Steppe protected areas on the territory of Ukraine in the context of the armed conflict in the Donbas region and Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula

Full text

Steppe protected areas on the territory of Ukraine
in the context of the armed conflict in the Donbas
region and Russian annexation of the Crimean
Peninsula
Oleksij Vasyliuk*1, Dariia Shyriaieva2, Grygoriy Kolomytsev3 & Julia Spinova4
1 Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, Environment‐People‐Law (EPL),
Ukraine, Gogol str., 40, 08600 Vasylkiv, Ukraine; vasyliuk@gmail.com
2 Educational and Scientific Centre "Institute of Biology", Taras Shevshenko
National University of Kyiv, Lomonosova str., 57, 03022 Kyiv, Ukraine;
darshyr@gmail.com
3 Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, NAS of Ukraine, B. Khmelnytskogo str.,
15, 01601 Kyiv, Ukraine; g.kolomytsev@gmail.com
4 National University of “Kyiv‐Mohyla Academy”, Skovorody str., 2, 04655,
Kyiv, Ukraine; juliaspinova@gmail.com
*) Corresponding author
Bulletin of the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group 33 (2017): 15-23
Abstract: This article analyses the factors influencing the conservation status of protected areas in Ukraine caused by the unstable
political situation in the country in the years 2014‐2016, including military action and occupation of the eastern part of Ukraine by
Russian troops, and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and increasing military activity of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. We show
that these factors have caused acute adverse effects on protected areas. The eastern region of Ukraine, which contains the oldest
protected areas in the country, and the Crimean Peninsula contain the most valuable and ancient nature reserves and national parks,
interesting as reserves of rare species of flora and fauna, as well as objects of long‐term monitoring of changes in nature. This is where
much of the protected area supports steppe ecosystems. We examine the negative impacts on all steppe protected areas in Ukraine
caused by the physical impact of military operations or exercises, increasing intensity of spontaneous fires, pollution and other factors
stemming from the unstable political situation in the country.
Keywords: ATO zone, biodiversity, conservation, Donetsk region, environmental impact, fires, Luhansk region, protected areas.
Abbreviations: ATO = Anti‐Terroristic Operation, PA = protected areas, NNP = National Nature Park, RLP = Regional Landscape Park.,
SPNA= Specially Protected Natural Area.
1 5
DOI: 10.21570/EDGG.Bull.33.15‐23 Forum paper
Introduction
Since 1919, about 8,200 protected areas (PA) have been es‐
tablished in Ukraine with a total area of 4,071,362 hectares or
6.7% of the country’s surface. The PAs were created at irregu‐
lar intervals during this period, under different legislative
frameworks and pursuing different objectives. In 1951 and
1961, many PAs were abolished as being discordant with the
USSR’s policies for resource exploitation. The same happened
in the 1970‐80s, when amendments to legislation three times
triggered the abolishment of some of the PAs in connection
with some alleged discordance with contemporary legislation
and, in most cases, the liquidation was carried out to the
benefit of exploitation of new timber resources or mineral
deposits. In total, about 3,000 PAs lost their protected status,
constituting about 15% of the total area of all PAs established
in Ukraine. These losses led to an eclectic, unevenly distrib‐
uted network of protected areas. There are still ideas to im‐
prove of PA network representativity (Lavrenko 1927) that
were contemplated in 1927 but have not been implemented
yet.
A distinctive feature of the Ukrainian PA network is the pro‐
tection of steppe landscapes, as being traditional for the
country. The very recognition by scientists of the degree of
loss due to massive agricultural clearing of steppes in 1917‐
1918 gave momentum to environmental conservation. A sig‐
nificant proportion of the first protected areas and national
parks created within the current borders of Ukraine (starting
with Askania‐Nova in 1919) were located in the steppe zone.
The peak of establishing steppe conservation areas occurred
in the second half of 1920s. Almost all of them have pre‐
served their conservation status until now, remaining under
continuous protection for the last 90 years.
Since 2010, Ukraine has been going through complex social
and political perturbations that make the involvement of gov‐
ernment authorities, scientific institutions and public engage‐
ment in environmental protection significantly more compli‐
cated. In particular, during the public administration reform
conducted in Ukraine in 2010‐2011, the role of the State Con‐
servation Service as an independent executive authority coor‐
B u l l e t i n o f t h e E u r a s i a n D r y G r a s s l a n d G r o u p 3 3 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7

dinating conservation activities was abolished. Also the re‐
gional bodies of the Ministry of Ecology and Environmental
Protection that operated PAs in provinces were dissolved.
Within regional administrations there were various “ecology
departments” bearing various names and functions. PA estab‐
lishment and administration function became the task of
newly created agencies. However, these did not fully replace
the former agencies and in most cases conservation practice
has almost stopped. The systematic implementation of na‐
tional conservation policy has thus been effectively termi‐
nated. This affects the protection of existing PAs, the estab‐
lishment of new ones, as well as the continuing development
of conservation institutions. Furthermore, attempts to create
a new government authority that would have replaced the
liquidated body have been unsuccessful.
Since 2013, conservation practice has been deeply affected
by new, previously unknown, issues related to social and po‐
litical changes, such as: a) Crimean peninsula annexation; b)
military intervention of Russian military forces into Eastern
regions of Ukraine and c) illegal activities of the Armed Forces
of Ukraine in the nature conservation areas. Unfortunately,
those were Eastern provinces that traditionally were the
birthplace and development ground for national conservation
practice, and Crimea is the area with the highest density of
highly protected PAs.
Crimea
The total area of the 183 Crimean PAs is 216,000 hectares
(6% of the total PA surface of Ukraine). In Crimea, this in‐
cludes 6 out of a total of 19 Ukrainian nature conservation
areas of the highest level category of protected areas. Four
conservation areas, the only national park as well as numer‐
ous small PAs essentially represent regional steppe ecosys‐
tems. All the conservation areas administrations are subordi‐
nated to Ukrainian government authorities, instead of local
governments. There is no proprietary authority in Crimea to
take care of its own conservation areas (Shyriaieva & Vasyliuk
2014; Vasyliuk & Shyriaieva 2014a). In 2014, public and politi‐
cal events entailed the illegal separation of Crimea from the
territory of Ukraine and annexation of the Crimean Autono‐
mous Republic to the Russian Federation. Despite the fact
that world community and Ukrainian government did not
recognize the peninsula’s annexation, for the time being
Ukraine has lost control over Crimean territory. Change of
administrative subordination of Crimea, as well as loss of con‐
trol over its territory from Ukraine led to a number of nega‐
tive consequences for its conservation areas:
 certain PAs have been liquidated in order to solve prob‐
lems that could not be addressed while they existed, and
others have undergo construction or logging on their terri‐
tory;
 nature conservation areas have been subordinated to the
Republic Forestry Committee of the Russian Federation,
while, at the same time, scientific priorities were essen‐
tially disregarded as their primary function;
 planned conservation activities implemented by govern‐
mental bodies were stopped and constant operation of
protected areas, which was maintained in previous dec‐
ades, was terminated (Vasyliuk et al. 2015a; Vasyliuk &
Shyriaieva 2014a).
State of Crimean PAs after the Russian annexation is un‐
known. Establishing details about the current situation is
quite difficult due to the low possibility of obtaining current
operational information from the territory that is no longer
controlled by Ukraine. With the annexation, the Federal Law
on “Specially Protected Natural Areas” (SPNA) extended its
effect on the peninsula’s territory. According to this Law,
there are SPNAs of federal, regional and local level. There‐
fore, conservation areas and national nature parks (NNP) are
controlled at the federal level, while the rest are mostly of
the regional. Thus, conservation areas and national parks
shall be subordinated directly to the Ministry of Nature Re‐
serves of Russia, while the others shall be subordinated to the
sub‐sovereign entity, i.e. Crimea.
The policy of the self‐proclaimed republic aims to preserve
the PA territories under its local authority (Kryminform 2014).
At the same time, there is no unified vision of implementing
such intent. An option of creating a new institution that
would administer conservation areas (Kianews 2014), or unit‐
ing all the conservation areas into a single conservation area
(Vasyliuk 2016) was considered. In fact, in the same fashion
as the forestry enterprises, the conservation areas were sub‐
ordinated to the Crimea Republic Forestry Committee
(Izvestiya 2014).
Another negative aspect of Crimean government policy is the
commercial approach to the exploitation of natural and rec‐
reation resources of Crimean PAs. On 02 April 2014, the gov‐
ernment issued a decree establishing that visits to conserva‐
tion areas and national parks and use of touristic paths of
Crimea should be free of charge until the infrastructure could
be established to administer the revenue. At the same time,
the Russian Forestry Committee has declared the majority of
all conservation areas as “recreation objects” and established
scaled entry payment (Russian Forestry Committee 2014).
Crimean media actively advertise commercial tourism in Cri‐
mean conservation areas and nature reserves (Krymedia
2015). Such initiatives are caused by the shortage of PA fi‐
nancing available from the self‐proclaimed Crimean authori‐
ties.
Obvious negative consequences of Crimean annexation were
perceived in just 4 months after the annexation. As nature
conservation areas lost institutional connection to the Minis‐
try of Ecology and Environmental Protection and National
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the majority of the conser‐
vation areas employees were dismissed, subsequently termi‐
nating long‐term monitoring research at the conservation
areas, and partially losing academic legacy.
In October 2014, the Crimean Nature Conservation Area was
transferred to the Federal State‐Funded Institution “Complex
Crimea”, under jurisdiction of the Administration of the Presi‐
dent of the Russian Federation V. Putin (Kryminform 2015).
1 6 B u l l e t i n o f t h e E u r a s i a n D r y G r a s s l a n d G r o u p 3 3 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7

Transformation of the conservation area into a government‐
owned enterprise for elite hunting is a restoration of Soviet
traditions, restoration of safari practice, for the purpose of
which the conservation area was liquidated 57 years ago
(Kryminform 2015).
There are other negative aspects. Russian troops are de‐
ployed at the territory of Karalarskyi RLP, Charivna Havan
NNP, Opuk and Kazantip Nature Reserves. At the same time,
the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation broadcasts
information about mass‐scale military training at Opuk Con‐
servation Area (Environment‐People‐Law 2016) and Karalar‐
skyi Park (here Russian occupants have reconstructed an air‐
field), including air missiles, air defence systems and high‐
calibre arms, that cause substantial damage to the conserva‐
tion areas (Reporter 2016).
East Ukrainian Combat Area (Anti-Terrorist Opera-
tion Zone)
The military and political conflict in the Eastern Ukraine
(Donetsk and Luhansk regions) that, in 2014, led to using
heavy weaponry, large‐scale casualties and infrastructure
devastation, is still going on. Moreover, substantial damage
was incurred to surrounding landscapes including PAs. Before
the occupied territories contemporary frontier was marked,
battles were fought largely on the territory controlled by so
called “self‐proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Repub‐
lics” (Vasyliuk et al. 2015b; Vasyliuk & Shyriaieva 2014b).
The main negative factors causing damages to PAs are:
1. Passage of heavy vehicles (mainly tanks and other types of
crawler machines).
2. Craters created by explosions, each of which causes me‐
chanical damage to landscape and destruction of vegetation,
as well as leaving concentrated traces of sulphur and heavy
metals in the soil. Thus, around Donetskyi Kriazh RLP, experts
of the International Charity Organization “Ecology‐Law‐
Human” (ELH) have counted 15,505 craters of high‐calibre
rounds. Each of these has caused the contamination and loss
of use of 225 km² of surrounding soil surface (Melen'‐
Zabramna et al. 2015).
Some of the PAs that were essentially damaged by shelling:
NNP Sviati Hory, NNP Meotyda, Kalmiusske and Kreidova
Flora Sections of Ukrainian Natural Steppe Conservation Area,
RLPs Donetskyi Kriazh, Kramatorskyi, Kleban‐Byk and
Slovianskyi Kurort (Donetsk region), Luhanskyi, Prystenske,
Kreidiane, Bilohorivskyi, Perevalskyi, Naholchanskyi wildlife
reserves, Novokaterynivske Vidslonennia and Vidslonennia
Nyzhnioho Karbonu natural landmarks (Luhansk region).
3. Construction of trenches and other bunkers of all sorts for
personnel and machines. Trenches and other fortifications
were built on the territory of some of the conservation areas
(including Kreidova Flora conservation area that is located on
the liberated territories now). The fortifications have been
erected also in the offices of Kalmiusske USNR, Novo‐
katerynivske Vidslonennia Nature Landmark, at Donetsk Bo‐
tanical Garden, Balka Vodiana Wildlife Reserve, as well as
Kramatorskyi RLP (all the PAs in Donetsk region).
4. Fires at nature reserves territories. Assessment conducted
by ELH shows that about 3000 fires took place in the ATO
zone (Kolomytsev et al. 2014, Vasyliuk et al. 2014). The re‐
search was conducted using the data obtained through re‐
mote Earth surface probing MODIS (NASA). It encompassed
all events of fire outbreaks at the natural vegetation and rural
communities’ areas between June and September 2014. The
reason for such increased number of fires in the ATO zone
was the combination of a number of factors: a drought sea‐
son that is traditionally accompanied by local increase of dry
foliage fire outbreaks; unavailability of fire extinguishing in‐
frastructure (plundered fire‐fighting machinery, land mines in
woods and steppes, continuous firefights); significant amount
of fire outbreaks caused by explosions, as well as intentional
arsons for tactical purposes.
1 7
Figs. 1-3. Traces of large-scale fighting on satellite images,
Luhansk region (1-2), Donetskyi Kriazh RLP, Donetsk region
(3), 2014.
B u l l e t i n o f t h e E u r a s i a n D r y G r a s s l a n d G r o u p 3 3 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7

Only for the Donetskyi Kriazh RLP, the area damaged by fire is
3,952 hectares. At the same time, it is not possibile to evalu‐
ate the loss incurred to the biodiversity and the damage
caused to the soil by explosions and other consequences of
large‐scale fires at the protected territories (Kolomytsev et.
al. 2014).
5. Unauthorized cutting of wood by locals for domestic needs,
caused by the destruction of the heating network and natural
gas supply; logging for construction of defensive installations.
Where shelter wood belts were cut, additionally, this might
increase danger of wind erosion and dust storms.
6. Lack of of governmental control gave a push to unauthor‐
ized open‐pit mining of coal. Specialists of I.I. Schmalhausen
Institute of Zoology of National Academy of Sciences of
Ukraine together with the National Ecological Centre of
Ukraine assessed loss of steppe landscapes due to such type
of subsurface commissioning in Luhansk and Donetsk regions.
Since early 2010, a total of 634 quarries with a total area of
5,880 hectares were created at the territory of Luhansk re‐
gion; and 105 quarry complexes of 1,274 hectares were cre‐
ated in Donetsk region. The biggest area of illegal coal quar‐
ries is located in Antratsyt (1,416.95 hectares) and Perevalskyi
(2,555 hectares) districts. About 3,826 hectares or 53.5% of
the total area of quarries was created in steppe territories.
The rest was created on industrial lands, fields, woods and
even within transport infrastructure areas. The area of quar‐
ries within Luhansk region is equal to 2/3 of the total area of
regional nature conservation territories and it’s constantly
growing. Such illegal coal mining damaged some of the nature
conservation territories (Vasyliuk & Kolomytsev 2014): open‐
cast mines were spotted in wildlife reserves Miusynske Uz‐
hiria, Pershozvanivskyi, Illiriyskyi, Bilorichenskyi, Perevalskyi
(Luhansk region; Vasyliuk 2015), Larynskyi, Zorianskyi step
(Donetsk region).
7. Among other negative consequences, the glasshouse bo‐
tanical collection in the Donetsk Botanical Garden was dam‐
aged by inappropriate heating during the winter season.
8. The war caused gross damage to the offices of nature con‐
servation territories: the central office of the Luhansk Nature
Conservation Area (Luhansk region) was plundered (Borovyk
2015), in NNP Meotyda (UNIAN 2015), Provalskyi Steppe
(Luhansk region) and Khomutivskyi Steppe Nature Reserves
(Donetsk region; UNIAN 2014) the offices were seized by ter‐
rorists, while in Donetskyi Kriazh, Zuivskyi and Kleban Byk
RLPs (Donetsk region) they simply stopped their work. The
personnel, results, documents and nature reserve institutions
archives all were lost (Environment‐People‐Law 2014).
In 2015, the filming of the “Novorussia Army” promotional
video caused the extermination of a colony of 50,000 Sand‐
wich terns in Meotyda National Park (Kryva Kosa area). Over‐
all, the absence of the national park’s security led to increas‐
ing poaching by fishermen in the protected area. After the
filming was over, the crippled and non‐secured territory has
become a place for storing poaching nets (https://youtu.be/
snIwlOggo_o; accessed 10 November 2016).
So called “Donetsk People’s Republic” declared occupied
Meotyda territories, as well as Khomutovskyi Steppe Nature
Reserve, as “specially protected republican territory named
Khomutovskyi‐Meotyda” The new quasi‐institution is subordi‐
nated to the “Main Administration of Ecology and natural
Resources of Donetsk People’s Republic”, being a subdivision
of the “Ministry of Agricultural Policy and Products of Do‐
netsk People’s Republic” (https://vk.com/
khomutovskayastep_meotida; accessed 10 November 2016).
In addition, available within area under control of “self‐
proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic”, PAs with RLP status
were reclassified into the “republican national park” (https://
vk.com/rlp_donetckiy_kryazh; accessed 10 November 2016).
In June 2016, Ukraine’s Donetsk Regional Military and Civil
Administration ordered the subordinated local occupied ad‐
ministrations at these PAs in a completely different way. They
issued the Orders of Donetsk Regional Military and Civil Ad‐
ministration “On the Liquidation of Donetskyi Kriazh Regional
Landscape Park” (Donetsk state administration 2016a), “On
the Liquidation of Meotyda Regional Landscape
Park” (Donetsk state administration 2016b) and “On the Liq‐
1 8
Fig. 5. In the vicinity of Kreidova Flora Nature Reserve, Do-
netsk region, 2014. Photo: D. Shyriaieva.
Fig. 4. Kreidova Flora Nature Reserve, Donetsk region, 2014.
Photo: S. Lymanskyy.
B u l l e t i n o f t h e E u r a s i a n D r y G r a s s l a n d G r o u p 3 3 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7

uidation of Zuivskyi Regional Landscape Park” (Donetsk state
administration 2016c), which liquidated the offices of these
landscape parks. The complete liquidation of legal entities of
these landscape parks offices, instead of possible cutting of
their financing, turned out too cruel step.
Activity of the Armed Forces of Ukraine vs nature
protection
The location of several unsanctioned testing grounds of the
Armed Forces of Ukraine in national parks within the territory
controlled by Ukraine constitutes unexpected negative im‐
pacts on protected areas. Some of such territories were re‐
lated to former military activities in the Soviet times. How‐
ever, now military people are interfering in natural reserves,
causing substantial destruction.
In October 2015, regiments of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
entered the Kozachelagerska Arena of the Oleshkivski Pisky
National Park (Kherson Region) without approval of the park
management (Letter of the Oleshkivski Pisky National Park
dated 14.01.2016 No 01‐18/07 to Chairman of Radensk Vil‐
lage Council O.V. Kravchenko). No reply was given to the en‐
quiry of the national park management to the Ministry of
Ecology and Natural Resources, Ministry of Defence, National
Security and Defence Council of Ukraine (Letter of the Olesh‐
kivski Pisky National Park dated 15.12.2015 No. 01‐8/171
Chairman of the National Security and Defense Council
O.V. Turchynov) and to the specialized committee of the
Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Letter of the Oleshkivski Pisky
National Park dated 17.12.2015 № 01‐21/112 to the Chair‐
man of the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for
Ecological Policy, Nature Use, and Chernobyl Disaster Conse‐
quences Liquidation M.V. Tomenko). Military servicemen of
the Armed Forces of Ukraine in fact forbade the national park
inspectors and specialists to stay on its territory, thus their
work and the development of the national park was stopped.
The PA state security service was unable to perform its func‐
tions and research activity was virtually stopped. The 1,391
hectare reserve area requiring special protection regime is
located here. The Oleshkivska Desert ecological path is also
located here and has been visited by a number of tourists, to
which the national park provided paid services. Students of
Kherson State University and schoolchildren also failed to do
their research field practice within the territory of the na‐
tional park (Enquiry of Oleshkivski Pisky Scietific and Techni‐
cal Council members dated 10.12.2015 No 01‐18/165 to
Chairman of Kherson Region State Administration
A.S. Putilov).
Having no relevant decisions of governmental bodies, the
Military Commissariat ordered the village councils to warn
people on commencement of military exercise and on not
letting visitors to the Oleshkivski Pisky reserve (Letter of the
1 9
Fig. 6. Consequences of fire at “Obushok” PA (Donetsk re-
gion) on satellite image, 2014.
Fig. 7. Consequences of fire at the Department of the Lu-
hanks Nature Reserve “Provalskyy Step” on satellite image,
2014.
Fig. 8. Fortifications in the “Kalmiuske” Department of the
Ukrainian Steppe Nature Reserve (Donetsk region) on satellite
image, 2015.
Fig. 9. Fortifications in the Balka Vodiana PA (Donetsk region)
on satellite image, 2015.
B u l l e t i n o f t h e E u r a s i a n D r y G r a s s l a n d G r o u p 3 3 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7

Chairman of Tsiurupynsk District Military Commissariat dated
18.12.2015 No 1373 to Chairman of Radensk Village Council).
The national park management was not informed of that.
Later, a series of circumstances were revealed, which led to
military people capturing the Oleshkivski Pisky National Park.
For the first time, it was declared a national park in 1928;
however, it existed in this status for only 2 years, till 1930.
After World War II, this territory was given to the state forest
stock land of Tsiurupynsk State Forestry. This land was leased
as bombing testing ground – the so‐called former 48th Kher‐
son Aviation Testing Ground. However, the permit resolutions
for the testing ground expired. As of today, there are no
documents confirming the use of this land by the Ministry of
Defence of Ukraine. In 2010, the national park was created by
the Decree of the President of Ukraine (Supreme Council of
Ukraine 2010), and its text says clearly that the military test‐
ing ground existed there no longer.
Initially, it was offered to declare the whole territory of the
former testing ground as the national park – 19,000 hectares
in total. Its most valuable central part of c. 5,000 hectares
was to become the park reserve area and be used for re‐
search and the territory around it was allocated as recrea‐
tional zone to be visited by tourists. However, when the park
was created, the Tsiurupynsk State Forestry State Enterprise
refused to make a full‐scale national park and agreed to allo‐
cate only the central part of the sands zone for protection,
which was originally planned as natural reserve area.
Oleshkivski Pisky is a very favourable location for a national
park, because in the past the testing ground was seldom
used, only for bombing, which did not cause large‐scale trans‐
formation of the landscape. A small number of bomb craters
has an insignificant impact on the preservation of the sand
steppe landscape.
After the war in Eastern Ukraine began, the Armed Forces
returned to Oleshkivski Pisky, forgetting that the land lease
period expired 15 years before, and without execution of any
land use documents. Exercise with various weapons was car‐
ried out here. Thus, neither visitors, nor park staff could ac‐
cess this area.
In early February 2016, after several month of illegal military
exercise, a working group was created in Kherson Region
State Administration (2016) to determine the lawfulness of
national park land use for military purposes. At sessions, the
participants of this group did not manage to reach agreement
with representatives of the Ministry of Defence, thus it was
decided to ask the national park to go to court with a demand
to force the troops to free the illegally occupied former test‐
ing ground.
It appeared that within the Ministry of Defence system, liqui‐
dation of the testing ground and absence of land lease rights
are not considered to be a serious problem. On the contrary,
existence of the national park was called a “problem issue”,
which could be resolved through execution of documentation
allowing the Ministry of Defence to use the whole territory of
Oleshkivski Pisky, including the national park.
Later, ecologists detected the following violations of nature
protection regime on the territory of Oleshkivski Pisky Na‐
tional Park: extensive illegal forest cutting (the largest sepa‐
rately standing trees were chosen, which could be quickly
removed; https://youtu.be/e8JncW9K8q8); throughout nu‐
merous hectares, the earth was fully ruptured with crawler
threads in tank manoeuvres locations (https://youtu.be/
N1sFQY4RKQY); the sightseeing platform and national park
protection signs were destroyed by using it as targets; targets
were placed around the national park located in the centre of
the sand arena, to avoid shells leaving the testing ground
area, targets were installed, with troops firing from non‐
reserve part of the sand zone (https://youtu.be/bIlats7vxzQ)
into the middle of the national park.
At the same time, a press conference took place in Kherson,
attended by representatives of Oleshkivski Pisky National
Park, Black Sea Biosphere Reserve, and Askaniya‐Nova Bio‐
sphere Reserve (Kherson Region), the public, and scientists.
The press conference participants concluded that, in their
opinion, it is unacceptable that regiments of the Armed
Forces of Ukraine continue to stay within natural reserves
located on the territory controlled by Ukraine. Considering
the absence of any approvals, as well as considerable damage
to natural reserve territories, there is a need for the Military
Prosecutor’s Office to file the relevant claims for damages
incurred by the state as the result of deliberate damage to
the natural reserve fund. Apart from rehabilitation of the
damaged territories, in the opinion of the press conference
2 0
Figs. 10 and 11. Consequences of illegal military exercise at
“Oleshkivski Pisky” NNP, 2016. Photos: O. Vasyliuk.
B u l l e t i n o f t h e E u r a s i a n D r y G r a s s l a n d G r o u p 3 3 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7

participants, it would be a valid act from the side of the Min‐
istry of Defence of Ukraine to approve creation of national
parks on lands belonging to it: Samarskyy Bir National Park
(Dnipropetrovsk Region), Divychky (Kyiv Region), Shyrokyy
Lan (Mykolayiv Region) etc. (http://bit.ly/occupiedreserves).
Later the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine addressed President
Petro Poroshenko with a request to facilitate allocation of the
land plot of the so‐called Kherson Military Testing Ground by
cancelling the largest and most important part of the Olesh‐
kivski Pisky National Park.
After an active public campaign, an inter‐departmental meet‐
ing was held in the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources
of Ukraine, dedicated to the illegal presence of the Armed
Forces contingent (The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Re‐
sources of Ukraine 2016). This meeting was initiated by the
Minister of Defence of Ukraine addressing to the Minister of
Ecology and Natural Resources Ostap Semerak with a request
to approve the cancellation of the Oleshkivski Pisky National
Park. The meeting was attended by representatives of the
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, by the State For‐
est Agency of Ukraine, Kherson Region State Administration,
and the Environment‐People‐Law International Charity Or‐
ganization. In the opinion of the Ministry of Defence, the
whole territory of Oleshkivski Pisky needs to be given to the
Armed Forces for locating a military testing ground, and this
can be done only by cancelling the national park status, on
which the Ministry of Defence addressed to the President
Petro Poroshenko.
However, the situation changed radically during the meeting.
The representative of the State Forest Agency informed
(https://youtu.be/2p0bhzXAd7k) that there are land plots
within the Agency system, which can be given for the testing
ground. Representatives of the Ministry of Defence stated
that the actual area required for setting up a testing ground
comprises 5,300 hectares, which can be located outside the
national park (http://bit.ly/oleshky16).
Allocation of the new site for the military testing ground is
still in progress, but exercises have been stopped in the na‐
tional park, and the enclosure is removed.
Military regiments are occupying several land plots of the
Meotyda National Park, including that of the former Polovet‐
skyy Steppe Regional Landscape Park (Donetsk Region) now
forming part of the Meotyda. In particular, shooting range for
small guns, large calibre machine guns, and mine throwers,
together with timber boards covered with various materials,
used as targets, was located there. Only a steep slope where
the targets are placed on, protects the nearby village. The
testing ground is too far from the fighting line to state that it
is critical to place it here. There were no approvals from the
national park management or of the Ministry of Ecology and
Natural Resources.
Near Rybatske Village, Donetsk Region, defence structures
and pillboxes are being built without required approval of the
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources or of the national
park management.
Azovo-Syvaskyy NNP (Kherson Region) actually remained un‐
protected due to the occupation by the Armed Forces of
Ukraine, as unsanctioned military exercise is held here, with
use of gamekeeper posts as targets.
Manoeuvres were also started in the Tuzlivski Lymany Na-
tional Park in Odessa Region. However, active interference of
the national park managers stopped them and forced the
military to restore the damaged site (Southern courier 2016).
In April 2016, without the approval of the management of
Dzharylhatskyy National Park (Kherson Region), a military
exercise was carried out by the frontier guard and coast
guard, near the lighthouse (https://youtu.be/bZySX8NSA5E)
and along the island seacoast (https://youtu.be/
Lk8jVwG68ds).
On 5 October 2016, military people tried to get to Dzharyl‐
hach Island in two KRAZ trucks and one GAZ‐66 truck. The
latter sank, together with one KRAZ which tried to tow it out.
Both vehicles were rescued by the second KRAZ. This drive
also was not approved by the frontier guard and the national
park management.
A special operations force regiment came to the territory of
the Medobory Natural Reserve (Ternopil Region), acting ille‐
gally, without any notice to the natural park management,
with the aim to hold joint Ukrainian‐American military exer‐
cises with shooting (Teren 2016). This situation was settled
very unexpectedly: after a conversation with the natural park
security service, American instructors refused to stay there.
Military manoeuvres were also known to be held within the
Luhanskyy Natural Reserve, namely its part Triokhizbenskyy
Step (Luhansk Region).
According to Director of the Askaniya-Nova Biosphere Re-
serve (Kherson Region) V.S. Havrylenko, military machinery of
unknown regiments (https://youtu.be/ieD_iTXYiXU) passed
through the natural reserve, a complete reserve steppe site.
It is known that on 19 September 2015, a commander of an
unknown division led a column of 6 infantry combat vehicles
(ICV) for 17,140 metres through the Askaniya‐Nova Biosphere
Reserve of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of
Ukraine. The column going along the automobile road from
Chkalove Village, Novotroyitsk District, Kherson Region, to‐
wards Askaniya‐Nova Urban Settlement, Chaplynka District;
having reached the biosphere reserve border marked with a
stela and a 1.5 x 2 m nameplate in brick frame, the ICVs
crossed the border moat and entered the territory of the re‐
serve, passing through the buffer zone and after 1.5 km, hav‐
ing crossed the 8 m fire protection strip, entered the steppe
natural reserve area (the Pivdenna site – a 6,578 hectare dry
plant stand area), in spite of the sign forbidding to enter or
drive in. The Pivdenna site is a territory with unique natural
combinations of plants and animals on protection lists includ‐
ing the Red Book of Ukraine, and, at the same time, is ex‐
tremely vulnerable to fire. In spite of the warning from a
natural reserve employee, the track machines continued their
way through the nature reserve steppe. Only interference by
Director V.S. Havrylenko forced the military people to leave
the steppe.
2 1 B u l l e t i n o f t h e E u r a s i a n D r y G r a s s l a n d G r o u p 3 3 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7

Apart from that, military helicopters flew directly above the
habitats in the reserve.
The Ministry of Defence planned to have missile complexes
deployed on the territory of the Chornomorskyy Biosphere
Reserve (Kherson Region) and to hold exercises (Decision of
the National Security and Defense Council dated 11 Novem‐
ber 2015, entering into force by the Decree of the President
of Ukraine dated 1 December 2015 No 672‐22 “On urgent
measures for improvement of the state’s anti‐aircraft de‐
fense”).
The possibility of creating such a military testing ground was
actively studied in the first half of 2016 on the level of the
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The Chornomorskyy reserve
administration received several enquiries on this matter from
the Ministry of Defence, requesting to clarify how land can be
taken from the reserve. Moreover, the Ministry of Defence
are pressing the natural reserve management for permission
to deploy missile complexes on its territory (https://
youtu.be/70QRi_2U660). This issue is also known to be under
the control of the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU; Letter
from the Main Administration of Counter‐Espionage Defense
of the State Interests in Economic Safety of the Security Ser‐
vice of Ukraine dated 13.06.2016 No 8/2/3‐7115).
In the opinion of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, it is nec‐
essary to withdraw 5,500 hectares of the Yahorlytskyy Kut
stow (the whole stow; one‐third of the whole land part of the
reserve) and to set up a testing ground for anti‐aircraft mis‐
sile and reactive weapons, and aircraft, as well as for training
launches of battle missiles. The reasons for placing missiles
here are that there are the remains of an earth wall from So‐
viet times that is suitable for installing such a complex (by the
way, the natural reserve does not have the act of title for this
land, and most probably this site still belongs to the Ministry
of Defence), and also the need to locate such objects at the
distance of 90 km from the nearest settlements. Yahorlytskyy
Kut and the central part of the isthmus in Tuzlivski Lymany
National Park are suitable locations of this sort in Ukraine.
The territory of Yahorlytskyy Kut is one of the wildest zones
of the Ukrainian seacoast. Currently this territory constitutes
the central nucleus of the biosphere reserve (The Black Sea
Biosphere Reserve 2016). Thus, it is not possible to legally
acquire this site.
In 1985, the Chornomorskyy Biosphere Reserve was included
into the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, which is con‐
firmed with the UNESCO certificate dated 15 February 1985.
Acquisition of the key site of this international reserve would
inevitably be a severe blow to Ukraine’s reputation in the
global arena and would lead to exclusion of this reserve from
the UNESCO list.
The Askaniya‐Nova Biosphere Reserve was visited by OSCE
representatives headed by Mr. Andrew Richardson. The issue
of Ukraine fulfilling its obligations on maintenance and pres‐
ervation of international nature protection objects protected
by UNESCO was raised (Chornomorskyy Biosphere Reserve,
Askaniya‐Nova Biosphere Reserve). Representatives of the
mission were most surprised that no one from the Ukrainian
Armed Forces has met with the management of any of the
natural reserves.
Due to lack of information, it is impossible to fully assess the
impact of the Armed Forces of Ukraine onto the local natural
reserve stock. However, we have data from our own sources
about military manoeuvres held in the Druzhkivka Stone
Trees Natural Monument and deployment of military machin‐
ery in the “Forest on Granite” natural reserve stow (both in
Donetsk Region).
Conclusions
Loss of government control over a part of the Ukrainian terri‐
tory has led to physical damage of a considerable part of PAs
on such territories, including the ones in steppes. Apart from
that, on the territory controlled by Ukraine, defence improve‐
ment has led to increase of military manoeuvres. In a series
of cases, they were held within PAs. Until present time, no
efficient cooperation has been started between the Ministry
of Defence and the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources
on ensuring ecological safety during military activity, while
this approach is one of NATO standards, to which the Ukrain‐
ian army has to aspire, in our opinion. The first step should be
monitoring the current status and damages of PAs as the re‐
sult of military activity.
Acknowledgement
We are very grateful for the Translation Bureau “L'agency”
for translating the text into English.
References
Borovyk, L.P. 2015. Suchasni problemy stepovyh zapovidnykiv na
prykladi Strilcivs'kogo stepu. [Current issues within steppe re‐
serves on example of Streltsovskaya steppe] In: Materialy
Vseukrains'koi naukovo-praktychnoi konferencii z mizhnarodnoju
uchastju "IV Vseukrains'ki naukovi chytannja pam’jati Sergija
Tarashchuka". [Proceedings of the All-Ukrainian scientific-practical
conference with international participation "IV All-Ukrainian scien-
tific readings in memory of Sergei Tarashchuk"] pp. 29‐33. V.D.
Shvets, Mykolaiv, UA. [In Ukrainian.]
Donetsk state administration 2016a. Decree of the Head of admini-
stration "On liquidation of the regional landscape park "Donetsky
kriazh". URL: http://donoda.gov.ua/?lang=ua&sec=02.08&iface
[accessed 10 November 2016] [In Ukrainian.]
Donetsk state administration 2016b. Decree of the Head of admini-
stration "On liquidation of the regional landscape park "Meotida".
URL: http://donoda.gov.ua/?lang=ua&sec=02.08&iface [accessed
10 November 2016] [In Ukrainian.]
Donetsk state administration 2016c. Decree of the Head of admini-
stration "On liquidation of the regional landscape park "Zuyivsky".
URL: http://donoda.gov.ua/?lang=ua&sec=02.08&iface =
[accessed 10 November 2016] [In Ukrainian.]
Environment‐People‐Law 2014. Environmentalists have created a
map of protected areas, affected during war. URL: http://
www.epl.org.ua/events/1323 [accessed 10 November 2016] [In
Ukrainian.]
Environment‐People‐Law 2016. Russian Federation held military
excercises in Opuksky reserve in Crimea. URL: http://epl.org.ua/
events/2738 [accessed 10 November 2016] [In Ukrainian.]
2 2 B u l l e t i n o f t h e E u r a s i a n D r y G r a s s l a n d G r o u p 3 3 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7

Izvestiya 2014. Management of the Karadag Reserve considers tran-
sition of this unique area to the Committee on Forestry as raiding.
URL: http://izvestia.ru/news/568765 [accessed 10 November
2016] [In Russian.]
Kherson Region State Administration 2016. Resolution of the Chair-
man of Kherson Region State Administration No 42 dated
01.02.2016 “On the working group on issues related to use of the
territory of the Oleshkivski Pisky National Natural Park by regi-
ments of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. URL: http://nppop.gov.ua/
sites/default/files/260220166646461.pdf [accessed 10 November
2016] [In Ukrainian.]
Kianews 2014. In Crimea, visits to all reserves and parks are now free
of charge. URL: http://www.kianews.com.ua/news/v‐krymu‐
poseshchenie‐vseh‐zapovednikov‐i‐parkov‐sdelali‐besplatnym
[accessed 10 November 2016] [In Russian.]
Kolomytsev, G., Shyriaieva, D. & Vasyliuk, O. 2014. The impact of
fires in the zone of antiterrorist operation in Ukraine: assessment
using RS and GIS data. URL: http://biomodel.info/publications/rs‐
gis‐fires/ [accessed 10 November 2016]
Krymedia 2015. How much is the entrance fee to the Crimean re-
serves and parks: official price of 2015. URL: http://krymedia.ru/
society/3381321 [accessed 10 November 2016] [In Russian.]
Kryminform 2014. Crimean reserves remain in the republican subor-
dination. URL: http://www.c‐inform.info/news/id/2211 [accessed
10 November 2016] [In Russian.]
Kryminform 2015. Presidential state summer residences and the
largest Crimean Reserve merged into one entity under the direc-
tion of ex-mayor of Alupka city. URL: http://www.c‐inform.info/
news/id/17454 [accessed 10 November 2016] [In Russian.]
Lavrenko, Ye. 1927. Ohorona pryrody na Ukraini [Nature protection
in Ukraine]. Visnyk pryrodoznavstva 3‐4. [In Ukrainian.]
Melen'‐Zabramna, О., Shutiak, С., Voytsikhovska, А., Norenko, К.,
Vasyliuk, О. & Nahorna, О. 2015. Military conflict in Eastern
Ukraine - Civilization Challenges to humanity. 136 p. Environment‐
People‐Law, Lviv, UA.
Reporter of the Eastern Crimea 2016. Video of most ambitious mili-
tary exercise at the test site "Opuk". URL: http://reporter‐
crimea.ru/video‐samyh‐masshtabnyh‐uchenij‐na‐poli/ [accessed
10 November 2016] [In Russian.]
Russian Forestry Committee 2014. Protected areas: Paid services.
URL: http://gkles.rk.gov.ru/rus/info.php?id=613390 [accessed 10
November 2015] [In Russian.]
Shyriaieva, D.V. & Vasyliuk, O.V. 2014. Kakaja sud'ba zhdet prirodno‐
zapovednyj fond Kryma? [What fate awaits nature‐reserve fund of
the Crimea? Stepnoj bulleten' 41: 30‐33. [In Russian.]
Southern courier 2016. Army restores the natural environment at
the site of the failed missile test site in the South of Odessa region.
URL: http://uc.od.ua/news/Region/1182064.html [accessed 10
November 2016] [In Russian.]
Supreme Council of Ukraine 2010. Decree of the President of Ukraine
"About establishment of national nature park "Oleshkіvskі pіski".
URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/221/2010 [accessed
10 November 2016] [In Ukrainian.]
Teren 2016. Foresters in Ternopil drove the military away from Me-
dob ory r eser ve. UR L: htt p ://t e ren. i n.u a /art i cle/
lisnyky_na_ternopilshchyni_prohnaly_viyskovykh_z_medoboriv
[accessed 10 November 2016] [In Ukrainian.]
The Black Sea Biosphere Reserve 2016. Map of the Black Sea Bio-
sphere Reserve of NAS of Ukraine and it's surroundings. URL:
http://bsbr.ks.ua/images/bsbr_map.jpg [accessed 10 November
2016] [In Ukrainian.]
The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine 2016.
Recovery of military range site will not stop functioning of the
National Park "Oleshkivski Pisky". URL: http://www.menr.gov.ua/
press‐center/news/150‐news28/5114 [accessed 10 November
2016] [In Ukrainian.]
UNIAN 2014. Militants captured nature reserve near Mariupol. URL:
http://www.unian.net/society/1011462 [accessed 10 November
2016] [In Russian.]
UNIAN 2015. Militants-"environmentalists" are destroying the na-
tional park in the Donbas. URL: http://ecology.unian.net/
naturalresources/1138497 [accessed 10 November 2016] [In Rus‐
sian.]
Vasyliuk, O.V. & Kolomytsev, G.O. 2014. Nesankcionovane nadro‐
korystuvannja jak zagroza zberezhennju pryrodnyh pasovyshh
Donec'kogo krjazhu. [Unauthorized subsoil use as a threat to the
conservation of natural pastures Donetsk ridge] In: Zbalansovane
pryrodokorystuvannja: tradycii ta innovacii: materialy mizhnarod-
noi naukovo-praktychnoi konferencii [Sustainable Natural Re-
sources: Tradition and Innovation: Proceedings of the International
Scientific Conference] 196 p. DIA, Kyiv, UA. [In Ukrainian.]
Vasyliuk O. & Shyriaieva, D. 2014a. Naslidky aneksii' Krymu dlja
stanu ohorony ridkisnyh i znykajuchyh vydiv kryms'kogo pivos‐
trova [Consequences of the annexation of Crimea to state protec‐
tion of rare and endangered species of the Crimean peninsula]. In:
Roslynnyj svit u Chervonij knyzi Ukrai'ny: vprovadzhennja
Global'noi strategii zberezhennja roslyn. Materialy III Mizhnarod-
noi naukovoi konferencii [Flora of the Red Book of Ukraine: imple-
mentation of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Materials
of III International Conference], pp. 91‐94. Lviv, UA. [In Ukrainian.]
Vasyliuk, A. & Shyriaieva, D. 2014b. Vojna na vostoke Ukrainy ugroz‐
haet bioraznoobraziju. [War in eastern Ukraine threatens biodi‐
versity] Astrahanskij vestnik ekologicheskogo obrazovanija
[Astrakhan bulletin of environmental education] 4(30): 80‐88. [In
Russian.]
Vasyliuk, A., Shyriaieva, D. & Kolomytsev, G. 2014. Voennye dejstvija
v Ukraine priveli k rostu stepnyh pozharov. [Hostilities in Ukraine
have led to an increase in wildfires]. Stepnoj bulleten' 42: 36‐38.
[In Russian.]
Vasyliuk, O.V. 2015. U zoni ATO prodovzhujet'sja znyshhennja
zapovidnyh terytorij. [In the area of anti‐terrorist operation the
destruction of protected areas continues]. Pryroda i suspil'stvo 10
(118). [In Ukrainian.]
Vasyliuk, O., Norenko, K., Shyriaieva, D., Skvorcova, V., Tjestov P. &
Homechko, G. 2015a. «L'odovykovyj period» u zapovidnij spravi:
2014‐2015 ["Ice Age" in Protected Areas: 2014‐2015]. Ekologija.
Pravo. Ljudyna 25‐26 (65‐66): 68.
Vasyliuk, O.V., Nekrasova, O.D., Shyriaieva, D.V. & Kolomytsev, G.O.
2015b. A review of major impact factors of hostilities influencing
biodiversity in the eastern Ukraine (modeled on selected animal
species). Vestnik zoologii 49(2): 145‐158.
Vasyliuk, O.V. 2016. Crimea vows to ignore environmental laws of
Russia. URL: http://pryroda.in.ua/zapzf/krym‐zayavlyaye‐pro‐
namir‐ihnoruvaty‐ekolohichni‐zakony‐rosiyi/ [accessed 10 Novem‐
ber 2016] [In Ukrainian.]
2 3 B u l l e t i n o f t h e E u r a s i a n D r y G r a s s l a n d G r o u p 3 3 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7