Soils at Risk: How Fragmented Planning Undermines Soil Health in Ukraine’s Recovery

Healthy soils underpin food security, climate resilience, and sustainable spatial development. International frameworks such as Land Degradation Neutrality and Sustainable Land Use Systems, alongside European initiatives including the Soil Monitoring and Resilience Law and the EU Soil Strategy, emphasise the need for sustainable land management. Despite this, policy implementation across countries and regions remains fragmented, resulting in the continued degradation of soil ecosystem functions. In Ukraine, these challenges are amplified by exceptionally high levels of land tillage (over 56% of the territory) and by the impacts of full-scale war, including blast craters, toxic contamination, destruction of soil structure, and landmines affecting hundreds of thousands of hectares. This study examines whether Ukraine’s existing planning system is capable of meaningfully integrating soil health considerations during post-war recovery and in the context of EU accession. We hypothesise that institutional weakness and a mismatch of planning priorities impede sustainable land use management. 

The methodology combines an analysis of national institutional conditions with planning case studies from three municipalities. It is supported by a review of international research on the alignment between national sustainable land use policies, requirements for local planning documentation, and their practical implementation, with particular attention to gaps between formal commitments and actual planning practices.

The analysis of municipal planning and land management shows that soils and surface plots are predominantly treated as economic assets, with limited assessment of their ecological functions. Ambitious national objectives on soil protection are weakened during local implementation, as planning documents tend to prioritise land-use decisions driven by short-term economic considerations. Existing control instruments—such as landscape planning components, Strategic Environmental Assessment, and public consultations are proven to be largely ineffective due to limited legal influence over landowners and developers, as well as persistent challenges in coordination and quality across planning levels.

This study identifies key causes and consequences of this approach. In frontline regions, immediate security concerns override long-term environmental objectives, while other municipalities lack the sufficient resources necessary to meet the complex requirements of legislation and implement measures envisaged by sustainable land management policies. 

The main barriers to treating soils as an integrated ecological system include institutional incapacity, formalistic planning procedures, fragmented responsibilities unsupported by adequate funding, and planning documentation structures that prevent ecological accounting of soil damage and functional change. Addressing these limitations would require a reframing of planning priorities, including cross-cutting recognition of soil health, stronger guidance for plan developers, and the attribution of both economic and factual value to soils within binding preliminary territorial analyses. Greater emphasis on incentivising land-use instruments, rather than control-based mechanisms, is particularly relevant given limited municipal capacity. In total, significant policy integration and re-orientation are necessary to achieve NNLT and soil degradation targets during Ukraine’s recovery.