Regardless of where it happens, war is a human tragedy. Today, there are two main theatres of war – Gaza and Ukraine, which have collectively led to the deaths of nearly 50,000 people. Apart from these, more than 50 conflicts are raging in a number of countries from Yemen to Sudan. Here in Sri Lanka too, we have experienced the debilitating effects of war and conflict.
But are people the only victims of war? The clear answer is “no”. Countless animals perish in every conflict and war. Indeed, the entire environment and ecosystem are harmed by wars. In fact, some warring factions deliberately damage the environment in an attempt to weaken the enemy. The world witnessed this tragedy in Vietnam and in many other places.
According to the United Nations (UN), the environment has often remained the main unpublicised victim of war. Water wells and rivers have been polluted, crops torched, forests cut down, soils poisoned, and animals killed to gain military advantage.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has found that over the last 60 years, at least 40 percent of all internal conflicts have been linked to the exploitation of natural resources, whether high-value resources such as timber, diamonds, gold and oil, or scarce resources such as fertile land and water. Countries too can fight over resources such as shared rivers and dams. Conflicts involving natural resources have also been found to be twice as likely to occur again, despite conclusive negotiations.
UN’s role
The UN attaches great importance to ensuring that action on the environment is part of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building strategies, because there can be no real and durable peace if the natural resources that sustain livelihoods and ecosystems are destroyed.
On November 5, 2001, the UN General Assembly declared 6 November of each year as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.
On May 27, 2016 the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted resolution UNEP/EA.2/Res.15, which recognised the role of healthy ecosystems and sustainably managed resources in reducing the risk of armed conflict, and reaffirmed its strong commitment to the full implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). “If we are to achieve the SDGs, we need to act boldly and urgently to reduce the risks that environmental degradation and climate change present for conflict and commit to protecting our planet from the debilitating effects of war,” says UN Secretary General Antonio Guteress.
Collective effort
Six UN agencies and departments (UNEP, UNDP, UNHABITAT, PBSO, DPA and DESA), coordinated by the UN Framework Team for Preventive Action, have partnered with the European Union (EU) to help countries identify, prevent and transform tensions over natural resource as part of conflict prevention and peace building programs.
The Environmental Law Institute (ELI), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the Universities of Tokyo and McGill (Canada) initiated a global research program to collect lessons learned and good practices on managing natural resources during post-conflict peacebuilding.
This four-year research project has yielded more than 150 peer-reviewed case studies by over 230 scholars, practitioners and decision-makers from 55 countries. This represents the most significant collection to date of experiences, analyses and lessons in managing natural resources to support post-conflict peacebuilding.
Studies of this nature are essential to understand the massive loss caused to the environment by wars and conflicts that have dragged on for decades without a solution in sight. Warfare has many impacts on the total environment: Air pollution, soil pollution, ecological damage, biodiversity damage, and water pollution are among a few. Moreover, energy, water and electricity supplies are also deliberately targeted in wars, which also leads to environmental issues.
Here in Sri Lanka, many agricultural lands and forests were devastated by the War that lasted for 30 long years. Many areas remained out of bounds due to the anti-personnel mines buried in massive numbers, though most of these have now been cleared. But worldwide, millions of landmines and other munitions lie waiting underground for their victims, human or animal. Besides, they can also damage the soil and water sources.
In Vietnam, harmful chemicals such as Napalm were dropped in forest areas with the aim of killing VietCong members, but this caused environmental damage on a massive scale. Associated Press photographer Nick Ut’s iconic photograph of Vietnamese children fleeing a napalm attack not only revealed the human tragedy of the Vietnam War, but also revealed the grim truth about environmental degradation and biodiversity loss caused by chemical warfare in Vietnam and in nearby Cambodia. Although this incident led to laws that restricted the use of chemical and biological agents in war, there were plenty of instances when they were used with impunity by both State and non-State parties. But war per se is not needed for Governments and militaries to take actions that wittingly or unwittingly damage the environment.
Military exercises that involve thousands of troops and vehicles from multiple countries are routinely held around the world. These are highly damaging to the environment, since they simulate the conditions of an actual war and use live ammunition and combat explosives. It may be a coincidence, but some of the largest military bases and facilities are in ecologically sensitive areas.
One can also imagine the extent of emissions by military vehicles, planes, ships and helicopters, thousands of which are in use at any given time. In a world obsessed with emissions from civilian airliners, this topic is hardly discussed.
“Military pollution”
The reality is that the Carbon Dioxide emissions of the biggest militaries far outweigh those of many Global South nations as they rarely use any form of renewable energy. In fact, a new term “military pollution” has been coined to describe the ecological damage caused by militaries.
Testing of new weapons is another cause. Open air nuclear testing in remote islands such as Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands chain in the 1950s and 1960s destroyed entire ecosystems and some of these islands are still off-limits today as a discernible level of radioactivity remains. Today, above-ground nuclear testing is banned but countries such as North Korea are known to conduct underground tests. The testing of conventional Inter- Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) also poses environmental hazards, though not on the same scale.
Defence spending
Defence spending is another issue that has a direct, though often unnoticed, impact on the environment and combating Climate Change. The UN is struggling to secure US$ 100 billion for its Climate Finance and Climate Justice programs, but rich countries and even some developing ones annually spend close to US$ 2.5 trillion on defence, according to the Sweden-based Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Keeping the 12,000 odd active nuclear warheads primed alone costs millions of dollars every year, not to mention the grim prospect of where the nuclear material can go if they are ever dismantled. Either way, it is a lose-lose situation.
Perhaps the biggest issue is the internal and external displacement of whole populations as a result of conflict, war and even gang violence (Haiti is an example for this). If the displaced go en masse to another country, that too could face the threat of environmental problems and disease as seen in Bangladesh and Kenya, which host large refugee populations.
This is a world that sorely needs peace and an understanding of the “Other”. Resolving the conflicts that rage around the world is the only remedy for this. The world should recognise the almost irreversible harm caused to our fragile ecosystems by wars and conflicts.
Climate Change certainly does not need a boost from military adventurism but this is unfortunately what seems to be happening around the world. Countries rich and poor must resolve to drastically prune their defence spending and divert the savings to protecting our planet from the existential threat of Climate Change. That is the only viable solution.
