Rewilding in Ukraine: Can nature recover after war? What role should humans play in this?

The war in Ukraine is already called the largest ecological disaster in Europe since World War II. According to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, thousands of hectares of forest, dozens of reserves, hundreds of reservoirs and thousands of kilometers of rivers have been damaged. Natural ecosystems have suffered not only from direct destruction, but also from long-term pollution, which can affect the biosphere for decades. The question arises: is nature able to recover on its own – or is large-scale human intervention necessary? In world ecological practice, the answer to this challenge has become the concept of rewilding.

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. Despite the fact that the level of radiation here still exceeds the natural background, more than 30 years after the accident the territory has become a haven for bison, wolves, lynxes and even brown bears. But the war disrupted this fragile balance. From the first days of the invasion, the territory was occupied, partially mined, affected by fires, and the radiation monitoring system was destroyed. This clearly demonstrates that even ecosystems with the potential for self-recovery are vulnerable to new anthropogenic shocks.

• Mozambique – Gorongosa National Park (1977–1992). After 15 years of civil war, the number of large mammals decreased by 90%. Natural recovery, supplemented by species reintroduction and protection, returned stability to the ecosystem in two decades.
• Cambodia (1975–1998). After the end of the civil war and the clearance of part of the territory, reserves were established. Populations of Asian elephants, tigers, and rare birds recovered in the Cardamom Mountains.
• Vietnam (1955–1975). The jungles destroyed by napalm and defoliants during the war have been recovering for decades. Some areas still bear traces of chemical contamination, but much of the forest and fauna have returned.
• Kuwait (1991). After the Gulf War and large-scale oil fires, international programs for soil reclamation and water purification were launched, which helped restore desert ecosystems.
• Kosovo (1998–1999). After armed conflict and demining, some areas were converted into protected natural areas, where forests and large carnivore populations recovered.
• Croatia (1991–1995). After the war, the network of national parks was expanded, including the Plitvice Lakes, and wetland and forest conservation programs were implemented.
• Sierra Leone (1991–2002). After 11 years of civil war, some of the rainforests have recovered naturally and have subsequently been included in biodiversity conservation programs.
• Cyprus (since 1974). The demilitarized zone between North and South Cyprus, where people have not lived for over 50 years, has preserved rich natural ecosystems without interference.
• Korean Peninsula (since 1953). The demilitarized zone between South Korea and North Korea has become a unique reserve for rare species, including the black stork and the Amur leopard.
• Iraq – Mesopotamian Marches (2003–present). After the war and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the restoration of drained wetlands began, which has returned a significant part of the local biodiversity.

These examples prove that ecosystem restoration after conflict is possible, but requires a comprehensive approach — a combination of natural processes and targeted actions.

How war changes the conditions for nature’s restoration. In some territories of Ukraine, hostilities led to the temporary disappearance of human activity, which created conditions for the restoration of flora and fauna. However, this effect cannot be considered an automatic “plus” for nature:

1. Mines and unexploded ordnance pose a threat to all living organisms.
2. Chemical and heavy metal pollution can accumulate in soil and water for decades.

Disruptions to hydrosystems, as in the case of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station explosion, have cascading consequences for ecosystems, agriculture, and drinking water supply.

Should we intervene: the balance between “giving a chance” and “managing the process.” International practice suggests two scenarios:
Passive restoration — minimal intervention, when nature is given time and space. An example is Chernobyl.
Active restoration – demining, soil cleaning, restoration of hydrosystems and forests, control of invasive species.

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

Reference: The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030 is a global action from the UN, which lasts for these 10 years, with the aim of:
•stop, suspend and reverse the degradation of ecosystems – forests, fields, seas, cities, wetlands, etc.
•give ecosystems a chance to restore 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 ecological but also a strategic task. Ukraine has a chance to become an example for the world by combining natural restoration processes with scientifically based rewilding programs, involving communities and international partners.