Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

Ukraine

Ukraine: Invest in the Future, Don’t Rebuild the Past

by Bohdan Vykhor and Andreas Beckmann

At the recent Lugano reconstruction conference, planning for a sustainable economy and climate change was notable by its absence.

The Ukrainian government and international donors had the first opportunity to present their plans for the postwar reconstruction of the country at theUkraine Recovery Conference early this month in Lugano, Switzerland.

Conference delegates declared “sustainability” as one of the seven key points for reconstruction. The concepts of “building back better” and “green recovery” were touched upon by nearly every leader who took the floor at the conference, from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Nevertheless, there was little presented in terms of concrete steps for achieving these aims.

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make Ukraine a global leader in sustainability and to show the world how nature can help speed up recovery from the war and improve lives and livelihoods. But the critical importance of planning for climate change and restoring a healthy natural environment for the people of Ukraine to help make Ukraine a leader in sustainability after it begins its recovery from the war was not mentioned at all in Lugano.

From Reform to Restoration

Initially, the event had been planned as the fifth Ukraine Reform Conference – an annual high-level political event for Ukraine to present the progress that it has made, for international partners to express support, and for all stakeholders to examine what steps to take next to advance the reform process. Against the backdrop of the war, however, Ukraine and Switzerland decided to refocus the gathering beyond reforms to concentrate on recovery. Over 1,000 people from 41 countries and 19 international organizations participated.

Ukrainian government officials presented a draft plan for recovery based on the proposals of several working groups. The plan seeks to respond to immediate needs and set Ukraine on a path of longer-term development. The focus on innovation, digitalization, and reform, among other things, is welcome. Nevertheless, the document fails to fully take into account and respond to the overarching challenges facing Ukraine and other countries in the form of climate change and nature loss. What we need to do in the next decade to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change is laid out in the latest report of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Efforts are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – and dependence on Russian fossil fuels – but also to adapt to the already changing climate.

The challenge of climate change is made more acute by the loss and degradation of nature, with attendant erosion of ecosystem goods and services, from clean air and water to pollination of crops. Even before the war, declines in harvests in Ukraine, for example, had been driven not only by climate change but also by poor water management and declining pollination, with a worsening trend expected in the future.

Despite mention of investment in energy efficiency, the Ukrainian plan actually foresees a near-threefold increase in electricity production by 2050.

Unclear Intentions

Natalia Gozak, who heads Ecoaction – an umbrella organization for Ukrainian groups working on energy, agriculture, and sustainable cities – sees the plan as a way for the Ukrainian government to promote expansion of the nuclear sector and fossil fuel projects (such as gas exports), with an additional focus on hydrogen and bioenergy. “We can’t afford to continue our dependence on unsustainable energy solutions,” she says. “Instead, we should be thinking in the longer term, making sure that Ukraine develops as a modern economy based on sustainable renewables and energy efficiency.”

With regard to nature protection, the plan gives a nod to EU policy targets, including an expansion of protected areas to cover 30% of the country’s territory and restoring 10,000 kilometers of rivers – though it remains unclear when, where, and how this will happen. Specific mention of 15 “green bridges” for wildlife and 10 wildlife rehabilitation centers is not unwelcome, but seems overplayed considering that nothing is said of more strategic interventions, no mention of water and how to address growing conflicts around this key resource in times of climate change. Nor was a word spoken of the need to avoid the negative impact of development projects through environmental assessments and biodiversity safeguards without which investments could end up doing more harm than good.

Delegates also heard nothing about opportunities to work with nature rather than against it – by, for instance, relying on restored wetlands to naturally purify water, absorb floodwaters, and recharge groundwater rather than investing in expensive gray infrastructure. Investments in green infrastructure can yield multiple benefits, and are often cheaper than pouring concrete. Indeed, in some cases the decision not to rebuild damaged infrastructure, like dams, may also be an opportunity.

The impression that we are left with is greenwashing – a few buzzwords and a bit of environmental packaging, without taking this really seriously. But the environment provides the foundations for economic, social, and cultural progress, and will be critical to the future development of Ukraine. Not taking that fully into account would be terribly shortsighted. It would risk not only wasting precious resources, but could even reverse what advances have been made.

Whatever the shortcomings, it is remarkable that the Ukrainian government was able to table a proposal given the challenges of the ongoing war. The government plan and the initial discussions at the Lugano conference provide a “zero version” for commentary and improvement. That opportunity must be seized.

Many of the speakers at Lugano highlighted the importance of good governance, including adequate public participation, transparency, accountability, and conditionality. They echoed the earlier demands of 50 Ukrainian NGOs laid out in theirgreen reconstruction principles.

Reconstruction in Ukraine presents not only a massive challenge, but also an opportunity to restore the country in a way that respects nature while taking into account conditions not only as they have been but as they will be. We must invest in and for the future, not the past.

Bohdan Vykhor is CEO of WWF-Ukraine and Andreas Beckmann is regional CEO of WWF-Central and Eastern Europe.

Disclaimer

Transitions Online
Copyright © Transitions Online. All rights reserved.