By Viktoriia Odusanvo
Since the start of the full-scale invasion, the Russian army has committed over 6,500 crimes against the environment in Ukraine. This was reported by Svitlana Hrynchuk, Ukraine’s Minister of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, at the UN Climate Change Conference in Baku.
The Russian assaults have had a devastating impact on the environment in Ukraine and around the world. As a result of the hostilities, 175 million tonnes of greenhouse gases were released into the atmosphere, 20.8 million square meters of soil were contaminated, and approximately 30% of Ukraine’s land was mined.
According to Ukraine’s Criminal Code, the damage caused by the Russian army is classified as ecocide, which includes “mass destruction of flora or fauna, poisoning of the atmosphere or water resources, as well as other actions that may cause an environmental disaster.”
During the full-scale invasion, Russia committed the largest act of ecocide by destroying the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant. On June 6, 2023, the Russians blew up the interior of the Kakhovka HPP, leaking 18.2 cubic kilometres of water. This resulted in the destruction of the ecosystem that had developed in this area, a sea of fish, the flooding of over 11,000 hectares of forest, and the extinction of a significant portion of rare flora and fauna.
The Serebrianka Forestry is another example of Russian environmental crimes. In an attempt to break through the Ukrainian defence line, the Russians used an unusually large amount of artillery ammunition. As a result, some of the forest was destroyed.
The crimes committed by Russian authorities in the temporarily occupied territories require special attention. Natural parks and reserves in temporarily occupied territories are losing biodiversity due to the negligence of Russian “managers,” and rare animals and plants are suffering from a lack of proper care. Furthermore, in some cases, Russian occupation forces illegally alter the status of protected areas. This occurred in the Dzharylgatsky Nature Park, which the Russians had opened for tourism and hunting. Russians are stealing rare animals from the Askania-Nova biosphere reserve, which is a UNESCO protected site. According to the reserve’s director, Viktor Shapoval, stolen animals have died as a result of a lack of proper care.
The damage caused by the Russian ecocide is estimated at $71 billion.
However, the situation regarding bringing Russia to justice under international law is more complicated. As of now, this crime is not prescribed in international law, so there are no clear mechanisms for punishing crimes against nature. Nonetheless, Ukrainian experts believe Ukraine has a chance to seek justice and compensation for the ecocide that Russia continues to commit.
Maksym Popov, Advisor to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, responded to a question about bringing Russia to justice during the climate discussion of the Initiative for the Development of Environmental Policy and Advocacy in Ukraine in 2023, saying, “This is a challenge, but it is quite possible.”
Dmytro Koval, legal director of Truth Hounds, an NGO that specialises in documenting international crimes and human rights violations, points out that, even if ecocide is not defined under international law, compensation for environmental damage can be obtained as part of reparations for Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Ruslan Strilets, Ukraine’s former Minister of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, believes that Ukraine’s status as an International Criminal Court member gives it a chance to include ecocide in the Rome Statute.
The establishment of the UN Compensation Commission in 1991 serves as a positive precedent for Ukraine. This commission was formed to hear the charges that Kuwait filed against Iraq following the latter’s liberation from occupation. Kuwait demanded compensation for environmental damage caused by the occupation. It is worth noting that the success in this case was only partial; based on the commission’s findings, Kuwait was only able to recover 15% of the amount claimed in compensation.
Despite the lack of a clear definition of ecocide in international law, Ukrainian law enforcement and environmental activists are already working to hold Russia accountable. For example, Oleksandr Todorchuk, founder of the charity organization UAnimals, sent a petition, “Stop Ecocide in Ukraine: Punish Russia for Environmental Crimes,” to the UN and the EU.
Much emphasis is also placed on drawing the attention of the international community to the need to hold Russia accountable for the ecocide. For example, the #StopEcocideUkraine initiative launched by UAnimals has resulted in over 300 public actions around the world.
The progress in reforming international laws aimed at protecting the environment is also encouraging for Ukraine. For example, experts in international law are already working on including ecocide in the list of international crimes and creating mechanisms for punishing global environmental damage.
Finally, it is worth noting that Russia is using the topic of ecology to try to discredit Ukraine. In this case, we have an example of the tactic of accusing the enemy of its own intentions or crimes. For example, Russians regularly accuse the Ukrainian side of shelling the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), appealing to the threat posed to the local environment by the violation of the safety of nuclear power facilities. At the same time, the Russian media are silent about the key problem—the presence of the occupation military contingent on the territory of ZNPP.
Also indicative and cynical are Russia’s attempts to shift the responsibility for the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant disaster onto Ukraine, which led to the destruction of the reservoir’s ecosystem, despite the obvious facts of the occupiers’ involvement in the dam’s undermining.
Probably one of the most cynical attempts to use the topic of environmental damage caused by the war is the draft of the so-called “White Book of Donbas and Novorossiya.” The document was announced as a “scientific and expert compilation of evidence of Ukraine’s unnatural attitude to the environment.” Of course, it is futile to expect that the White Book will have anything to do with a scientific approach, as the stated goal is to try to portray Ukraine’s negligent attitude toward the natural resources of the occupied territories. Thus, for Russia, the topic of ecology in the context of war is limited to anti-Ukrainian propaganda.