By Ilaria Luna
An absurd, devastating war is raging on Ukrainian soil before our horrified eyes, destroying cities, murdering people indiscriminately and compelling millions to flee from their homeland to seek refuge in unfamiliar territories. While Vladimir Putin claims that Russians and Ukranians are a single people, with the intent of reabsorbing the Slavic country into Russia, Ukraine claims its place in Europe, now more than ever. Geography itself has already answered this political question, defining Ukraine as the largest completely European country, and science has likewise highlighted the nation’s crucial environmental contributions to the Old Continent thanks to its considerable land and biodiversity. Indeed, according to the CBD Fifth National Report, “occupying less than 6 percent of Europe’s area, Ukraine possesses 35 percent of its biodiversity.” From elks and owls to oaks and maple trees, over 350 species of birds, 100 species of mammals and 200 species of fish coexist in rich Ukrainian forests and steppes teeming with wildlife.
However, the apparent stability of Ukraine’s biodiversity has relied heavily on the continuous implementation of measures aimed at supporting the many vulnerable and endangered species that constitute such a large part of the nation’s ecosystems. Indeed, as described in the most recent Red Book of Ukraine, as of 2009, 826 species of flora and 542 species of fauna have been listed as requiring special protection. The nation’s temperate climate has also allowed for the successful introduction and breeding of various non-native endangered species, serving not only as a prolific hatchery of Ukrainian wildlife, but also as an international nursery. Consistent legislative action has been essential, seeking to “enlarge the land area of the country with natural landscapes […] to provide opportunities for natural ways of migration and propagation of species and animals, which would ensure conservation of natural ecosystems, species of flora and fauna, and their populations,” as outlined in the CBD Fifth National Report.
The sudden arrival of war, though, has thwarted many of the efforts made to further Ukrainian biodiversity. According to the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), “the environmental impact of wars begins long before they do.” From an increased consumption of resources and a considerable energy demand of military vehicles to disruptions caused by training and the occupation of land by military bases, “conflicts are often viewed as sustainable development in reverse,” describes the CEOBS. Military altercations often lead to a rise in fuel demands, consequently exacerbating CO2 emissions and strengthening the impacts of climate change. Likewise, the use of explosive weapons leaves behind severe pollution both in the air and land, which often contaminate marine biomes. The CBD Fifth National Report already acknowledges, independently of this ongoing conflict, that “the main negative factors affecting aquatic and coastal [Ukrainian] ecosystems [include] pollution with insufficiently purified wastewater.” Therefore, the inevitable surge in wartime wastes can only heighten the stress placed on already insufficient waste management systems. In addition, the need for more wartime supplies increases the pace of deforestation and the overharvesting of natural resources. In accordance with this premise, the CEOBS describes how “the intense shelling of sites like the notorious Snake Island may have left permanent scars on bio and geodiversity.”
Russian tank moves through Ukrainian landscape, leaving behind a trail of destruction to the flora and fauna.”
By Gracie Dogramaci
Furthermore, according to conservation specialist María D. Álvarez, wartime triggers further habitat fragmentation. This phenomenon, in which outside interference leads to an obstruction or interruption within a natural ecosystem, prevents the free circulation of species throughout their habitat and thus impedes interbreeding, greatly affecting genetic diversity. This threat to wildlife stability can also be traced back to large-scale human displacement. As is currently the case in Ukraine, which according to BBC has seen over two and a half million people fleeing the country, impromptu refugee camps in particular place serious stress on the ecosystems they rely on for survival—both for resources and waste disposal.
According to Planet Custodian, numerous animal and plant species are at risk of extinction in Ukraine, and the current conflict further imperils their survival. For instance, the Russian desman, a semiaquatic mammal related to moles, could suffer severely due to increased habitat loss brought about by the war. The pontian shemaya, an extremely vulnerable carp that is now only found in Ukraine, Croatia and Slovenia, will be similarly impacted by the increase in water pollution. Moreover, the endangered saker falcon as well as the betula klokvii (a species of birch tree that has declined to only about 50 organisms) are at great risk of extinction, and this threat can only be exacerbated by a military conflict of this caliber. These are just a few of the many organisms that will suffer immensely if the war continues, but the extinction of even a single species can have major repercussions on the surrounding ecosystem.
Understandably, when a conflict arises, the most immediate concerns are the risks for people and the infrastructures necessary for their survival. The second instinctive concern is the preservation of cultural treasures, people’s historical memory. The natural environment seems a more inert scenario, as though “life” simply means “human existence.” We passively accept the contamination or even erasure of land, without imagining the magnitude of the damage inflicted upon nature. The tragedy of Ukraine invites us to think of our common earth as more than mankind’s realm and to treasure the diversity that exists beyond the confines of our human species.
About Author
