addressing the environmental consequences caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The UWEC Work Group continues to analyze the environmental consequences of war and to examine issues that fall outside the mainstream media’s focus. The war has not only caused the destruction of ecosystems and the pollution of soil, rivers and air. The movement of people and goods has also led to new forms of invasion. Some of these could have serious consequences, including, for example, the spread of diseases. This is because unwanted “hitchhikers”—such as mosquitoes, cockroaches and wasps—travel along with people and goods. Some of these species quickly displace native species, while others can carry dangerous diseases, such as yellow fever, dengue fever or the Usutu virus. Biologist Stanislav Viter examines how these “six-legged hitchhikers” take advantage of the movement of people and goods—something which has increased significantly during the war in part while public health oversight has weakened:
UWEC Work Group continues to operate largely on enthusiasm. Increased funding allows us to conduct more in-depth research, attract new authors, organize events, and implement specific projects for Ukraine’s green recovery. Some projects we’ve developed have been backburnered until better times. If you’re able, please support our work group with a one-time or monthly donation.
You can find more coverage of the environmental consequences of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on our website, on Twitter (X), Bluesky, Facebook and Telegram.
We wish you strength, peace, and good news!
Alexei Ovchinnikov, editor of UWEC Work Group