Russia Abandons a Treaty: Environmental Protection During Armed Conflict

Amidst all the bloodshed in Ukraine, it was an episode easy to ignore, and ostensibly meriting very little attention: on 22 July 2025, Russia announced its withdrawal from the Ramsar Convention, marking a significant moment in international environmental governance. The Ramsar Convention, one of the oldest and most widely adopted multilateral environmental agreements, aims to protect and sustainably manage wetlands – global ecosystems which, for a substantial part of each year, are submerged in water. Russia’s decision to leave the treaty was triggered by a decision of a majority of member states to this Convention to address the environmental damage to Ukrainian wetlands caused by Russia’s invasion. Russia’s departure from the Convention raises concerns about the future of wetland conservation. It also highlights a broader debate on whether the Ramsar Convention is effective in protecting wetlands in armed conflicts, and the limitations of international environmental treaties in fostering cooperation among conflicting parties.

Wetlands Matter

Wetlands are varied and diverse environments. They include natural areas such as lakes, rivers, marshes, mangroves, coral reefs, as well as human-made sites such as rice paddies and reservoirs. Being among the most productive ecosystems, they play a crucial role in supporting diverse flora and fauna, such as migratory bird species. Wetlands are also essential for humans. They supply freshwater, food, building materials, flood control, assist with groundwater recharge and help mitigate climate change. However, despite their importance, wetlands are shrinking and deteriorating worldwide. The Global Wetland Outlook 2025, the most comprehensive assessment of the status of wetlands worldwide, warns that without urgent conservation interventions and investments, the loss of wetland ecosystem services could amount $39 trillion. Hence, an international treaty such as the Ramsar Convention, which unites countries to protect wetlands through a global framework, remains vital.

The Ramsar Convention

The Ramsar Convention or the Convention on Wetlands, also formally known as The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, is an intergovernmental treaty signed in 1971 in Ramsar, Iran, and came into force in 1975. As of September 2025, 172 countries, from all the world’s geographic regions (i.e. not just the temperate regions), have acceded to become ‘contracting parties’. At the heart of the Convention is the philosophy of ‘wise use’, which is defined as ‘the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development.’ Therefore, the goal of the Convention is to conserve and sustainably use wetlands for the benefits of both people and nature.

The contracting parties of the Convention have pledged to promote the wise use of their wetland sites through: (1) national plans, policies and legislation; (2) site-level management; and (3) public education and awareness. In 1990, member countries adopted guidelines to implement the concept of ‘wise use’, and the process includes: (a) creating national wetland policies, (b) developing programmes for inventory, monitoring, research, training and education, and (c) establishing integrated management plans for wetland sites. A wealth of supporting resources provides the framework and practical guidance for implementing wise use strategies.

Every country that joins the Convention is required to designate at least one wetland for inclusion in the Ramsar List. Wetlands are chosen based on specific criteria that assess their ecological character and importance. These designated sites receive recognition both nationally and internationally, highlighting their global ecological, cultural and economic significance. The Convention uniquely includes marine areas up to 6 m in depth, addressing coastal wetlands and their role in ‘blue carbon’ conservation. So far, the Convention has promoted the designation of more than 2,500 Ramsar sites, covering at least 245 million ha of wetlands of international importance. This global coverage is a significant accomplishment in recognising and protecting wetlands as a critical ecosystem.

An Unprecedented Ramsar Resolution

Russia’s February 2022 all-out invasion of Ukraine has adversely impacted Ukrainian wetlands, either through occupation or direct damage to 16 Ramsar sites in Ukraine, with 15 more sites considered to be at risk from expanding military activities. In response, the member states to the Convention, who meet every three years to assess compliance and progress, adopted in November 2022 Resolution XIV.20 entitled, ‘The Ramsar Convention’s response to environmental emergency in Ukraine relating to the damage of its wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Sites) stemming from the Russian Federation’s aggression.’ Resolutions do not carry the same legal weight as the treaty's commitments since they typically provide guidance, propose actions, or represent the collective views of the contracting parties on certain topics. Nevertheless, Resolutions help clarify the meaning of obligations and encourage action on new or ongoing problems.

The Resolution amounted to a timely and admirable response to an environmental emergency. It also showed significant potential in protecting wetlands during armed conflict by focusing on environmental damage assessments to the Ramsar Sites in Ukraine through institutional cooperation. And it was preceded and followed by a great deal of other galvanising work. The Ramsar Secretariat engaged directly with international organisations such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and joined the ‘Inter-Agency Coordination Group on environmental Assessments for Ukraine’ to coordinate relevant environmental assessments and share expertise. Voluntary financial contributions from member countries such as the UK and US supported the assessment efforts.

The final report of the environmental assessment was released at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (COP) to the Convention, which was held at Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe in July 2025. It found that the war has impacted 48 of Ukraine's 50 Ramsar Sites, with 31 directly affected, including four experiencing major ecological changes, such as hydrological disruptions. Damage includes contamination, pollution, deforestation and destruction of infrastructure, with indirect impacts such as reduced management capacity and ecosystem services. Military activities and the June 2023 destruction of the Kakhovka dam on the Dnieper River in the Kherson region of Ukraine caused significant ecological harm. The report also claimed that further and long-term monitoring is needed to fully understand and address the ongoing impact.

Russia’s Withdrawal from the Ramsar Convention

Russia announced that it was leaving the treaty, which was adopted by the Soviet Union in 1971 and ratified in 1975, a day before the Convention of 2025, charging that the Resolution which called for the provision of a report had, allegedly, politicised the Convention and gone beyond its original purpose. According to Russia, the Convention has exceeded its applied mission since 2022, with member countries and the Secretariat allegedly ignoring its calls to adhere to its original scope. The government in Moscow also argued that Russia’s position was rendered untenable as it cannot be part of international agreements where members question its jurisdiction over territories acquired during the war in Ukraine.

The result of this was not only that no action could be taken about the wetland sites damaged or threatened in Ukraine, but also that 35 Ramsar Sites in Russia, many of which hold the highest conservation status in the country, have lost international protection. Despite withdrawing from the Convention, Russia has pledged to continue wetlands protection through national legislation. ​ However, environmental concerns remain because these former Ramsar Sites are rich in resources like peat, hydrocarbons, fish and bird populations. Without global oversight, these ecologically and economically valuable areas could be at risk of exploitation.

Is the Ramsar Convention Effective in Protecting Wetlands During Armed Conflict?

Before the Resolution, the Convention relied on two mechanisms to ensure compliance: the ‘urgent national interests’ provision, which allowed countries to modify or delist Ramsar Sites, often reducing conservation obligations, and the Montreux Record, which identified wetlands needing priority conservation but required voluntary consent of the countries and detailed assessments, making it unsuitable for immediate action during conflict. However, both mechanisms were ineffective in addressing the urgent environmental challenges posed by armed conflict, highlighting the need for a more responsive approach.

The adopted Resolution was an admirable attempt to address emergencies during armed conflict, offering a more targeted and timely approach compared to existing mechanisms like the Montreux Record. However, all that the gesture achieved is, perhaps, to compile a record of the damage Russia caused to biodiversity, which may be useful when the conflict eventually stops, and may help in restoration efforts. Yet apart from that, the Resolution achieved nothing in protecting wetlands currently under Russian control, and precipitated Russia’s exit from the treaty.

Critics of the Resolution also argue that the use of terms such as 'aggression' in the text of the Resolution overstepped the environmental mandate of the Convention and unnecessarily antagonised Russia. The unprecedented nature of the Resolution, along with its adoption by vote (50 in favour, 7 against and 49 abstentions) rather than the more traditional consensus, also raises questions about whether this approach was either constructive or useful. Of course, the dispute about the application of the Convention acts as a useful reminder that Russia’s aggression not only destroys lives; it also destroys the environment. Still, the question remains: was the invocation of this resolution, with the subsequent dispute leading to Russia’s departure from the Convention, useful for protecting the environment?

© Kelvin S-H Peh, 2025, published by RUSI with permission of the authors.

The views expressed in this Commentary are the authors', and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

For terms of use, see Website Terms and Conditions of Use.

Have an idea for a Commentary you'd like to write for us? Send a short pitch to commentaries@rusi.org and we'll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. View full guidelines for contributors.