Vol. 81 No. 3 (2026)
Reviews

Armed conflicts and forest ecosystems: ecological impacts, ecosystem services and challenges for restoration

PDF (Italiano)
  • Lorenzo Ciccarese,
  • Elena Stefanoni
Lorenzo Ciccarese
Fondazione per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile, via Garigliano 61/a - 00198 Roma.
Elena Stefanoni
Esperta legale ambientale e di cooperazione allo sviluppo.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/ifm-1261

Published 2026-11-13

Keywords

  • armed conflicts,
  • forests,
  • forest ecosystems,
  • ecosystem services,
  • forest degradation,
  • forest restoration,
  • international cooperation
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Ciccarese, L., & Stefanoni, E. (2026). Armed conflicts and forest ecosystems: ecological impacts, ecosystem services and challenges for restoration. L’Italia Forestale E Montana, 81(3), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.36253/ifm-1261

Copyright (c) 2026 Lorenzo Ciccarese, Elena Stefanoni

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Armed conflicts are an emerging threat to forest ecosystems, triggering degradation processes that extend far beyond the duration of hostilities. Military operations generate direct impacts, including vegetation destruction, wildfires, habitat fragmentation, soil and water contamination, and wildlife mortality, thereby immediately impairing ecosystem structure and functioning. These are accompanied by indirect impacts arising from the collapse of environmental governance, unsustainable exploitation of forest resources, disruption of forest management and environmental monitoring, the spread of invasive alien species, and the erosion of socio-ecological resilience, with consequences that may persist for decades. This review examines the main mechanisms of forest ecosystem degradation based on recent scientific literature, major international assessments, and the findings of the UNEP Global Environment Outlook 7 (GEO-7), drawing on evidence from case studies in Ukraine, the Balkans, Tigray, and the Middle East. It also reviews post-conflict forest restoration approaches, highlighting restoration methodologies, costs, recovery times, and key sources of uncertainty. Finally, the paper discusses the role of international environmental cooperation and institutional capacity building as essential components for restoring forest ecosystems while supporting ecological recovery, socio-ecological resilience, and sustainable peacebuilding.

PDF (Italiano)

References

  1. Baselt, I., Skejic, A., Zindovic, B., & Bender, J. (2023). Geologically-driven migration of landmines and explosive remnants of war: A feature focusing on the Western Balkans. Geosciences, 13(6), Article 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences13060178
  2. Birhane, E., Girmay Siyum, Z., Shiferaw, H., Solomon, N., Berhe, M., Gebremedhin, M. A., & Tesfamariam, Z. (2025). Armed conflict-driven environmental degradation and uneven socio-ecological resilience in Tigray, Ethiopia. Sustainable Futures, 10, Article 101289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.101289
  3. Bosnia and Herzegovina Mine Action Centre [BHMAC]. (2023). Mine action strategy of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2025–2027. Sarajevo.
  4. Busch, J., Bukoski, J. J., Cook-Patton, S. C., Griscom, B. W., Kaczan, D. J., Potts, M. D., Yi, Y., & Vincent, J. R. (2024). Cost-effectiveness of natural forest regeneration and plantations for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 14(9), 996–1002. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02068-1
  5. Certini, G., Scalenghe, R., & Woods, W. J. (2013). The impact of warfare on the soil environment. Earth-Science Reviews, 127, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.009
  6. Chazdon, R. L. (2008). Beyond deforestation: Restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science, 320(5882), 1458–1460. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155365
  7. Chazdon, R. L. (2017). Landscape restoration, natural regeneration, and the forests of the future. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 102(2), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.3417/2016035
  8. Chazdon, R. L., Blüthgen, N., Brancalion, P. H. S., Heinrich, V., & Bongers, F. (2025). Drivers and benefits of natural regeneration in tropical forests. Nature Reviews Biodiversity, 1(5), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00043-y
  9. Chazdon, R. L., & Guariguata, M. R. (2016). Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: Prospects and challenges. Biotropica, 48(6), 716–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12381
  10. Chazdon, R. L., Lindenmayer, D., Guariguata, M. R., Crouzeilles, R., Rey Benayas, J. M., & Lazos Chavero, E. (2020). Fostering natural forest regeneration on former agricultural land through economic and policy interventions. Environmental Research Letters, 15(4), Article 043002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab79e6
  11. Ciccarese, L., Mattsson, A., & Pettenella, D. (2012). Ecosystem services from forest restoration: Thinking ahead. New Forests, 43(5–6), 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-012-9350-8
  12. Conca, K., & Dabelko, G. D. (Eds.). (2002). Environmental peacemaking. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  13. Conflict and Environment Observatory [CEOBS]. (2025). Climate damage caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine. Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) report. https://en.ecoaction.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Climate-Damage-Caused-by-War-36-months_EN_compressed.pdf
  14. Crouzeilles, R., Beyer, H. L., Monteiro, L. M., Feltran-Barbieri, R., Pessôa, A. C. M., Barros, F. S. M., Lindenmayer, D. B., Lino, E. D. S. M., Grelle, C. E. V., Chazdon, R. L., Matsumoto, M., Rosa, M., Latawiec, A. E., & Strassburg, B. B. N. (2020). Achieving cost-effective landscape-scale forest restoration through targeted natural regeneration. Conservation Letters, 13(3), Article e12709. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12709
  15. Di Stefano, V. (2025). L’impronta della guerra sulle foreste: Danni, diritto e strategie di ripristino ambientale a oltre 3 anni dalla guerra in Ucraina. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 80(2), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.36253/ifm-1169
  16. Dresse, A., Fischhendler, I., Nielsen, J. Ø., & Zikos, D. (2019). Environmental peacebuilding: Towards a theoretical framework. Cooperation and Conflict, 54(1), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718808331
  17. European Commission. (2009). EU Project – Sustainable forest management in Kosovo. Final report. European Commission.
  18. Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. (2025a). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd6709en
  19. Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. (2025b). New FAO-UNOSAT analysis findings show increased damage to cropland, greenhouses, and agricultural wells. FAO.
  20. Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. (2026). Five-year programme helps Kosovo advance in sustainable forestry management. FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. https://www.fao.org/europe/news/detail/five-year-fao-programme-helps-kosovo-advance-in-sustainable-forestry-management/en
  21. Garcês, A., & Pires, I. (2025). The impact of armed conflict on biodiversity. Wild Animals, 1(1), Article 2025001. https://doi.org/10.31893/wild.2025001
  22. Global Environment Facility [GEF]. (2015). Lake Skadar-Shkoder Integrated Ecosystem Management Project. Terminal evaluation. World Bank.
  23. Hanson, T., Brooks, T. M., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., Machlis, G., Mittermeier, C. G., & Pilgrim, J. D. (2009). Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology, 23(3), 578–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01166.x
  24. Holl, K. D., & Aide, T. M. (2011). When and where to actively restore ecosystems? Forest Ecology and Management, 261(10), 1558–1563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.004
  25. Ide, T. (2020). The impact of environmental cooperation on peacemaking. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.006
  26. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (H. Lee & J. Romero, Eds.). IPCC. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
  27. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES]. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, & H. T. Ngo, Eds.). IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
  28. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [IPBES]. (2023). Assessment report on invasive alien species and their control (H. E. Roy, M. Pouchet, O. L. Pescott, et al., Eds.). IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7430692
  29. International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC]. (2026). Humanitarian outlook 2026: A world succumbing to war. International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/LR_4909_002_ICRC_Humanitarian_Outlook_2026_A_World_Succumbing_to_War.pdf
  30. International Union of Forest Research Organizations [IUFRO]. (2025). Task Force T49, Post-conflict forest landscape restoration: Make “It Back Better”. IUFRO.
  31. Irland, L. C., Iavorivska, L., Zibtsev, S., Myroniuk, V., Roth, B., & Bilous, A. (2024). Russian invasion: Rapid assessment of impact on Ukraine’s forests. Proceedings of the Forestry Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 25, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.15421/412312irland
  32. Krainiuk, O. V., Buts, Y. V., Ponomarenko, R. V., Asotskyi, V. V., Darmofal, E. A., Kalynovskyi, A. Y., & Maniuk, V. V. (2025). Environmental consequences of military operations in Ukraine on the example of soil research in the Kharkiv region. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology, 34(2), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.15421/112526
  33. Landholm, D. M., Pradhan, P., & Kropp, J. P. (2019). Diverging forest land use dynamics induced by armed conflict across the tropics. Global Environmental Change, 56, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.006
  34. Melnykovych, M., Nijnik, M., Soshenskyi, O., Zibtsev, S., Lobchenko, G., Sarkki, S., Voloshyna, N., Soloviy, I., Kravets, P., Khan, Y., Yaroshchuk, R., Keeton, W. S., Rosset, C., Pauli, B., Garcia, C. A., & Waeber, P. O. (2026a). Pathways for Ukraine’s post-war nature recovery: Focus on forest socio-ecological systems. Ambio, 55(4), 817–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02263-0
  35. Melnykovych, M., Melnyk, O., Soshenskyi, O., McKean, A., Dudar, V., & Waeber, P.O. (2026b). Demining and revitalising war-affected landscapes in Ukraine: multi-actor governance responses. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-026-01892-y
  36. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
  37. Morkovina, S. S., Drapalyuk, M. V., Sibiryatkina, I. A., & Popova, A. S. (2024). Economic assessment and cost variability in ecosystem restoration projects. Forests, 15(2), Article 245. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15020245
  38. Mudrak, O., Lavrov, V., Kharchenko, S., & Mudrak, H. (2025). Environmental consequences of military actions for land resources of Sniguriv community of Mykolaiv region. Balanced Nature Using, (3), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.33730/2310-4678.3.2025.342529
  39. Novakovska, I., Belousova, N., & Hunko, L. (2025). Land degradation in Ukraine as a result of military operations. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Administratio Locorum, 24(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.31648/aspal.9788
  40. Odum, E. P., & Barrett, G. W. (2005). Fundamentals of ecology (5th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
  41. Pacheco, P., Beatty, C., & Patel, J. (2024). Economic view on the costs and benefits of forest restoration. In P. Katila et al. (Eds.), Restoring forests and trees for sustainable development: Policies, practices, impacts, and ways forward. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780197683958.003.0009
  42. Pereira, P., Bašić, F., Bogunovic, I., & Barcelo, D. (2022). Russian-Ukrainian war impacts the total environment. Science of the Total Environment, 837, Article 155865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155865
  43. Rawtani, D., Gupta, G., Khatri, N., Rao, P. K., & Hussain, C. M. (2022). Environmental damages due to war in Ukraine: A perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 850, Article 157932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157932
  44. Santini, A., Maresi, G., Richardson, D. M., & Liebhold, A. M. (2023). Collateral damage: Military invasions beget biological invasions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 21(9), 475–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2640
  45. Schoon, M. (2021). Governing the Prespa Lakes: Transboundary environmental cooperation in the Balkans.
  46. Schulte, P. M. (2014). What is environmental stress? Insights from fish living in a variable environment. Journal of Experimental Biology, 217(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.089722
  47. Semenenko, O., Ovanesian, R., Dobrovolskyi, U., Cherep, V., & Tsarynnyk, V. (2025). Degradation and restoration of forest ecosystems in the context of war: Environmental and economic challenges to Ukrainian national security. Ukrainian Journal of Forest and Wood Science, 16(2), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.31548/forest/2.2025.167
  48. Society for the Protection of Prespa. (2020). Prespa Park: Transboundary conservation and sustainable development. Society for the Protection of Prespa.
  49. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. (2009). From conflict to peacebuilding: The role of natural resources and the environment. UNEP.
  50. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. (2019). Environmental rule of law: First global report. UNEP.
  51. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. (2022a). Environmental cooperation for peacebuilding in the South Caucasus. UNEP.
  52. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. (2022b). The environmental impact of the conflict in Ukraine: A preliminary review. UNEP. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/40746
  53. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. (2025). Environmental impact of the escalation of conflict in the Gaza Strip: Second assessment of environmental damage and recommendations for recovery and reconstruction planning. UNEP. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/48536
  54. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR]. (2026). Mid-Year Trend Report 2025. UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics
  55. Waśniewski, A., Rynkiewicz, A., Hościło, A., Havryliuk, S., & Chaskovskyy, O. (2026). Impact of the war on forest ecosystem in Ukraine based on Sentinel-2 data. Scientific Reports, 16(1), Article 5190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-35744-7
  56. World Bank [WB]. (2008a). Lake Skadar/Shkoder Integrated Ecosystem Management Project. World Bank.
  57. World Bank [WB] (2008). Project appraisal document: Albania and Montenegro – Lake Skadar/Shkoder Integrated Ecosystem Management Project (P084605). World Bank.
  58. World Bank [WB]. (2026). Ukraine – Fifth Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA5): February 2022 – December 2025. Washington, DC. https://www.undp.org/ukraine/publications/ukraine-fifth-rapid-damage-and-needs-assessment-rdna5-february-2022-december-2025

Most read articles by the same author(s)