Russia’s killing of nature: war crimes of different kind
In the southeastern part of Crimea lay the Meganom Peninsula, an 850-hectare natural treasure. Since 2007, it has been protected under Ukrainian law as a natural monument – a status reserved for unique natural formations of exceptional conservation value.
Meganom's uniqueness stems from the rare combination of steppe and coastal – marine ecosystems that have remained virtually untouched by civilization since their formation. This lack of disturbance has enabled a distinct assemblage of flora and fauna to thrive. The Peninsula is home to more than 126 bird species, including 14 listed in the Red Book of Ukraine – the country's official register of endangered species. The plant life is equally diverse: around 183 species grow here, including 11 listed in the Red Book of Ukraine, four on the IUCN Red List (the global inventory of species at risk of extinction), five on the European Red List (list of species threatened at the European level), and ten endemic species found nowhere else on Earth.
This concentration of rare and endemic species makes Peninsula's ecosystem exceptionally fragile, as they are adapted to specific environmental conditions. Moreover, Meganom also serves as a vital conservation role for a myriad of birds. It functioned as a 'sanctuary' along major migration routes – a vital stopover where migratory birds rest before continuing their journeys.
Shielded by Ukrainian law from construction and other human interference, the Peninsula thrived. Sadly, everything changed with Russia's arrival and their occupation of Crimea.
Russia deemed the Peninsula an ideal site for the so-called 'Tavrida' art cluster – a large-scale cultural and leisure project initiated by the Russian Federal Agency for Youth Affairs designed to promote Russian culture on occupied territory. It functions as a youth-focused resort featuring gigantic installations by Russian artists (currently standing at more than sixty), a concert venue, a film studio (construction ongoing) while also providing amenities for human tourism and entertainment, including hotels, restaurants and shops.
On 26 December 2019, the so-called Sudak State Assembly, an illegitimate pro-Kremlin body purporting to administer the city of Sudak, transferred large portions of the site into the federal ownership of the Russian Federation. To build their tourist site, they removed its protected status. Shortly after, drilling rigs and other heavy construction began operating daily, with off-road and other heavy vehicles driving through the most sensitive conservation areas. The main phase of construction was completed around May 2023, with Putin personally sending official congratulations for the opening of the centre.
This sealed the fate of the Meganom Peninsula. Once a pristine landscape safeguarding Crimea's biodiversity, it has been repurposed to serve Russian indulgence – dotted with buildings and installations visible even from space. Where the Quail Field once stood – home to Red Book plant species – there is now reportedly an excavated wasteland occupied by entertainment complexes. On Capsel Bay, an important site for bird migration and nesting, a film studio is currently under construction.
What remains now? Will the Peninsula stand as yet another testament to Russia's destructive actions in occupied territory – nature's wounds ignored, accountability denied? It must not. It is the deliberate killing of a natural protected area – a war crime that must be recognised and prosecuted as befits the crime.
What does the law say?
Under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations ('HR'), Russia is obliged to respect, "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force" in the occupied territory. It means that the Occupying Power must maintain the laws in force and not modify them with its own, unless it is necessary to ensure security or advance the needs of the local population.
Under Article 53 of the Geneva Convention IV ('GC IV'), Russia is prohibited from destroying enemy property (meaning property belonging to a hostile party, in this case, Ukraine) on the occupied territory, unless "such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations", meaning that the destruction must be "materially indispensable" for military operations ("i.e., for fighting or combat and directly related activities"). Destruction of property without military necessity is a war crime under international criminal law.
What does the law mean in this case?
Russia's actions at Meganom Peninsula violated these obligations at every turn.
First, permitting construction on a protected site violates Russia's obligation to uphold the laws of the occupied territory under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations. Under Ukrainian law, construction and any other activity that may threaten the preservation of the Peninsula is prohibited. Russia replaced these provisions by introducing their own legislation, where the protected status of the Peninsula was lifted to allow construction. It ought to go without saying that a change of this nature – the building of a tourist site - does not serve any security purpose or the needs of the local (occupied) population; instead, it advances Russia's interest in establishing a commercial and entertainment hub promoting its cultural narrative on occupied territory. It violates Article 43 of the Hague Regulations.
Second, this activity constitutes 'destruction' of property under IHL.
Meganom Peninsula is a Ukrainian state property and thus protected from destruction by IHL. Destruction is understood broadly, covering a wide range of actions including "demolishing, pulling down, ridding of, tearing, mutilating, disabling or any other means" so that it becomes partially or completely "unusable or irreparable".
Damage inflicted on the Peninsula is not a straightforward case of destruction of the kind international tribunals have encountered in their practice – such as the demolition of a building by a shell. The Peninsula is a far more complex object than a building: it is a multifaceted ecosystem, comprising many interdependent components, including the landscape, species, climate, where harm to one element directly affects others, creating a domino effect.
The detrimental effects produced on the Peninsula as a result of construction of 'Tavrida' center unfold across multiple layers and over time fitting into the broad range of actions that characterize 'destruction' under IHL.
Some of these effects may be more obvious. For instance, excavation of the Quail Field, if confirmed, could mean the complete elimination of endemic plant species, thus essentially 'destruction' of this component of the Peninsula.
Other impacts may be more nuanced and multifaceted. The construction reportedly passed through a field historically used by birds as a stopover to replenish energy reserves during their migration. The loss of the site could trigger a cascade of effects for birds: reduced survival of adult birds during migration, and consequently, population decline with a range of associated diversity impacts.
It is also important to recognize that the damage is ongoing and not completed as might be the case in many acts of such vandalism,. Although the main construction was completed in 2023, the area continues to experience unprecedented human pressure. In 2024 reportedly around 60 000 people from Russia visited 'Tavrida'. The tragedy of these activities for the Peninsula is sustained noise, litter, and other human disturbance that upset the delicate ecosystem. Such continuous disruption can interfere with the breeding of a range of species, including rare and endangered, and ultimately contribute to their decline.
These are only summaries of the terrible damage done by humans to a priceless protected area. A full assessment of the damage would require comprehensive environmental surveys and expertise. However, even though the Russian authorities prefer to be blind to the damage, it is obvious what serious damage results from the destruction of the Peninsula very function and purpose – to serve as a natural sanctuary, not a monument to Russian imperialism.
Lastly, such destruction cannot be justified as a matter of military necessity. As explained, 'military necessity' implies that destruction must serve a military purpose. By its very nature, the construction of this art center is entirely non-military, intended solely for tourism and cultural activities. The notion that a site built to celebrate Russia's occupation can be justified by military necessity can easily be rejected.
In short, the occupiers deliberate damage to the Peninsula and the killing of the nature and biodiversity contained therein is a war crime – the destruction of invaluable property that is as much a crime as it is a tragedy.
Unfortunately, the tragic tale of Meganom Peninsula is not an isolated one. It is one of the many Ukraine's natural protected areas that are silently suffering under Russia's occupation and nihilistic ways. Today, more than 500 protected areas in Ukraine remain under occupation – cut off from oversight and vulnerable to exploitation. The destruction of Ukraine's protected natural areas demands a systematic investigation capable of addressing responsibility, in particular at the level of the Russian governmental structures and those who command these crimes and who bear the greatest responsibility for them.
Environmental Mobile Justice Team (MJT) of Global Rights Compliance is supporting Ukraine's Specialised Environmental Prosecutor's Office (SEPO) in investigating such incidents as war crimes – an unprecedented effort, as Ukrainian prosecutors are among the first in the world to prosecute environmental damage as war crimes. MJTs operate as part of the Atrocity Crimes Advisory (ACA) Group for Ukraine – a multilateral initiative established by the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States to support and assist Ukrainian prosecutors in investigating and prosecuting international crimes committed during a full-scale war. The precedents that Ukrainian law enforcement agencies set today will not only ensure accountability but also shape the IHL of tomorrow. Sustained international support for SEPO is essential ifthese vital aims are to be realised.
Nature cannot speak for itself, yet it endures the consequences of Russia's occupation. It deserves justice and accountability – and it is our responsibility to seek them.
Nataliia Pavlovych, Legal Adviser with Global Rights Compliance