Resources Are There, Nature Is Not: What Was Overlooked at the Rome Conference

Not a single word about biodiversity restoration was heard at the two-day international Ukraine Recovery Conference (URC 2025) in Rome — not even during the panel dedicated to environmental recovery.

And this, despite the fact that Ukraine is the most climate-vulnerable country in Europe, and the environmental damage caused by the war is colossal: over 9,000 documented cases of environmental crimes.

“Ukraine is showing leadership by making the environment a priority in the recovery process,” said Margot Wallström, who co-chairs the International Working Group on the Environmental Consequences of War in Ukraine alongside Andriy Yermak.

But where is that leadership in practice?

The absence in Rome of the then-current Minister of Environmental Protection, Svitlana Hrynchuk, demonstrated just how low environmental issues rank on Ukraine’s agenda.
And given that the country will no longer have a separate environment ministry at all, public skepticism about the true “greenness” of the recovery is growing — and not without reason.

The conference featured no speeches dedicated to forest, steppe, or wetland restoration, the creation of protected areas for displaced wildlife, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem rehabilitation, or support for environmental organizations.

Instead, most of the attention was given to business resilience, agriculture, innovation, and investment-driven business models for Ukraine’s market.

In other words, we hear about the “green transformation” primarily in terms of economic gain. Yes, this matters for rebuilding Ukraine’s towns and villages. But what matters even more is ensuring that, amid all the slogans, we don’t lose sight of the environment itself — a crucial ally to Ukraine’s industry, agriculture, and even the physical and mental well-being of its people.

Decarbonization goals, investments in water resources, and other such topics were mentioned at the conference. But biodiversity was referenced only in passing — in the context of disrupted animal migration, river pollution, and mined territories.

This approach runs counter to EU policy, particularly the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, which is a cornerstone of the European Green Deal.

Thirty percent of EU territory — and by extension Ukraine’s, as the conference repeatedly emphasized the harmonization of Ukrainian legislation with EU norms — must be protected, with 10% strictly protected. Currently, however, Ukraine’s nature reserve network covers less than 7% of its territory.

So if Ukraine truly aims to lead the “green transition,” biodiversity must become more than just an afterthought. It must be a core element of environmental policy — alongside the shift to renewable energy, the circular economy, and climate adaptation.

Despite the declared principle to “build back better,” the conference failed to address the restoration and improvement of ecosystems — the very foundation of green recovery and sustainable development.

Next year, we hope Ukrainian and international environmental organizations will be involved not only in panel discussions but also in shaping the conference agenda. This is crucial, because a green transition without ecosystem restoration is nothing more than empty words — not a viable strategy.