Viktoria Hubareva
At first glance, it may seem that the United States has provided almost no support to Ukraine’s environmental sector. The consequences of Trump’s decision may, however, be delayed, given the colossal volumes of US aid to other international funds of which Ukraine is a member. What are the consequences of the 47th US president’s decision to end programs supporting environmental conservation in Ukraine?
Almost immediately after his inauguration, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order suspending US agencies and departments from providing aid to other countries for up to 90 days, a move with devastating consequences around the globe. The justification for this decision was that these payments were “inconsistent” with American interests. The order states that, “[the payments] serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse of harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.”
Within 90 days of the order being issued, the “appropriateness” of all foreign development assistance must be assessed. This applies to payments to foreign states and non-governmental implementing organizations, international organizations and contractors. This does not mean that the projects have been closed permanently, although for most of them all activities have been suspended, even in cases where money has already been transferred to the accounts of the organizations that received funding. This has led to disruptions in their work, in particular in Ukraine.
Direct US support for Ukraine’s environment sector appeared in doubt before the cut off
According to the US government website ForeignAssistance.gov, aid to Ukraine consists of nine main sectors, the largest of which were spending on economic development, humanitarian aid, and “Democracy, human rights protection and governance”. Expenditures in the environmental sector amounted to $303,600 in 2024 (partial) and occupied the last place.
The main organization from which funds flowed to Ukraine was USAID, which found itself in the spotlight starting the first minutes after the American president’s public statements.
However, as for “Environment” sector spending, the majority – $286,100 – came from the US State Department, with an implementing partner in Ukraine of the Agency for Cultural Resilience* – a public organization that coordinates its activities with the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine in the form of a working group working to preserve cultural heritage under martial law.
*UWEC sent an inquiry to the Agency for Cultural Sustainability of Ukraine seeking information about the organization’s environmental initiatives. We will update this material as soon as we receive a response.
Smaller amounts ($4,820 and $2,640) were allocated in the “Clean Productive Environment” sector and $10,000 in the “Natural Resources and Biodiversity” sector were directed to Ukraine’s Ministry of Agrarian Policy. In the latter case, project implementers were unidentified public organizations.
On the face of it, it could be said that the United States has invested virtually no funds directly in environmental protection in Ukraine. Most of the above spending is linked to USAID, which provided funds for programs to protect health, humanitarian assistance, economic development, democracy and human rights, education and social services, and the “peace and security” sector. Other US government agencies provide funding and resources in support of Ukraine’s environmental sector, but they are not the focus of this article due to the absence of publicly available financial data.
The full list of organizations that received assistance from USAID in five key areas was published by Ukraine’s Ekonomicheskaya Pravda. Looking at this list, it seems that environmental conservation is only a possible “side effect” of such financing (for example, digital transformation in combination with other Ministry of Natural Resources structures), but not a direct target for expenditure. Consequently, the impacts of terminating financial support for environmental conservation are likely to be minimal.
However, this does not mean that the lost support, even temporarily, is painless. The funds transferred to Ukraine by USAID were used for essential life-saving medicines, medical services, food, housing and living assistance, as well as the consumables and administrative costs necessary to provide such assistance. In addition, USAID funding supported humanitarian demining, electricity needs during blackouts, and much more. That lost support will certainly affect the work of conservation and environmental organizations.
Less obvious influences that may be felt, but not immediately
All of the above applies only to direct aid sent to the Ukrainian government and community organizations. When the US suspended all international spending, global funds responsible for nature conservation, biodiversity, water resources, ecosystem services, and climate crisis adaptation were also impacted.
This list includes the Clean Technology Fund, a fund that in the 2010s invested $350 million in the Ukrainian government in a program running to 2050 to reduce the risks and overall cost of investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency in residential and public buildings, district heating and industry, introduction of Smart Grid components in the transportation system and the zero-emission natural gas-powered electricity generation.
Another example is the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which includes several multilateral funds working together to comprehensively address the planet’s problems. The GEF has financed, among other things, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), an entity that is implementing a variety of initiatives in Ukraine, in particular supporting “Green Recovery” in Ukraine, “Mitigation and adaptation to climate change” and others.
Much of this funding is now in question. On February 20, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced a bill to completely withdraw the US from the UN and all related agencies in 2025, as well as to end US funding of their activities.
And although the suspension of those initiatives and agencies may not be directly related to projects implemented in Ukraine, it creates risks of reduced future funding as funds are redistributed between projects.
Is aid forever gone?
According to Trump’s executive order, the contracts were originally to be reviewed within 90 days, and their extension or termination was to be negotiated with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The order notes that the grants can be restored, permanently terminated or modified.
Later, a lawsuit and a court ordered stay were filed in response to a motion requiring the State Department and USAID to pay all invoices and funding requests submitted through February 13, and for the U.S. government to release all other foreign aid disbursements by February 27. However, the order was ignored until on March 10, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the Trump administration had axed US foreign aid, eliminating 83% of programs (5200 of 6200 the USAID’s global programs).
But even that decision is still too early to call final. The plaintiffs later backed away from the claim that Rubio personally reviewed all the terminations, arguing that “it would be impossible for one person or even a group of people to meaningfully review all of these contracts and awards in such a short period of time.”
The trial could last for years, and given the presidential administration’s disregard for interim court decisions, it is not a given that the outcome of these events will be in favor of the recipients of US grants during Trump’s tenure.
Is it time to give up?
Politico reports that Senior US State Department officials are drawing up a list of exceptions to the freeze on foreign aid for Ukraine, citing an anonymous and a referring to corresponding document.
The exceptions being discussed relate to economic support for Ukraine and mine clearance, drug control and health programs, as well as financial support for democratic institutions and civil society. If we compare total US spending in Ukraine in the first half of 2024 with spending on the three areas mentioned above, in 2024 they amounted to $990 million out of a total of $5.8 billion. This gives some hope for humanitarian programs; a sixfold reduction in funding is better than a tenfold reduction.
It is also impossible to not to acknowledge that Ukrainian environmental organizations were previously largely supported by Western European institutions and agencies, with Japan also contributing significant funding. Consequently, catastrophe is unlikely, since this funding remains unchanged for the time being. Reallocation of funds remains possible and will most likely occur, as noted above.
Despite the suspension of US funding, the Ukrainian environmental sector has not been left without support. Many environmental initiatives continue their activities thanks to the assistance of European countries, international funds and private donors. At the same time, uncertainty related to US grant programs may affect long-term projects, in particular those aimed at preserving biodiversity and restoring ecosystems. It is important to monitor further developments, because decisions on international assistance may change as the political situation develops.
Translated by Jennifer Castner
Main image source: telegrafi.com
