On February 24, 2022, the Russian Federation launched a full-fledged war in Ukraine. Russia's devastating military invasion has already caused human suffering and destruction, with millions of refugees forced to abandon their homes and find refuge in neighboring countries. This conflict serves as a stark reminder of the lasting devastation to the environment that will add to the war's human costs.

At the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly on February 28, 2022, 108 Member States raised urgent concerns about the environmental impact of the conflict. Virginijus Sinkevicius, the European Commissioner for Environment, said “we are highly concerned about the harmful impact that this military aggression against Ukraine and its people will have on the environment… the ecological consequences of this operation will likely threaten human lives and health with immediate and long-term effects.” 

All conflicts have devastating impacts on the natural environment, but the war in Ukraine risks being particularly destructive. The country - particularly the southern and eastern regions - is “full of industrial sites like metallurgical plants, chemical factories, power stations, and run-down mines.” These structures tend to be full of petroleum products, hazardous chemicals, and explosive compounds that can do severe short and long-term damage when released into the environment. According to the Head of Crisis and Environment at Amnesty International Richard Pearshouse, “fighting around these sites risks generating extreme toxic pollution, with severe health impacts worsening the already humanitarian crisis for local people.”

While it is always difficult to assess the damages amid a raging conflict, the environmental scars of wars after one month of fighting are evident and extensive. Ukraine's Environmental Protection Ministry and several NGOs have been trying to build a map of the damages encouraging civilians to report environmental incidents in their areas. Still, an accurate assessment of the impact and costs of the reparation needed will only be possible after the war with the collaboration of international organizations and local communities.

Nuclear Power Plants 

Russia's military operations around Ukraine's four operational nuclear power plants and 15 active nuclear reactors pose an unprecedented hazard for the civilian population and natural environment for generations. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said “this is the first time a war takes place in a country with such an advanced nuclear power program.” 

In an open letter published and signed by more than 1,000 people and organizations from 79 countries, the Environmental Peacebuilding Association has raised concerns about a potential nuclear disaster in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), an organization that monitors the environmental dimensions of military activities, reported the Russian occupation of Europe's largest nuclear sites such as Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia. 

After the Russian seizure of the decommissioned Chernobyl compound on February 24, the site's automated monitoring system reported elevated levels of gamma radiation in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Experts believe the high levels were caused by “heavy military vehicles stirring up soil still contaminated from the 1986 accident.” While the IAEA agreed with this theory, it assured the Ukrainian Government that radiation levels were under control. Nevertheless, the incident serves as a stark reminder that the Russian invasion could trigger a catastrophic environmental disaster that could last for generations.

While the potential of a nuclear disaster is the most worrisome risk, the war in Ukraine has created several other ecological emergencies that will severely impact human health and the natural environment for many years to come. 

Military and Industrial Infrastructure

Russia's deliberate shelling of military and industrial infrastructure – including refineries, chemical plants, and oil storage facilities – has caused harmful spillages and large fires that have contaminated air, soil, and water with toxic gasses and particulate matter. These activities further exacerbate the ecological crisis in Eastern Ukraine, where Russia has supported the two separatist regions of Donbas and Luhansk in an eight-year war. Years of conflict have already polluted local rivers, making essential tasks like cooking, drinking, and hand-washing a “daily challenge.” According to UNICEF, “more than 450 cases of military damage to water infrastructure in the region since 2016.” The current crisis has only worsened these conditions. 

Critical Civilian Infrastructure

On the first day of the Russian invasion, the Seversky Donets-Donbas pipeline was damaged, causing extensive river, soil, and groundwater contamination in the eastern region of Ukraine. Russian forces later shelled a water supply treatment and sewage pumping station near the southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia, causing untreated wastewater from several districts to pollute the Dnieper River. Moreover, Russian troops in the same area captured the Kakhovka Hydropower Plant. If Ukraine's hydroelectric dams were to rupture, it could cause “disastrous flooding downstream.”  

Explosive Weapons in Urban and Protected Conservation Areas 

The widespread use of explosive weapons in urban areas such as Mariupol, Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odesa has exposed the civilian population to toxic fumes and hazardous pulverized debris. Moreover, the heavy shelling of coastal areas of Kherson caused extensive fires in the protected area of the Black Sea Biosphere Reserve. This represents a severe threat to the many trees and the unique biodiversity of the largest reserve in Ukraine and has raised concerns for the region's entire ecosystem.  

Ecocide and Criminal Accountability

The Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office and Security Service have called some of Russia's aggressive actions an “ecocide”, a crime in both Russian and Ukrainian legislation. According to CEOBS Director of Research and Policy, Dough Weir, “many of the problems we're seeing pose either acute or chronic health risks to people, and people have a human right to a healthy environment.” An investigation has been requested to establish if the Russian military could be criminally prosecuted for its actions against the environment.

The international community has also raised the possibility of legally pursuing Russia for crimes committed in Ukraine. The International Criminal Court has confirmed that “there is a reasonable basis to proceed with opening an investigation. In particular […] there is a reasonable basis to believe that both alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in Ukraine.”

EU's Policy Response 

The scale of the environmental emergency created by the conflict is still unknown, but experts have already warned of far-reaching consequences. Even if the physical, biological and chemical damage remains confined to Ukraine, “the social and political effect will reverberate far beyond.”

The environmental crisis in Ukraine will impact the EU's future climate policy. Because of the war in Ukraine, the EU plans to cut its import of Russian gas by two-thirds this year, with the goal of phasing it out entirely. Germany is particularly dependent on Russia for 60 percent of its gas. However, after its decision to withhold certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the country is now seeking to increase its import of oil from the Gulf and is rushing the construction of terminals to receive liquefied natural gas. 

White House spokesperson Jen Psaki commented that the war in Ukraine is a reason for American oil and gas producers to “go get more supply out of the ground in our own country”, including from drilling and fracking. And to avoid an energy crisis, the U.S. is also seeking new oil supplies from abroad. The country is even considering imports from foes nations such as Iran and Venezuela.

What This Means for the Global Climate Agenda

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that “the fallout from Russia's war in Ukraine risks upending global food and energy markets, with major implications for the global climate agenda.” Moreover, many countries are turning to coal, liquefied natural gas, and “any available alternative” to replace Russian oil and gas. 

Mr. Guterres considers this scramble to find any fossil fuel solution to replace Russian oil and gas a shortsighted strategy that “might create long-term fossil fuel dependence and close the window to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.”He further warned that a return to fossil fuels would be “mutually assured destruction.” Mr. Guterres urged the G20 group – which produces 80 percent of the global emissions – to accelerate the phase-out of coal and all fossil fuels and persevere in implementing a rapid and sustainable energy transition.

MOST RECENT ARTICLES