What would it take to ensure that all countries affected by conflict can benefit from a sustainable recovery process?
What needs to be in place for the idea of environmentally sustainable conflict recovery to take hold? In this post Anna Ackermann and Doug Weir examine why sustainable recovery processes are needed and whether lessons from Ukraine could be applied to conflict areas in the MENA and beyond.
Introduction
Where it exists, armed conflicts undermine environmental governance, and at a time where the environment is under intense pressure. The legacy of this can last years, particularly where conflicts are prolonged, or cyclical; it can also affect areas and sectors far from frontlines. In the face of the global crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and land degradation, and as the environmental consequences of warfare are finally becoming more visible, we are seeing long overdue attention on how conflict recovery processes can be made more responsive to these environmental pressures: the principle of sustainable recovery. This attention is most pronounced in Ukraine but we argue that lessons being learned there could be applied to conflict-affected areas of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
Whether in Ukraine, Syria, Gaza, Yemen or Lebanon, conflicts have repeatedly targeted or disrupted the systems that communities depend on every day. Energy infrastructure has been damaged, leaving households vulnerable to blackouts and extreme temperatures. Water facilities have been destroyed or contaminated, increasing health risks and undermining livelihoods. Agricultural land has been damaged by military activity, pollution and unexploded ordnance, reducing food security and income for rural communities. Waste management systems have collapsed or become overwhelmed, creating long-term environmental and health challenges. Sustainable conflict recovery is therefore not primarily about environmental protection in the abstract; it is about rebuilding the foundations of human security and resilience.
When we explored the roots, enablers and barriers of Ukraine’s sustainable recovery discourse for the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung publication War and the environment in the Middle East: degradation, governance, and the way forward, we identified a number of opportunities for the international community to support similar initiatives in the MENA, and beyond. Critically, we argue that participatory sustainable recovery processes and outcomes help increase the resilience of communities to environmental shocks, support livelihoods, and ultimately human security.
Defining and building sustainable recovery
Ukrainian civil society defines sustainable recovery as ‘…the process of restoring infrastructure, housing, the economy and ecosystems in an inclusive way that ensures long-term environmental safety, efficient use of natural resources and environmental restoration, while taking into account climate change and minimising negative impacts on ecosystems.’ It is more than simply a technical policy or a collection of green projects. It should be understood as a wider societal process through which reconstruction can build resilience rather than reproduce vulnerability and, as is the case for Ukraine, it is a process that begins during the war.
The growing emphasis on resilience reflects practical realities. In Ukraine, repeated attacks on the energy system demonstrated the risks associated with relying on large centralised infrastructure. As a result, local authorities, communities and businesses increasingly invested in decentralised generation, including smaller renewable energy systems capable of continuing to provide power when larger networks fail. Similar approaches have emerged in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, where distributed solar energy has become a critical survival strategy during periods of economic and institutional crisis. In these contexts, sustainability and resilience are not separate objectives; they have become mutually reinforcing necessities.
Ukraine’s experience also demonstrates that sustainable recovery depends on more than funding or technical expertise. Civil society has acted as a bridge between communities, government institutions and international actors, documenting environmental damage, translating evidence into policy proposals and holding recovery processes accountable. In many places affected by conflict, local organisations remain among the few actors capable of maintaining links between citizens and governance systems during periods of instability.
This has implications far beyond Ukraine. If sustainable recovery is to become a broader principle, support for civil society should not be viewed as an optional accompaniment to reconstruction. It is an investment in local resilience itself. Organisations that monitor environmental conditions, support communities, develop local knowledge and maintain public participation often become critical intermediaries during conflict and recovery alike.
Alongside the capacity of civil society, we identified 10 other enabling conditions for the sustainable recovery process, many of which are relational and mutually supportive. For example, the quality and accessibility of environmental data supports narratives; narratives influence political priorities and donors; and funding sustains the organisations that produce evidence and scrutinise recovery.
Prospects and lessons
Ukraine is the first time that a largely bottom-up and inclusive sustainable recovery discourse has emerged and, while progress has been made, its outcome nevertheless remains highly uncertain. The continuing conflict is encouraging short-term and reactionary planning, while economic returns and urgent reconstruction are often prioritised over environmental safeguards. Institutional restructuring and ministerial reshuffles have undermined policy continuity and expertise, while environmental impact assessments have been weakened and martial law continues to restrict access to environmental information necessary for public participation. Compounding this, underdeveloped and degraded monitoring systems are impeding decision-making and planning, while national and local authorities, communities and civil society face capacity constraints. We also argue that donor fatigue, public scepticism and the normalisation of environmental harm can further marginalise sustainability principles.
While these challenges are substantial, navigating them begins with naming them, and then adapting policy to suit, or identifying those where external intervention or support can help. Actions need not always be dramatic. For example, a recent Ukrainian civil society report on reconstruction architecture underlined how legally defining the commonly used “build back better” principle, and establishing minimum criteria by sector, would greatly benefit sustainable recovery.
While many of its challenges are common to conflict contexts, it must be remembered that Ukraine is an outlier. Many conflicts in the MENA region are protracted, cyclical and complex, with environmental degradation intensified by weak governance. Affected countries don’t enjoy comparable donor attention or the motivation of alignment with a neighbouring trade and security bloc. Many have less civil society capacity. It would therefore be wrong to expect all conflict-affected countries to reproduce Ukraine’s sustainable recovery model without these structural advantages. However, in the face of accelerating global environmental change, it is inescapable that there is a need for context-specific approaches to sustainable recovery.
The comparison with the MENA suggests that sustainable recovery does not emerge automatically from the recognition of environmental harm. It requires political space, institutional capacity and long-term support. Ukraine benefits from combinations of these conditions that are absent in many other conflict settings. This does not mean sustainable recovery is irrelevant elsewhere. Rather, it means that international actors must be prepared to support the social and institutional foundations that make it possible, particularly local civil society, environmental monitoring, and governance capacity. Without such investments, there is a risk that sustainability will remain a principle celebrated in international declarations but applied only selectively in practice.
Looking ahead
The significance of Ukraine’s experience lies not in the possibility of copying its model elsewhere, but in understanding why that model emerged and what it requires to survive. The comparison with conflict-affected countries in the MENA region shows that sustainable recovery depends not only on environmental challenges, but also on whether countries have access to political support, funding and strong institutions.
The environmental consequences of warfare are becoming impossible to ignore. Yet recognition alone is insufficient. The crucial question is whether the international community is willing to extend the political attention, resources and institutional support required to make sustainable recovery achievable beyond a small number of conflict-affected countries.
If sustainable recovery is to become more than a slogan, it must be available not only where favourable conditions already exist, but also where communities remain trapped between conflict, environmental degradation and chronic underinvestment. Ukraine offers valuable lessons, but perhaps the most important one is that sustainable recovery depends on the structures that enable it. Making those structures more widely available may be the defining challenge ahead.
Anna Ackermann is a board member of Ukraine’s Centre for Environmental Initiatives “Ecoaction“; Doug Weir is the Director of CEOBS.
