Article de Elie Matar (MS EnvIM 2023-24)

Introduction

In the theater of war, the battlefield transcends the reach of artillery fire and the suffering of soldiers. Often overshadowed by chaos and destruction, the environment emerges as a silent casualty of armed conflict. Wars have an immense impact on the environment, disrupting entire ecosystems and affecting air, water, and land.

Embark on a journey to explore the hidden effects of war, where the consequences are felt not only by the people but also by the fragile ecosystems that support life. Through a well- analyzed case, we will illustrate the diverse impacts of armed conflict on environmental degradation. Every conflict, from the trenches of World War I to the contemporary battlefields of Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Ukraine has a distinct environmental impact that emphasizes the pressing need for increased awareness and immediate action.

The effects of conflicts themselves on the environment differ widely. Even though they may not last for a long period of time, some international armed conflicts can cause significant and enduring harm. Conflicts usually have a profound impact on the environment depending on who is fighting, where they are fighting, and how they are fighting (Conflict and Environment Observatory, 2020).

This article explores the overlooked impact of war on the environment, highlighting the hidden damage, the forgotten victims, and the strategies for prevention and recovery.

The repercussions of war on the environment

Although the human cost of warfare is undeniable, there are also significant and frequently disregarded effects on the environment. War greatly impacts the environment, which in turn influences natural resources and ecosystems. This includes destroying ecosystems, polluting air, water, and soil, draining resources, contributing to climate change, generating waste and debris, and leaving long-lasting damage to natural and human systems (United Nations, NA).

Wars have both direct and indirect impacts on all levels. The direct consequences of war involve immediate damage and destruction whereas indirect consequences of war involve consequences that emerge with time and are not seen immediately (Murray, King, Lopez, Tomijima, & Krug, 2002). The direct environmental impacts of war include the widespread devastation of natural landscapes, habitats, and agricultural lands, as well as the destruction of plant and animal species. War also leads to deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, contamination of water sources, damage to irrigation systems, and finally infrastructure destruction, which often results in the release of toxic debris (Conflict and Environment Observatory, 2020).

In addition, when nuclear, chemical, or biological facilities are targeted, there is a risk of toxic chemical leakage and radioactive pollution in the soil, air, and water. This in turn may lead to long-term contamination that can make areas unsuitable to live in for decades. For instance, during the Gulf War in 1991 and the Iraq War in 2003, the deployment of depleted uranium munitions by coalition forces resulted in the dispersion of radioactive dust across Iraq, contributing to increasing rates of cancer, birth defects, and other health complications among Iraqi civilians (Abdullah, Matti, Al-Salih, & Godbold, 2013).

On the other hand, the indirect environmental impacts of war are also significant, sometimes made worse by ineffective governance in the aftermath of conflicts. Environmental problems are not given priority due to other social and economic demands, resulting in mismanaged waste, pollution from stolen locations, and harmful survival tactics continuing after the conflict. Moving people from one place to another causes more stress on land, leading to unsustainable land practices.

Additionally, military actions result in damaged land, adding more pressure on resources through mine clearance and reconstruction work. The slowing down of environmental regulation hinders advancements in controlling pollution, protecting biodiversity, and adapting to climate change, while the efforts to recover come with long-term substantial environmental consequences (Conflict and Environment Observatory, 2020).

From therry to reality

The Vietnam War

The Vietnam War was the first war that was televised where global media brought vivid images and accounts into people’s homes, creating a political and public conscience. Such publicity promoted the gathering of data, and the recording of environmental harm caused. Unprecedented environmental damage from the war left generations with contaminated water supplies, degraded land, and severe health problems.

The deliberate deployment of toxic chemicals by US forces from 1961 to 1971 marked the first widely recognized case where scientific study and documentation revealed the environmental damage caused directly and intentionally during wartime (Mahreen, 2022). The aim behind using these toxic chemicals was mainly to destroy crops and obstruct vegetation. “The war destroyed the environment, destroyed the ecosystems, and the people,” according to the 1970 Paris Conference and the Bertrand Russell Tribunal, which both accused the United States of using chemical warfare in Vietnam with disastrous results (Nguyen, 2023). According to the Canadian Environmental Quality guidelines, the dioxin contamination present in some Vietnamese regions fall within the “High Risk Category”.

In addition to that, landmines have dramatically reduced the soil productivity where there is 50% reduction in rice yield (Gangwar, 2003).
Regarding wildlife, Vietnam experienced a decline in bird species richness post conflict, specifically in those consuming insects and fruit as well as high concentrations of dioxins were found in the ovaries and livers of turtles. Moreover, local pigs and chickens were affected as well. Entire habitats including swamps were decimated by chemical warfare or “herbicide” use during the Vietnam war leaving lasting consequences as entire habitats, especially the swampy marshes, were destroyed resulting in crop destruction, declining animal and plant species, and fish stocks (Khan, 2022).

Overall, the use of toxic chemicals to destroy crops and vegetation during the Vietnam War was the main cause of the significant environmental damage. In addition to destroying wildlife, the conflict resulted in contaminated water, degraded land, and serious health issues for the populations. Agriculture suffered greatly because of landmines, which further decreased soil productivity. The war brought to light the long-term effects that armed conflict has on the environment.

The Israeli – Palestinian – Hezbollah War

Another case that can be taken into account is the recurring Israeli conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, which have also left detrimental environmental consequences for the region. In Gaza, recurrent conflicts have severely compromised environmental stability. Groundwater and the Mediterranean Sea have been contaminated as a result of airstrikes and that have destroyed farmland, vegetation, and seriously damaged water and sewage systems.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) claims that dangerous chemicals have leaked because of the destruction of industrial sites and fuel storage facilities during conflicts, polluting the air and soil (UNEP, 2009). Furthermore, there are risks to ecosystems and human health due to the extensive rubble and debris from destroyed buildings, which has made hazardous waste management difficult.

A recent study estimated that Israel’s military operations had an annual baseline carbon footprint of nearly 7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2019. This exceeds Palestine’s entire carbon footprint by 55%, highlighting the substantial environmental impact of military activities even outside of active conflicts (Lakhani, 2024). To quantify some of the emissions related to military construction activities, constructing the Gaza Metro (Hamas’ underground network of tunnels) generated an estimated 176,000 tones of greenhouse gas emissions.

And switching to the Israeli side, building Israel’s iron wall that spans 65 km along its border with Gaza contributed almost 274,000 tones of CO2, which is approximately equal with the entire emissions of the Central African Republic in 2022 (Lakhani, 2024). The climate cost of the first 60 days of Israel’s military response was equivalent to burning at least 150,000 tons of coal (CommonSpaceEU, 2024) Noting that calculations were based on carbon-intensive activities and thus being most probably an underestimate. Previous research indicates that, if emissions from the full military supply chain were taken into account, the true carbon footprint might be five to eight times higher.

Neimark, a researcher at University of Lancaster and the Climate and Community Project (CCP) stated that “The military’s environmental exceptionalism allows them to pollute with impunity, as if the carbon emissions spitting from their tanks and fighter jets don’t count. This has to stop, to tackle the climate crisis we need accountability”, being one of the many cries to stop this social and environmental catastrophe (Lakhani, 2023).

In Lebanon, the 2006 war had a major negative impact on the environment. The Israeli bombing of the Jiyeh power plant, for example, caused a disastrous oil spill into the Mediterranean Sea that contaminated more than 150 kilometers of Lebanon’s coastline (EJ Atlas, 2022). According to the UNEP, there were long-term effects on fisheries and local livelihoods as a result of the oil spill’s severe effects on marine biodiversity and coastal ecosystems (UNEP, 2007).

Shelling also caused fires in southern Lebanon’s forests, which resulted in habitat destruction and deforestation. Cluster munitions and unexploded ordnance spread across agricultural lands have further hindered land use and farming practices, worsening soil degradation and lowering agricultural productivity (Habib, R., & Ghanawi, 2007).

More recently, the ongoing wars of the past year, especially in Gaza, have seriously harmed the environment. There are serious health and environmental risks due to the accumulation of more than 37 million tons of debris, which contains dangerous materials and heavy metals. It is predicted that this cleanup will take more than ten years. Health risks have also increased due to air pollution caused by constant bombings. The climate crisis has also been made worse by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from military operations; in late 2023, explosives use released CO₂ levels equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb (The New Arab, 2024) .

Overall, the environmental damage caused by the wars in Gaza and Lebanon highlights the long-term and extensive effects of war on delicate ecosystems. Both human health and the environment are impacted by the harm, which ranges from soil and water contamination to
biodiversity loss and the buildup of hazardous waste. These challenges demonstrate that in order to minimize damage and give priority to sustainable recovery initiatives, it is important that the environmental costs of war be addressed right away.

Legal framework

Warfare and weaponry continue to evolve, but international humanitarian law sets clear boundaries on the use of weapons to minimize harm to civilians. The law prohibits the use of indiscriminate weapons that do not differentiate between military targets and civilians or between civilian objects and combatants. Regarding weaponry, weapons that inflict suffering or excessive harm are prohibited.

In addition to anti-personnel landmines, cluster munitions, and blinding laser weapons, certain treaties have prohibited nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Although they are not specifically prohibited, other weapons like unguided rockets and large aerial bombs have terrible consequences for civilians when used in populated areas (Amnesty International, NA).

Under international law, there are specific norms and principles that also lay the ground for the usage of weapons that are harmful to the environment. These include the Hague Conventions and the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions. The Hague Conventions address the impact of armed warfare on the environment by establishing guidelines to reduce unnecessary destruction during conflict.

These conventions forbid acts that destroy property or natural resources willfully and without a military need. As the conventions aim to reduce harm to civilians and their environment, they also place a strong emphasis on proportionality, making sure that military operations don’t cause undue environmental harm in comparison to their military advantage (Desgagne, 2000).

Similarly, the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions expressly forbid the use of military tactics that are meant to seriously harm the environment in a broad, lasting, and permanent manner. They emphasize that environmental damage should never be a purposeful target in armed conflicts and require the protection of both natural resources and civilians. Additionally, by ensuring that military operations distinguish between legitimate targets and civilian or ecological areas, these protocols uphold the principle of distinction (Desgagne, 2000).

To sum up, the legal frameworks established by the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions provide vital protections against the environmental damage brought on by armed conflict. By enforcing stringent bans on the use of weapons that inflict excessive or indiscriminate harm, these frameworks seek to safeguard both civilian life and the environment.

By promoting principles such as proportionality, distinction, and the protection of natural resources, they serve as a vital legal foundation for limiting the environmental impact of warfare. To protect the environment during times of conflict, it is crucial to continuously reinforce and uphold these standards because their efficacy and enforcement rely on states’ and international organizations’ commitment to guarantee full compliance and agreement.

Concluding thoughts

In conclusion, armed conflict’s effects on the environment are frequently disregarded despite their profound influence, which leaves a lasting mark on both ecosystems and communities. War not only destroys human populations but also damages the environment irreversibly, contaminating the air, water, and soil and destroying natural resources.

The Vietnam War and the current wars in Gaza and Lebanon are two examples that serve as sobering reminders of the long-term ecological harm that war causes. Despite existing legal frameworks like the Hague and Geneva Conventions, enforcement, transparency, and clarity remain a challenge. Although the recent COP28 conference highlighted the urgent need to address the intersection of war, security, and the climate crisis, no concrete action has been taken.

In order to protect the environment and future generations, meaningful steps must be taken to hold armed forces and the military industry accountable for their actions. Recognizing the environmental damage caused by conflicts is essential for change. We aim to create a “net-zero war world,” where conflict does not come at the expense of the environment. If the primary purpose of war is to weaken the enemy’s military capabilities, why should ecosystems and the planet consistently pay the price ?

–
Bibliography

1) Abdullah, R., Matti, L., Al-Salih, H., & Godbold, D. (2013). Environmental pollution by depleted uranium in Iraq with special reference to Mosul and possible effects on cancer and birth defect rates. Med Confl Surviv, 7-25.

2) Amnesty International. (NA). Armed Conflict. NA: NA.

3) Conflict and Environment Observatory. (2020, June 4). How does war damage the environment ? Conflict and Environment Observatory, p. NA.

4) Desgagne, R. (2000). The Prevention of Environmental Damage in Time of Armed Conflict: Proportionality and Precautionary Measures. Yearbook Of International Humanitarian Law,109-129.

5) EJ Atlas. (2022, May 2). Israeli Bombing of the Jiyeh Power Plant and consequent Oil Spill, Lebanon. Retrieved from EJ Atlas: https://ejatlas.org/conflict/jieh-power-plant-oil-spill-lebanon

6) Gangwar, A. (2003). Impact of War and Landmines on Environment. Himalaya: Centre for Environment Education.

7) Habib, R., R., Z. K., & Ghanawi, J. (2007). The impact of cluster munitions on agriculture and the environment in Lebanon. Environmental Policy and Law, 604-609.

8) Lakhani, N. (2024, January 9). Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe. The Guardian, p. NA.

9) Mahreen, K. (2022, March 25). The Environmental Impacts of War and Conflict. K4D, pp. 1-13.

10) Murray, C., King, G., Lopez, A., Tomijima, N., & Krug, E. (2002). Armed conflict as a public health problem. The BMJ, 346-349.

11) Nguyen, A. (2023). Redefining War Crimes: The Bertrand Russell Tribunal’s Expansion of the Definition of War Crimes. Georgetown: Georgetown University.

12) The New Arab. (2024, June 18). Gaza conflict has caused major environmental damage, UN says. The New Arab, p. NA.

13) UNEP. (2007, February 12). Lebanon Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. Retrieved from United Nations Environment Programme:
https://reliefweb.int/report/lebanon/lebanon-post-conflict-environmental-assessment

14) UNEP. (2009, February 13). Environmental Assessment of the Gaza Strip. Retrieved from United Nations Environment Programme:
https://www.unep.org/resources/assessment/environmental-assessment-gaza-strip

15) United Nations. (NA, NA NA). How Conflict Impacts our Environment. Retrieved from United Nations Peace and Security: https://www.un.org/en/peace-and-security/how-conflict- impacts-our-environment