Environmental recovery as an enabler of reconstruction

Reflections from RemTech Europe 2026

By Johan De Fraye – Executive Director of the NICOLE Foundation

Moderating Session 32 on the environmental impact from conflict at RemTech Europe 2026 offered an opportunity to consider a series of seemingly diverse presentations through a broader lens. The session covered environmental impacts and recovery in Ukraine, environmental risk screening in Gaza, restoration of agricultural land following mine clearance, conflict-related water resource challenges in Syria, and the integration of environmental assessment into agricultural recovery and mine-action. While the contexts differed, the central message was remarkably consistent: environmental recovery is not something that happens after reconstruction; it’s one of the conditions that makes reconstruction possible.

Across all presentations, environmental impacts were shown to extend well beyond visible destruction. Damaged industrial facilities, disrupted wastewater systems, contaminated land, military debris, unexploded ordnance, degraded water resources and weakened governance structures create environmental liabilities that can persist for decades if not addressed early. These risks directly affect public health, food security, livelihoods, biodiversity and economic recovery. They also influence where people can safely return, where agriculture can resume, and where investment can be directed with confidence.

One particularly striking theme was the convergence of environmental assessment, mine action, agricultural recovery and reconstruction planning. Traditional approaches often treat these as separate disciplines. However, the experiences shared from Ukraine and Gaza illustrate that effective recovery requires them to be integrated. Decisions about mine clearance, debris management, agricultural restoration and infrastructure rebuilding increasingly depend on understanding environmental risks and contamination pathways.

The session also highlighted the growing role of environmental data and risk-based decision making. Whether through GIS-based environmental screening tools, crater-density mapping, groundwater assessments or contaminated site investigations, environmental information is becoming an operational tool for prioritising recovery investments rather than simply documenting damage. This reflects a broader shift from environmental assessment towards environmental decision support.

A less technical, but perhaps equally important, reflection concerns the human dimension of recovery. During discussions on Ukraine, Gaza and Syria, I was reminded that environmental recovery is ultimately about people as much as it is about pollution. As environmental professionals, we naturally focus on risk assessments, contaminated sites, monitoring programmes and remediation strategies. Yet working alongside local experts, institutions and communities, listening to their priorities and remaining engaged over the long term also matters. Technical assistance is most effective when it is built on relationships, trust and shared understanding. In my experience, this human dimension can sometimes be underestimated, yet it is often one of the foundations upon which successful collaboration and recovery are built.

This perspective is closely aligned with the mission of the NICOLE Foundation. While the Foundation was established to bring technical expertise, and practical environmental solutions to complex recovery challenges, our experience has shown that recovery is rarely driven by technical knowledge alone. It is also driven by partnerships, and a shared commitment to support communities facing extraordinary circumstances. The projects presented during Session 32 reinforced that environmental recovery is ultimately a collaborative endeavour, bringing together local stakeholders, international organisations, scientists, engineers and practitioners around a common objective. The Foundation is privileged to contribute to these efforts, not only by providing specialised expertise, but also by helping connect people and organisations that can collectively support more resilient and sustainable recovery pathways.

I would like to thank Pier Carlo Sandei from UNEP Ukraine, Nathan Park from FAO, Mohammed Amro from UNICEF in Syria, Stephen Wright from The HALO Trust in Ukraine, and Oliver Phipps, Lotte Leclézio and Simon Gibbons from ERM for openly sharing their experience, data and lessons learned during the session. Their contributions provided the foundation for these reflections and demonstrated the value of collaboration across disciplines and organisations.