This article aimed to evaluate the ecological and economic consequences of military actions on agricultural land in Ukraine, identifying key indicators to assess the environmental impact of warfare and facilitate subsequent agribusiness restoration in the post-war period. The research was based on a comprehensive analysis of the environmental, economic, and social consequences of military actions for Ukraine’s agricultural sector. This analysis used field surveys, satellite data, laboratory soil analyses, and official statistics. The research established that more than 200,000 hectares of agricultural land were damaged as a result of hostilities, around 20% of which was the most fertile land taken out of agricultural use. Exceedances of permissible levels of heavy metals in soil were recorded in the Kharkiv, Donetsk, Mykolaiv, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions: lead by three times, cadmium by 2.5 times, arsenic by twice, nickel by more than twice and zinc by 1.6 times. Conversely, no exceedance of the maximum permissible concentrations of mobile forms of heavy metals, including lead and cadmium, was detected within the agricultural lands studied in the Vyshhorod district of the Kyiv region. Significant exceedances of background levels of heavy metals in soil pose long-term risks to the quality and safety of food products, lead to economic losses, and endanger public health. This emphasises the importance of monitoring soil contamination in areas affected by hostilities and at agricultural enterprises. The research revealed that direct economic losses included the loss of over 4 million hectares of crops and the destruction of over 100 grain storage facilities with a total capacity of 2 million tonnes. There was also a decrease in yields on over 500,000 hectares due to the loss of irrigation systems. Indirect losses were reflected in a 15-20% reduction in production, a 35-40% increase in food prices, a 40% decline in investment volumes, and the suspension of operations for more than 30% of small and medium-sized enterprises. The socio-economic consequences included the migration of over 6.5 million people and a deterioration in food security. However, the territory in question also possesses significant potential for recovery
soil degradation; agricultural sector; costs; food security; state support