Russia’s full-scale invasion has sharply increased wildfire exposure, mine contamination, habitat fragmentation and forest degradation in Ukraine. Yet no single verified figure captures the total national forest loss. Available estimates measure different realities: burned land, tree-cover loss, damaged stands, contaminated forests or permanent land-use change. These figures cannot be added together or presented as one deforestation total.
Before 2022: the national baseline
On the eve of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s forest fund covered about 10.4 million hectares, while forests represented 15.9% of the country’s territory. Ukraine already faced uneven regional forest cover, climate stress, fires, pests, illegal logging, many even-aged stands and fragmented monitoring. This baseline is set out in the State Forest Management Strategy of Ukraine until 2035.
These figures describe forest area and national forest cover. They do not represent annual forest loss. A sound pre-war and wartime comparison requires one geospatial baseline and a consistent methodology across all years.
After 2022: a new scale of risk
A reported 425,000 hectares of forest have been contaminated by mines and unexploded ordnance. This does not mean that the entire area has lost its tree cover. It does mean that large forest territories may remain inaccessible for inventories, firefighting, conservation and restoration for years. See Reuters, “Ukraine’s vast forests devastated in the hellscape of war”.
In 2024, almost 9,000 fires burned approximately 965,000 hectares of land in Ukraine. This was the country’s worst wildfire year in more than three decades. Around one third of the burned area was agricultural land, so the 965,000-hectare figure must not be reported as forest loss. The fires were concentrated in eastern and frontline regions, where hostilities caused ignitions and explosive hazards restricted firefighting. Sources: Reuters reporting based on the EU Joint Research Centre and the European Forest Fire Information System.
The most defensible assessment is not one headline number but a set of verified risks:
Professional reporting must therefore distinguish between burned area, tree-cover loss, damaged forest, explosive-contaminated land and permanent forest loss.
This section draws on the published expertise of Dr Marcus Lindner, Principal Scientist at the European Forest Institute. He has over 30 years of experience in climate-change impacts, forest-management adaptation, social-ecological resilience and the science–policy–practice interface. See his European Forest Institute profile.
A resilience-based approach does not automatically replant the same species across every damaged site. It first assesses the cause and severity of degradation, future climate risks, safety constraints, habitat value and the ecosystem’s capacity for natural recovery. It then selects natural regeneration, assisted natural regeneration, active restoration or a managed change in stand structure.
1. Establish one forest-damage accounting system
Ukraine needs a continuously updated geospatial platform combining satellite monitoring, the National Forest Inventory, cadastral data, fire records, explosive-hazard information and field assessments. Each site should receive a defined damage category, confidence level and recommended restoration pathway.
2. Put safety before restoration
Ground operations should begin only after an explosive-hazard assessment. Satellite imagery, drones, remote sensors and fire-risk modelling should support work in inaccessible areas. Demining priorities should be coordinated with wildfire prevention, watershed protection and the conservation of high-value habitats.
3. Restore ecosystems, not only tree numbers
Natural regeneration should be the first option where soils, seed sources and ecological connections remain functional. Active planting is needed on severely degraded sites, but it should use site-suitable species, genetically diverse material and mixed stands. This follows the EU Guidelines on Biodiversity-Friendly Afforestation, Reforestation and Tree Planting.
4. Apply closer-to-nature forestry
Mixed, uneven-aged and structurally diverse forests spread risk, support biodiversity and can improve resilience to drought, fire, storms and pests. The EU Guidelines on Closer-to-Nature Forest Management provide a practical framework.
5. Protect the most valuable forests
Primary and old-growth forests, natural habitats, watershed forests and ecological corridors should receive priority protection. Restoration should reconnect fragmented landscapes, retain deadwood where safe and support natural species composition.
6. Measure outcomes, not planted seedlings
Success should be assessed through tree survival and natural regeneration, species and age diversity, habitat connectivity, organic carbon, soil condition, water regulation and lower fire risk. This approach reflects the EU Nature Restoration Regulation and the European Commission’s official overview.
7. Connect recovery with education and local participation
Foresters, communities, students, researchers, conservation professionals, emergency services and public authorities need shared protocols. Practical training should cover remote monitoring, damage assessment, ecological restoration, wildfire planning and closer-to-nature forestry. EUFOR can translate European knowledge into skills and implementable solutions for Ukraine.
The EU Forest Strategy for 2030 connects forest protection, restoration, climate resilience, biodiversity, monitoring and professional skills. It offers Ukraine a practical framework for green recovery: safety and reliable evidence first, ecological diagnosis second, nature-based restoration third, and long-term monitoring throughout.
The core principle is clear: Ukraine must do more than return trees to the map. It must recover safe, diverse and climate-resilient forest ecosystems that can sustain nature, communities and the economy for generations.
Data note: This brief uses the latest consolidated open sources available. War, occupation and explosive contamination restrict comprehensive field verification. Burned, damaged, contaminated and permanently deforested areas are different categories and must not be treated as interchangeable.
