Rewilding, Ukrainian-Style: Can Nature Recover After the War? What Role Should Humans Play in This Process?

A New Scale of Environmental Damage

The war in Ukraine is already being called Europe’s greatest environmental disaster since World War II. According to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, thousands of hectares of forest, dozens of nature reserves, hundreds of water bodies, and thousands of kilometers of rivers have been damaged. Natural ecosystems have suffered not only from direct destruction but also from long-term pollution that could affect the biosphere for decades. This raises the question: Is nature capable of recovering on its own—or is large-scale human intervention necessary? In global environmental practice, the concept of “rewilding” has emerged as a response to this challenge.

The Chernobyl Experience: From Self-Recovery to New Destruction. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is one of the most famous examples of natural recovery without human intervention. Although radiation levels there still exceed natural background levels, more than 30 years after the accident, the territory has become a refuge for bison, wolves, lynx, and even brown bears. But the war has disrupted this fragile balance. From the very first days of the invasion, the territory was occupied, partially mined, ravaged by fires, and its radiation monitoring system was destroyed. This clearly demonstrates that even ecosystems with the potential for self-recovery are vulnerable to new anthropogenic disturbances.

International Experience:

Mozambique — Gorongosa National Park (1977–1992)

After 15 years of civil war, the population of large mammals had declined by 90%. Natural recovery, supplemented by species reintroduction and conservation efforts, restored stability to the ecosystem within two decades.

Cambodia (1975–1998)

After the end of the civil war and the demining of parts of the territory, nature reserves were established. Populations of Asian elephants, tigers, and rare birds have recovered in the Cardamom Mountains.

Vietnam (1955–1975)

The jungles, destroyed by napalm and defoliants during the war, took decades to recover. Some areas still bear traces of chemical contamination, but a significant portion of the forests and wildlife have returned.

Kuwait (1991)

Following the Gulf War and massive oil fires, international programs were launched to reclaim land and clean up water, which helped restore desert ecosystems.

Kosovo (1998–1999)

Following the armed conflict and demining efforts, parts of the territory were designated as protected natural areas, where forests and populations of large predators have recovered.

Croatia (1991–1995)

After the war, the network of national parks—including Plitvice Lakes—was expanded, and programs to conserve wetlands and forests were implemented.

Sierra Leone (1991–2002)

After 11 years of civil war, some of the tropical forests recovered naturally and were subsequently included in biodiversity conservation programs.

Cyprus (since 1974)

The demilitarized zone between Northern and Southern Cyprus, which has been uninhabited for over 50 years, has preserved rich natural ecosystems free from human interference.

Korean Peninsula (since 1953)

The demilitarized zone between South Korea and North Korea has become a unique sanctuary for rare species, including the black stork and the Amur leopard.

Iraq — Mesopotamian Marshes (2003–present)

Following the war and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, efforts began to restore the drained wetlands, which has brought back a significant portion of the local biodiversity.

These examples demonstrate that post-conflict ecosystem restoration is possible but requires a comprehensive approach—a combination of natural processes and targeted actions.

How war changes the conditions for nature’s recovery. In some parts of Ukraine, hostilities led to a temporary absence of human activity, creating conditions for the recovery of flora and fauna. However, this effect cannot be viewed as an automatic “plus” for nature:

• Landmines and unexploded ordnance pose a threat to all living organisms.
• Chemical and heavy metal pollution can accumulate in soil and water over decades.
• Disruptions to water systems, as in the case of the destruction of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant, have cascading consequences for ecosystems, agriculture, and drinking water supplies.

Should we intervene? The balance between “giving nature a chance” and “managing the process.” International practice offers two scenarios:

Passive restoration—minimal intervention, giving nature time and space. An example is Chernobyl.

Active restoration—demining, soil remediation, restoration of water systems and forests, and control of invasive species.

The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) emphasizes that in cases of large-scale war-related destruction, a strategy that combines both approaches is effective.

Background: The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030 is a global initiative by the UN that spans these 10 years, with the goal of:

• to halt, reverse, and restore the degradation of ecosystems—forests, fields, oceans, cities, wetlands, etc.
• give ecosystems a chance to recover and support nature for the benefit of people and biodiversity

Ukraine’s potential for rewilding. Restoring nature after the war in Ukraine is not only an environmental but also a strategic task. Ukraine has the opportunity to set an example for the world by combining natural restoration processes with scientifically grounded rewilding programs, involving communities and international partners.