By Elizabeth B. Jones
In January, Natalia Gozak, Executive Director of Greenpeace Ukraine, and Meglena Antonova, Executive Director of Greenpeace Bulgaria, granted interviews with GlobalEurope editor Elizabeth Jones. Both organizations face unimaginable challenges in their efforts to document and propose remedies for the environmental degradation caused by Russia’s unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine four years ago. The sheer scale and inhumanity of Russia’s crimes not just against the Ukrainian people but also against its environment cannot be overstated, and the constant bombardments and preventable accidents have had toxic ripple effects in neighboring states, including Bulgaria. The damage to the Black Sea’s aquatic ecosystem and the Kakhovka Dam breach are the most extreme examples of what many scientific and legal experts now call Russia’s ecocide against Ukraine and, indeed, the entire region.[1]
Yet what shines through both conversations is the determination to find a way forward using the strategies of creative opposition to environmental destruction forged by Greenpeace in both nations decades ago. These include the systematic documentation of crimes against nature and the development of sustainable solutions to address the damage and prevent further harm. In the case of Ukraine, it was the Chornobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 that inspired Greenpeace to organize there. In Bulgaria, it was the proposal to build a nuclear plant on seismic ground that fueled Greenpeace’s successful opposition to the plan in 2005. Another crucial aspect of this work is the cooperation between Greenpeace and other non-governmental organizations, especially because in both countries (as in many parts of the world), there is scant political support for systematic and thoroughgoing environmental reforms in the government, energy, and other industrial sectors.
Despite the enormous hurdles to positive change, both Gosak and Antonova are energized by the dedication and courage of local environmental advocacy groups and even single actors eager to challenge the status quo. These grassroots initiatives, together with Greenpeace’s efforts to engage civil society, especially young people, in the processes of transition away from fossil fuels and toward green energy, both organizations’ campaigns to raise popular awareness of climate change threats and rapid loss of biodiversity, and the building of communities of constructive action against indifferent, corrupt, and hostile actors, is one of the silver linings of this savage and unrelenting war.
INTERVIEW WITH NATALIA GOZAK, GREENPEACE UKRAINE
Elizabeth B. Jones: Greenpeace Ukraine is a very young organization, formed in September 2024, but has accomplished so much. Could you outline for our readers the discussions that led to the founding of Greenpeace Ukraine and some key milestones?
Natalia Gozak: Actually, Greenpeace was already active in Ukraine in the early 1990s in response to the Chornobyl tragedy of 1986, and it was focused on ensuring nuclear safety, restoring clean drinking water, and managing toxic waste, among other things. It folded, unfortunately, after priorities shifted in Ukrainian society. In 2022 Greenpeace’s work in Ukraine was in response to the full-scale invasion by Russia and entailed a collaboration among a few European Greenpeace organizations. The main goals were to address the green recovery of Ukraine and showcase best practices. Thus, together with these European partners, we completed the reconstruction of the heating system in Horenka’s hospital and equipped Hostomel’s kindergarten (Kyiv region) with solar panels; we also launched two research missions in Chornobyl and continued to monitor the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. And in September 2024, Greenpeace Ukraine was finally officially created. As an established organization, we could then shift our operations from project mode to implementation.
EBJ: Could you tell us more about how Greenpeace Ukraine defines its priorities? How do you balance the search for remedies to the catastrophic damage to Ukraine’s environment by Russia’s war of aggression—what some scientists now call an “ecocide”—and longstanding environmental goals like the transition to clean(er) energy?
NG: Operating in such an environment is a huge challenge, and we try to figure out our way in an ever-changing context. Our main goal is to ensure that Ukraine becomes an example of green recovery and modernization for the world. We want to showcase how Ukrainian infrastructure destroyed by the war can be built back better and how outdated energy systems can be replaced by modern renewable solutions. At the same time, we are responding to cases of major environmental war crimes such as the Kakhovka dam destruction, oil spill(s) in the Black Sea, and the decimation of new safe facilities for the confinement of nuclear waste in Chornobyl. We also intervene in other cases where we have expertise.
The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in June 2023 has been the biggest environmental catastrophe to occur during the war to date—a true case of ecocide. After Russians destroyed the dam, huge volumes of water from the Kakhovka reservoir flooded areas downstream of the Dnieper River, resulting in huge human and economic losses, killing fauna, and tainting some unique ecosystems. Moreover, as the groundwater level dropped in the areas around the former reservoir, the microclimate of the whole area became more arid and has caused major problems in water availability, with catastrophic consequences for Ukrainian farmers and ecosystems. At the same time, during the subsequent months and years we have seen a unique case of ecosystem self-restoration in the now free-flowing river and natural riverbed areas, where natural flora and fauna have recovered.
As for the major oil spill we witnessed in December 2024, that was the result of two old Russian oil tankers colliding in the Black Sea and unleashing an oil spill that spread throughout its northern half. Oil pollution spread rapidly along the shoreline of Crimea and up to the Odesa region near the Romanian border. Russian authorities not only failed to address the massive oil spill properly (both on Russian territory and at the seashore of occupied Crimea). They also failed to draw lessons from a very similar accident in 2017 that should have prepared them to face future spills. Moreover, the same old and outdated tanker vessels are still used as part of a so-called shadow fleet moving around the European shores, threatening the entire region with similar environmental catastrophes.
The problem is not only that the environmental damage caused by this war is catastrophic, it is also not possible to investigate and address all of its facets because of war-related risks. I am certain that the best way to “find remedies for the damage” is to stop this war. And as soon as Ukraine regains control of its territories, it will be possible to assess the damage and find proper solutions.
EBJ: How does Greenpeace Ukraine fit into the existing regional network of Greenpeace and other European organizations dedicated to finding remedies for environmental problems?
NG: As already mentioned, finding remedies is mostly not possible at this stage. We contribute to the discussion with the unique expertise of Greenpeace in the sphere of nuclear disasters to better understand the situation and prevent the worst-case outcomes. Our experience is based on field knowledge gleaned from the Chornobyl and Fukushima nuclear tragedies, and the nature of our organization allows us to provide truly independent assessments. We focus more on documenting environmental crimes than proposing remedies.
EBJ: Does Greenpeace Ukraine work closely with the Ukrainian Ministry for Environmental Protection and Natural Resources and/or other relevant government offices?
NG: Unfortunately, the Ukrainian government abolished this ministry in July 2025, merging its functions with the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Agriculture. But to answer your question: no, we do not work closely with any governmental bodies. Our role is to drive the energy transition and green recovery from the grassroots and community level first and foremost. But our publications, which document environmental crimes, are shared widely.
EBJ: The First Climate Week in Ukraine last October drew 60+ exhibitors! Could you say more about their areas of emphasis and what Greenpeace Ukraine hopes the lasting impact will be from this type of gathering?
NG: We are proud to be among the founders of the very first Ukrainian Climate Week in 2025. Schools, municipal enterprises, universities, civil society organizations, representatives of protected areas, and businesses joined this awareness week, so that over 150 activities in 75 cities and villages attracted more than 5,000 participants! It was rather unexpected, especially as most of those events focused squarely on the topic of climate crises. But we believe that (1) it is important sometimes to distract people from the reality of war, and this first climate week event confirmed this need, and (2) the fact that Ukrainian society overwhelmingly wants to be part of Europe and not part of a Russian empire is underscored by the broad support for environmental and climate priorities, especially when a suitable format is provided for the public to express this support. So, we plan to continue and expand the Climate Week event in future years, so that it becomes a tradition.
EBJ: Are there promising opportunities for rebuilding after Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities, towns, and villages? Could you say more about the models for positive change being developed by Greenpeace Ukraine?
NG: Greenpeace contributes strongly to the following models of positive change:
- We aim at adding renewables in the reconstruction of energy supplies at hospitals (starting with our first project at Horenka’s hospital) and then continue the Solar for Ukraine initiative through which we have already supported thirteen large hospitals across Ukraine, providing them with solar power systems. This initiative has planted the idea among medical institutions that solar power is a desirable and beneficial solution for the Ukrainian people and the climate.
- We also trained women as solar panel installers in 2024 and 2025, which resulted in sparking the idea that the huge war-driven gap in the Ukrainian labor market for photovoltaic installers (who traditionally have been men) could be filled by women. Here, we see that the first steps are being taken successfully, and other international initiatives also have started offering such training, but there is still work to be done.
- Our latest revolutionary project has taken place in the city of Trostyanets, where we have equipped a multi-apartment building with geothermal energy for heating and hot water. This project has the potential to become an excellent model for the substitution of gas heating with renewable energy systems. It is not yet finalized, so more results will follow.
EBJ: Despite the extraordinary challenges and dangers of your work, Greenpeace Ukraine has assembled a remarkable team and, as noted at the outset, you have achieved a lot in a very short time. Which of Greenpeace Ukraine’s future campaigns and plans give you the most hope? Have you found broad support among Ukrainians for your work?
NG: Our working environment is truly challenging, especially since mid-January, when Kyiv was heavily attacked and its electrical and centralized heating systems were badly damaged in the midst of bitterly cold weather. As a result, we now have in Kyiv 2-6 hours of electricity per day (if any). The temperature in the homes of my colleagues varies between 9 and 14 degrees Celsius (48 to 57 degrees F), and an internet connection is not always available. But I am proud to work with a team of professionals and truly motivated people at Greenpeace Ukraine. Energy challenges only show how important it is for Ukraine to make the transition to decentralized, independent, and renewable energy solutions.
INTERVIEW WITH MEGLENA ANTONOVA, GREENPEACE BULGARIA
Elizabeth B. Jones: Please sketch for our readers the history of Greenpeace in Bulgaria. What were the founders’ goals? Was the formation of Greenpeace Bulgaria part of Greenpeace’s broader initiatives in the region or were there environmental problems unique to Bulgaria that the founders sought to address?
Meglena Antonova: Greenpeace Bulgaria was founded in 2011—thanks to the support of Greenpeace in Central and Eastern Europe—and became part of a regional network of organizations working together. But Greenpeace had been active in Bulgaria before that, when in 2005 it organized an Energy Revolution tour along the Danube, demanding the transition to renewable energy and pointing out the risks in the development of another nuclear power plant in Bulgaria. Greenpeace in Central and Eastern Europe started a legal case to oppose the delivery of the permit for the nuclear plant on the grounds that it was to be constructed in a seismic zone. As a result, the project was halted and eventually abandoned. After that, and with the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union, it became even more necessary for activists to advocate for green policies and solutions in Bulgaria in order to improve the overall European environmental framework.
EBJ: Are there campaigns that achieved even better results than Greenpeace Bulgaria anticipated? In contrast, has Greenpeace Bulgaria been forced to abandon projects that the organization plans to revisit when conditions change?
MA: The Bulgarian team has always tried to be as optimistic as possible with respect to the change that we can achieve in a political environment that is very difficult to navigate. This has been especially true in recent years, as the space for civil society has shrunk rapidly. Thus, we have examples in both directions: the organization rarely abandons projects, but sometimes it might be seen this way from the outside, as we see our role as pioneers—pushing for topics and changes that are new to society and then moving on to something different when we see that additional stakeholders have joined the movement.
Throughout the years we have worked on sustainable fishing, ecological agriculture, the end of single-use plastics, biodiversity protection in the Black Sea, and the transition to clean energy, among other things. In all these arenas, we have examples of results we did not anticipate. For instance, in 2022 we vigorously opposed the creation of a coal mine near Sofia, the capital. We started the campaign in 2018 when the permit to build the mines was granted by the government. By that time, we had missed all the deadlines to request environmental permits, and at that point the law only allowed landowners to bring a claim against the decision to build. In a desperate attempt to find these landowners on the ground, we simply went there in person and met Emil—a farmer who was willing to oppose in court one of the largest energy oligarchs in the country. We supported his case, and the culmination came in 2022. We lost Emil’s case, but it turned out that the permit had expired by that time so that the company had to restart the procedure if it wanted to start digging. This was a great success for the local community that wanted to develop the area as a tourist and agricultural destination rather than an industrial one.
EBJ: Could you discuss how the Greenpeace Bulgaria team decides to dedicate its energies at present? Have its priorities shifted in response to the Russian war against Ukraine and the recent political upheavals in Sofia?
MA: Back in 2022, when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine started, we shifted our work quite significantly towards supporting all the Ukrainians who were fleeing to Bulgaria. We joined forces with a local organization called Mother Ukraine and transformed our warehouse and community hub into a center for the collection of items in support of the refugees and an information center for incoming refugees.
We also focused our energy work on the even stronger need for energy independence through fossil fuels phaseout, as we were seeing in real time how the dependence on fossil fuels is sustaining this war and continues to this day. This has of course led to an even greater social polarization on certain topics that have an environmental impact. The search for natural gas in the Black Sea is one such example: where many Bulgarians see potential for energy independence, we are even more concerned about the dependence that it will create on a finite source of energy, controlled by powerful corporations and over which different governments will seek to exert influence.
At present, our focus is on the fight of local communities in several coal regions against air pollution coming from the power plants. We also seek to promote individual and collective solutions for energy independence, such as joining or creating your own energy community or putting a solar panel on your balcony, and we also closely follow the developments of the search for natural gas in the Black Sea and how this might affect our efforts at creating marine protected areas.
EBJ: What is Greenpeace Bulgaria’s relationship with Bulgaria’s Ministry for the Environment and Water? Is there good communication between Greenpeace Bulgaria and the Ministry and other relevant government departments?
MA: The Ministry does not necessarily express willingness to collaborate with our organizations, as they see us as critics of their work. In reality, what we want to do is to strengthen their position by making their work more evidence-based and professional and by imposing higher standards on polluters instead of serving big polluting companies. We still have a long way to go in the common understanding that civil society in Bulgaria is not an enemy of public institutions but instead is there to make the place we live in better for as many people and other creatures as possible.
EBJ: How does Greenpeace Bulgaria collaborate with other non-governmental organizations and scientific institutions such as Green Balkans, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and international organizations? There seems to be a rich intellectual infrastructure in Bulgaria dedicated to finding remedies for environmental problems and therefore the potential for productive partnerships.
MA: We have had a very good experience collaborating with a range of other civil society organizations and scientific institutions. One of our latest collaborations is with the Oceanology Institute, part of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. We worked together on a report that explains why one of the aquatories in the Black Sea should become a marine-protected area. We have also collaborated with Professor Pimpirev of the Antarctic Institute, with whom we advocated for the ratification of the Global Ocean Treaty. We supported the research of two scientists from the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Studies Institute, Dimitar Berov and Stefania Klain, who were doing microplastics research on board the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior during its tour in the Black Sea in 2017.
As far as other green organizations are concerned, the list of joint projects is very long. We constantly participate in different coalitions on various topics, simply because the environmental community in Bulgaria is not that large and we need to be united to achieve our aims.
EBJ: How does Bulgaria’s membership in the European Union shape Greenpeace Bulgaria’s planning, its ability to set goals and the strategies to accomplish them?
MA: The different policy processes in the European institutions are very important for our work, because traditionally Bulgarian governments have not been the most ambitious on environmental issues and they often need a push coming from the outside in order to improve local legislation. This is why we follow EU policy processes and decide whether we should push for the proposals in Bulgaria to be even more ambitious.
EBJ: How do grassroots and local initiatives that tackle environmental problems influence Greenpeace Bulgaria’s decision-making and focus?
MA: We receive requests for support and assistance from local people on a regular basis and to such an extent that it is very hard to respond to all of them meaningfully. Even if we want to support almost all of the requests we receive, it is physically impossible, therefore we try to give as much advice as we can about what people can do to address the issues they face. We then keep our focus on some of the national issues that require more capacity and might be too big for local initiatives to tackle. There are always exceptions, especially when a local issue aligns with our national priorities, such as in the case of the air pollution caused by a coal power plant in the city of Dimitrovgrad and the very active local activist group there that initiated our collaboration in 2021.
EBJ: Do you have any thoughts about how young Bulgarians view the loss of biodiversity, climate change, air pollution, and other environmental crises? Where do you find the necessary energy and optimism to continue your important work?
MA: We have the privilege to work closely with young people and listen to their concerns and interests through the work of our youth hub, Magnit. The young and active people in Bulgaria are very concerned about environmental issues, much more than, for example, politicians in power are. They are also a source of energy for our work. Additionally, the team gets very inspired from the fieldwork we do, especially when it has a direct impact on local communities.
Natalia Gozak is the Director of Greenpeace Ukraine. She studied ecology at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and went on to co-found several well-known environmental organizations in Ukraine. She has worked for the United Nations Development Program, Ecoaclub Green Wave, WWF Ukraine, Ecoaction, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). While her family is defending Ukraine, she dedicates herself to stopping the destruction of nature and ensuring that future generations of Ukrainians can live on a healthy planet.
Meglena Antonova is the Director of Greenpeace Bulgaria. She has worked in various roles in the organization for nearly ten years. Previously, she was an assistant and analyst at the Bulgarian Wind Energy Association. She graduated in Law from the University of Applied Sciences in The Hague, the Netherlands, and the University of Oslo, Norway.
Elizabeth B. Jones is a retired professor of German and European history, specializing in gender, rural, and environmental history. She now lives in the US state of Oregon, in the Pacific Northwest, and is involved in forest restoration and community service.
[1] On the immense damage to the health of the Ukrainian people and to its natural environment, see Daniel Hryhorczuk et al., “The environmental health impacts of Russia’s war on Ukraine,” Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 19: 1 (2024); Josep Vila Subiros et al., “The Impact of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine on Protected Natural Areas,” in C. Morar et al. (eds), Achieving Sustainability in Ukraine through Military Brownfields Redevelopment (Springer, 2024), 125-138; for an example of the war’s catastrophic impact on the region’s environment, see https://bird.bg/en/the-black-sea-in-peril-the-echoes-of-war-ripple-beyond-borders/ A recent exhibition in Bulgaria underscored the Russian threat to the region’s natural environment https://www.moew.government.bg/en/the-stop-ecocide-ukraine-exhibition-is-launched-at-the-moew-one-year-after-the-tragedy-in-nova-kakhovka/ On ecocide as a worldwide threat see https://www.stopecocide.earth/ and https://ecocidelaw.com/. See also the Briefing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Russia’s Ecocide in Ukraine: Environmental Destruction and the Need for Accountability (July 16, 2024) 118th Congress, 2nd Session.
Photos: Natalia Gozak (right); Meglena Antonova (left)
