Elettra Tirino (Junior Researcher G.E.O Environment)
Abstract
Russia has been waging war on Ukraine for more than almost ten years and two years in the form of a full-scale invasion. Beyond the untold human suffering caused by the aggressions, war is having a significant effect on the environment, in particular on the Black Sea and the Azov Sea, emerging as a new ecological challenge.
1. Introduction
Russia has been waging war on Ukraine for more than almost ten years and two years in the form of a full-scale invasion, causing untold human suffering and bringing unprecedented and long-lasting challenges to the environment, especially on the Black and Azov Seas. This sea basin, with its distinct climatic conditions, natural factors, and rich biodiversity, has been a nexus of trade routes between Europe and Asia, rendering it significant from both biological and geographical perspectives. Although the Black and Azov Seas were in a state of ecological crisis before the war, in recent years researchers have seen positive signs, indicating the gradual recovery of some ecosystems as the consequence of a reduction in the level of organic pollution. However, the war that began in 2014 threw again the recovery of the seas into jeopardy and led to the deterioration of marine complexes, mostly due to infrastructure construction, extraction of building materials, conducting military exercises, and changes in the status of protected natural areas. The impact of Russian occupation and warfare is multifaceted and complex, disrupting not only regional security but also altering sea transportation routes, water management and hindering the vitality of the sea. While the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations are crucial responsibilities of the international community, similar efforts should be devoted to addressing responsibility for environmental harm. The Russian invasions of Ukraine have attracted significant political attention and could catalyze the campaign to make ecocide an international crime by recognizing the interconnectedness between conflict, environmental degradation, and humanitarian crises. Transforming ecocide into a recognized international crime could function as a deterrent instrument but also as a measure for a more sustainable and long-lasting peace process.
This analysis will first present a brief overview of the main characteristics of the Black and Azov seas and the environmental damages that the Russian invasions are causing to them. It continues by introducing the discussion on reparations and ecocide and finishes with some suggestions to build back Ukraine better and greener.
2. The Biological and Geographical Significance of the Black Sea and Azov Sea
The Black Sea and the Azov Sea are extraordinarily unique sea basins with several distinct characteristics distinguishing them from other seas and oceans.
Geographically, together they form a semi-enclosed sea: completely encircled by land, with limited connection through a system of straits to the World Ocean, they have been representing a nexus of trade routes between Europe and Asia for thousands of years. Biologically, the sea basin, formed just between six and eight thousand years ago, with the emergence of the Bosphorus Strait, allows the saline waters of the Mediterranean to mix with the existing fresh water coming from multiple rivers. The result is that water salinity being almost half that of ocean waters. Another unique feature of the Black Sea and the Azov Sea is their status as the world’s largest meromictic basin which means that the upper water layer does not mix with the lower one which is oxygen-depleted. Consequently, its rich biodiversity is concentrated just in the oxygen-rich upper layer, representing just 20 percent of the total volume of water (Ukraïner, 2023). The combination of these exceptional conditions and the sea’s isolation have fostered a unique biodiversity – around 50.000 different species of animals –, including endemic species found nowhere else in the world (WWF, 2023).
Nevertheless, its semi-enclosed nature and the large volume of oxygen-depleted water have rendered the Black Sea and the Azov Sea particularly susceptible to human activity and climate change. Indeed, throughout the 20th century, these seas faced numerous problems as a result of the powerful influence of human activity, such as overfishing, pollution from ports, and the intrusion of invasive species. The situation has been exacerbated by the increasingly strong influence of climate change, which is leading to the disappearance of some species and changes to local ecosystems. In this context, the six coastal states of the Black Sea – Romania, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Georgia, Turkey, and Ukraine –, in 1996, signed the Strategic Action Plan for the Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea due to the alarming destruction of the sea’s unique natural complexes because of human impact. As a matter of fact, in recent years researchers have registered positive signs, indicating the gradual recovery of some ecosystems as the consequence of a reduction in the level of organic pollution through a “sustained de-eutrophication trend” (UN Environmental Program, 2022).
However, the Russian invasions in Ukraine since 2014 threw the recovery of the Black Sea and the Azov Sea into jeopardy leading to the deterioration of marine ecosystems, primarily in the areas that came under occupation: Crimea and the Azov Coast in the Donetsk and Donbas regions. The impact of Russian occupation and warfare is multifaceted and complex, disrupting not only regional security but also altering sea transportation routes and water management, and hindering decades of scientific research. The environmental impact of war is emerging as a new ecological challenge for the Black Sea and the Azov Sea.
3. The Environmental Impact of the War
Ukraine is part of the so-called “Green Heart of Europe”, the region from the Danube River Basin to the Carpathian Mountains characterized by one of the most exceptional ecosystems and habitats in the continent. With the goal of protecting the natural and cultural heritage of the country from excessive changes resulting from human activity, the state has identified 5622 protected areas (WWF, 2023). However, since the first Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, at least 900 protected areas, together covering 30 percent of all protected areas in the country, have been affected by warfare (Ukraïner, 2023). Nowadays, all marine nature reserves, seven coastal national nature parks, and one biosphere reserve are currently under occupation undermining the safety of the Black Sea and Azov Sea’s waters. Following the seizure of these territories, marine ecosystems have systematically experienced negative impacts throughout the period of occupation, particularly as a result of infrastructure construction, extraction of building materials, conducting military exercises, and changes in the status of protected natural areas. The most vivid example is the Crimean Peninsula: the construction of the Crimean Bridge by Russia in 2018 destroyed its unique ecosystems and cut off the migration routes of fish and cetaceans in the Kerch Strait (UN Environmental Program, 2022). Moreover, the Opuksky Nature Reserve – located on the southern coast of the Kerch Peninsula – was transformed into a Russian military training ground, destroying formerly protected marine, coastal, and virgin steppe land ecosystems (Sadogurska, 2023). Additionally, many Ukrainian protected areas are suffering from indirect consequences of military action, such as pollution, fire incidents, and the sinking of ships – e.g. the sinking of the Russian cruiser “Moskva” in the northwest part of the Black Sea in 2022. Even those protected areas that have not been directly impacted by military actions have suffered. Many rangers and other staff have enlisted in the army and are no longer available for park administration. Those that remain are limited in their action by missile alerts, electricity blackouts, and food shortages. Lastly, a number of protected areas, especially in the western part of the country, have provided refuge for at least 15.000 internally displaced people, putting strain on parks facilities and resources (Ukraïner, 2023).
Figure 1. Protected Areas of Ukraine of the Highest Priority in War in 2023
Source: Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, 2023. Retrieved at: https://uncg.org.ua/en/most-valuable-natural-areas-of-ukraine-covered-by-war/
Despite the green part of Ukraine, its economy has been largely built on heavy industry, counting thousands of industrial plants, chemical factories, coal mines, and other facilities that produce and store toxic waste. Thus, Russian invasions exacerbated the historic pollution caused by heavy industry during the Soviet era, leaving the country and the whole region of the Black Sea with a toxic legacy for years. Indeed, attacks on these locations contaminate air, water, soil, and sea, posing short- and long-term impacts on water sources and freshwater ecosystems. The most evident example was the catastrophe at the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant on June 6th, 2023, which was defined as the worst environmental disaster in Europe since Chernobyl (European Parliament, 2023). The event resulted in catastrophic flooding submerging thousands of hectares of land, displacing thousands of people, and preventing normal access to drinking water and irrigation systems because of the release of vast volumes of fertilizers, fuel, lubricants, and sewage. These contaminants drifted down the Dnipro River, reaching the Danube’s mouth and entering the Black Sea affecting over 7.300 kilometers square of its area (UN Environmental Program, 2023). The destruction has also heightened safety concerns for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, as the dam was the primary source for its supply of cooling water, although alternative water sources do exist. Additional pollution in the sea comes from submerged military equipment which releases chemical compounds, rocket fuel residues, and heavy metals into the water. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine estimates that currently the seabed is littered with 607.114 tons of military waste from destroyed tanks, combat vehicles, and intercepted missiles (Ukraïner, 2023).
The Russian army extensively mined Ukraine’s waters and vast territories, which poses another long-term ecological challenge. Mines not only contaminate the environment with explosives and heavy metals but also threaten marine life through accidental denotation. Underwater explosions can lead to massive fish kills and inflict mine-blast injuries on aquatic creatures. Additionally, submarine use of sonar presents an extra risk to animals, undermining their echolocation abilities, essential for their navigation and communication (Sadogurska, 2023). From January to October 2022, experts from Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Georgia, and even Greece recorded around 1.000 cases of dead cetaceans, two to three times greater than in 2019-2021 (UN Environmental Program, 2023). The actual number of casualties could be even greater; notably, there has also been a significant increase in dolphins washing ashore while still alive. However, to ascertain the precise cause of each animal’s death, scientists need to conduct tests and autopsies.
Finally, the war has significant opportunity costs, it is not only destroying existing wind turbines and solar panels but also holding up further investments to achieve Ukraine’s ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Sadogurska, 2023). Already before the war, Ukraine was facing significant environmental challenges: the country had already warmed by almost 1.5° C over the last thirty years, and the increase in annual mean temperatures could reach 3° C by the middle of the century (Ukraïner, 2023). To prevent that, like other countries, Ukraine committed itself to take urgent action to mitigate and adapt to climate change by adopting, in July 2021, the Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030. However, much of Ukraine’s renewable power capacity is located in the South and East of the country where active fighting is currently occurring. The result is that war is undermining and delaying the possibility of Ukraine becoming greener.
4. Holding Russia Accountable for Ecocide
Environmental degradation is often seen as a byproduct of war, but the deteriorating effects are frequently overlooked. So, while the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations are crucial responsibilities of the international community, similar efforts should be devoted to addressing responsibility for environmental harm (John Smith Trust, 2023). The Russian invasions of Ukraine have attracted significant political attention and could catalyze the campaign to make ecocide an international crime.
Ukraine has been stating its determination to make Russia pay reparations, including for environmental damage. Together with its international partners, it has been exploring ways to ensure that Russia is held accountable. For instance, in July 2022, the Ukrainian Ministry of the Environmental and Natural Resources launched EcoZagroza which is a website developed to record the environmental crimes committed by Russia. During the summer of 2023, EcoZagroza’s estimates show that Russia’s invasions have inflicted roughly euro 52.4 billion in environmental damage: euro 27 billion to air, euro 23.6 billion from waste pollution, euro 1.5 billion to water, and euro 0.3 billion to soil (European Parliament, 2023). However, the first challenge for reparations is the fact that collecting evidence and quantifying damage is a problem, especially amidst the ongoing war. Indeed, calculations of the damage to the environment are preliminary (Sabbe, 2023). It is very difficult to estimate the extent of the harm in regions occupied by Russia and in heavily mined areas, which include the Black Sea and the Azov Sea and a large number of forests. Additionally, Ukraine lacks the resources it needs to accurately assess the damage, such as scientific staff, lab capacity, and equipment.
Besides this practical challenge, there is currently no global legal instrument on ecocide. While ecocide has been inserted on the Ukrainian Criminal Code list of crimes since 2001, in order to ensure an adequate level of accountability and compensation, the case should be brought at the international level. The International Criminal Court does not recognize ecocide as a “core crime” but Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of its Rome Statute lists acts of “intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause […] widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment, which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”, as a war crime (Sabbe, 2023). Plus, Articles 35 and 55 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibit both deliberate and unintentionally widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the environment, but their cumulative standard is difficult to achieve (Anthes, 2023). In this framework, a discussion on whether strengthening current provisions on environmental protection in war, making ecocide the fifth international crime under the International Criminal Court list, or drafting a new convention on ecocide could be the best solution to provide a legal basis for environmental damage during wartime. The option that received more consensus is to include ecocide in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court since it has already jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute genocide, war of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (European Parliament, 2023). Nevertheless, one of the major hurdles in including ecocide in the international legal framework is finding consensus on its definition. As seen above, although there is an allusion to ecocide in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute, ecocide as such is not mentioned. To rectify this, the Independent Expert Panel convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation proposed an amendment that defines ecocide as: “Unlawful or wanton acts committed with the knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood that serious and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment will be caused by those acts” (Anthes, 2023). This definition would lower the burden of proof compared to the Article of the Rome Statute since it suffices to indicate that an environmental crime is either widespread or long-lasting. However, even if the various State Parties agreed on a definition, they would require a two-thirds majority to amend the Rome Statute. Some legal experts even question whether the International Criminal Court is the best institution to prosecute ecocide as its complex procedures have been inconsistent in successfully prosecuting and convicting perpetrators in the past. Furthermore, some major powers, such as the United States, Russia, India, and China, have not ratified the Rome Statute (Anthes, 2023). Thus, while the International Criminal Court has experience prosecuting perpetrators in armed conflict, including ecocide remains complicated (Sabbe, 2023).
In conclusion, due to the political clout the Russian invasions have generated among major powers like the United States, the European Union, and China, it may contribute to the addition of ecocide to the list of international crimes. Despite the potential difficulties in definition, concerning the issue of burden of proof and achieving criminal convictions, ecocide can serve as a deterrent for warring parties. Clearly, this legal approach does not constitute a one-fits-all solution and additional measures should ensure environmental conservation and restoration during and after the conflict (Sabbe, 2023).
5. Measures to Ensure Environmental Conservation and Restoration During and After the Conflict
Despite the challenges listed above, after a war, a thorough assessment of the overall environmental impacts is needed to identify priorities and provide a basis for planning clean-up as well as restoration and reconstruction. The environmental impacts of the war will not finish when the war ends: its legacy will continue in the pollution of water, land, and air. Unfortunately, the ecological impacts will also continue through reconstruction. Rebuilding damaged infrastructures will require vast amounts of resources and produce huge amounts of greenhouse gasses and other forms of pollution (Anthes, 2023). This must be added to the ledger of the war’s environmental costs. Consequently, Ukraine’s government, international donors, and finance institutions must commit themselves to ensuring that the investment that will follow the war focuses not just on reconstructing what has been lost but on identifying and pursuing the most efficient and effective ways of achieving a sustainable recovery.
The first step toward a sustainable future is assessing the effects of war on the environment. Ukrainian scientists have already created a collegial community – the Operational Headquarters of Ukraine’s State Environmental Inspectorate – which unites experts from various disciplines and includes a large number of Ukrainian institutes and foreign partner institutions (Rubryka, 2024). The task of the headquarters is to create methods to be used to count the ecological effects of the war. Moreover, the Ministry of Ecology is collaborating with NASA, the State Space Agency, and the European Union to record Russia’s environmental crimes in occupied territories. Using archival and operational photos from different datasets and with the help of software transformation, Ukraine is now able to conduct retrospective analysis by comparing space images from specific times. However, the aggressed country does not have the necessary resources and personnel to carry out this analysis by itself alone. Therefore, joint action especially with Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Georgia, and Moldavia is needed to safeguard their common waters.
The second step toward a sustainable future is using sustainable methods for reconstruction. Using circular economy principles in deciding what to build, how to build, and what to build with, by applying rigorous climate and biodiversity safeguards, and allocating sufficient funds for both short- and long-term measures for monitoring and restoring nature is essential to building Ukraine back to better. In this framework, the country is following the right path as demonstrated by Rubryka’s initiative to use Oleo Sponge technology for collecting oil, which is an American invention. Oxidized metal atoms with complex nanostructures penetrate the sponge’s fibers, allowing it to combine with oil in water, separating liquids effectively. Sponges not only clean water from oil but also store raw materials: collected oil can be reused in production after having squeezed the sponge and the sponge itself can be reused. However, Rubryka’s team is still investigating whether it is possible to apply such technology in the waters of the Black Sea.
Finally, a sustainable future for Ukraine that meets European sustainable development standards is not just important for the well-being of nature and Ukrainians, but it is also important for the country’s hopes of a European Union membership.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, while it is not possible to assess the indelible mark that the armed conflict will leave on the environment, the environmental impact of Russian invasions of Ukraine is a grave and complex ecological, political, and legal issue that transcends the borders of the aggressed country. The consequences indeed extend beyond the immediate battlegrounds, affecting ecosystems, biodiversity, and the well-being of human beings, flora, and fauna.
As the reflection on the devastation wrought by the Russian war on Ukraine, it becomes evident that addressing the environmental fallout requires a concerted regional and global effort. International cooperation, the revision of existing treaties, and the development of new strategies are essential to mitigating the damage and fostering sustainable recovery in the post-conflict zone. The common thread should be the recognition of the interconnectedness between conflict, environmental degradation, and humanitarian crises. In the face of the ongoing challenges in the Black Sea and the Azov Sea, the conflict shows that understanding and addressing the environmental impact of war is not just a matter of environmental concern but a crucial component of fostering global stability and sustainability. It should be interpreted as a call to action for governments and international organizations to prioritize peace, diplomacy, and environmental stewardship in order to build a future where the scars of war do not cast a shadow over the health and vitality of our planet.
Riproduzione Riservata ®
Bibliography
Information Content | ||
1 | Confirmed | Confirmed by other independent sources; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
2 | Presumably true | Not confirmed; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
3 | Maybe true | Not confirmed; reasonably logical in itself; coherent with some other information on the topic |
4 | Uncertain | Not confirmed; possible but not logical in itself; no other information on the topic |
5 | Improbable | Not confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicts with other information on the topic |
6 | Not able to be evaluated | No basis to evaluate the validity of the information |
Trustworthiness of the source | ||
A | Trustworthy | No doubt about authenticity, reliability or competence; has a history of total trustworthiness |
B | Normally trustworthy | Small doubts about authenticity, reliability or competence, nevertheless has a history of valid information in a majority of cases |
C | Sufficiently trustworthy | Doubts about authenticity, reliability or competence; however, has supplied valid information in the past |
D | Normally not trustworthy | Significant doubt about authenticity, reliability or competence, however has supplied valid information in the past |
E | Not trustworthy | Lack of authenticity, reliability or competence; history of invalid information |
F | Not able to be evaluated | No basis to evaluate the validity of the information |
Anthes, E., (2023). A “Silent Victim”: How Nature Becomes a Casualty of War. Research on past conflicts suggests that the war in Ukraine could have a profound environmental impact. New York Times. Retrieved at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/13/science/war-environmental-impact-ukraine.html 2-B
European Parliament, (2023). Russia’s war on Ukraine: High environmental toll. Retrieved at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2023/751427/EPRS_ATA(2023)751427_EN.pdf 1-A
Gabritchidze, N., (2023). Officials, and experts seek to calm Georgians’ Black Sea safety fears. Environmental authorities have intensified water monitoring amid concerns about the wider effects of the Kakhovka dam collapse. EURASIANET. Retrieved at: https://eurasianet.org/officials-experts-seek-to-calm-georgians-black-sea-safety-fears 2-B
John Smith Trust, (2023). The environmental impacts of Russia’s war on Ukraine concern us all. Retrieved at: https://johnsmithtrust.org/environmental-impacts-of-war-in-ukraine/ 2-B
Rubryka, (2024). War at sea: What’s happening to life in waters of Black and Azov Seas? Ukrainian Solutions Media. Retrieved at: https://rubryka.com/en/article/war-and-sea/ 2-B
Sabbe, B., (2023). The Ukraine war, environmental destruction and the question of ecocide. The International Peace Information Service (IPIS). Retrieved at: https://ipisresearch.be/weekly-briefing/the-ukraine-war-environmental-destruction-and-the-question-of-ecocide/ 2-A
Sadogurska, S., (2023). Impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Ukraine War Environmental Consequences Work Group. Retrieved at: https://uwecworkgroup.info/impact-of-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-on-the-black-and-azov-seas/ 1-B
Ukraïner, (2024). How Russia’s war against Ukraine affects animals and the environment. Retrieved at: https://www.ukrainer.net/war-affects-animals/ 1-B
Ukraïner, (2024). How war affects the Black Sea and marine life. Retrieved at: https://www.ukrainer.net/how-war-affects-black-sea/#:~:text=In%20areas%20of%20intense%20militarisation,resource%20depletion%20and%20quarry%20construction. 1-B
Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, (2023). 44% of the most valuable natural areas of Ukraine are covered by war: join the initiative “Save nature in the days of war together!”. Retrieved at: https://uncg.org.ua/en/most-valuable-natural-areas-of-ukraine-covered-by-war/ 1-A
UN Environment Programme, (2022). The Environmental Impact of the Conflict in Ukraine: A Preliminary Review. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-impact-conflict-ukraine-preliminary-review 1-A
WWF, (2023). Assessing the environmental impacts of the war in Ukraine. Retrieved at: https://wwfcee.org/our-offices/ukraine/assessing-the-environmental-impacts-of-the-war-in-ukraine 1-A