From Conflict to Peacebuilding: Impacts of conflict on natural resources and the environment
Contents
Rationale
The environment has always been a silent casualty of conflict. To secure a strategic advantage, demoralize local populations or subdue resistance, water wells have been polluted, crops torched, forests cut down, soils poisoned, and animals killed. In some cases, such as the draining of the marshlands of the Euphrates-Tigris Delta by Saddam Hussein during the 1980s and 1990s, ecosystems have also been deliberately targeted to achieve political and military goals. During the Vietnam war, nearly 72 million litres[1] of the dioxin-containing defoliant Agent Orange were sprayed over the country’s forests, resulting in entire areas being stripped of all vegetation. Some of these areas remain unsuitable for any form of agricultural use today. Recent examples of intentional environmental damage include the 1991 Gulf War, during which Kuwait’s oil wells were set on fire and millions of tonnes of crude oil were discharged into waterways. In this instance, the environment itself was used as a weapon of mass destruction.
While numerous other examples of natural resources being used as a weapon of war exist, the majority of the environmental damage that occurs in times of conflict is collateral, or related to the preparation and execution phases of wars and to the coping strategies of local populations. In this regard, impacts of conflict on the environment can be divided into three main pathways:
a) Direct impacts: are caused by the physical destruction of ecosystems and wildlife or the release of polluting and hazardous substances into the natural environment during conflict.
b) Indirect impacts: result from the coping strategies used by local and displaced populations to survive the socio-economic disruption and loss of basic services caused by conflict. This often entails the liquidation of natural assets for immediate survival income, or the overuse of marginal areas, which can lead to long-term environmental damage.
c) Institutional impacts: Conflict causes a disruption of state institutions, initiatives, and mechanisms of policy coordination, which in turn creates space for poor management, lack of investment, illegality, and the collapse of positive environmental practices. At the same time, financial resources are diverted away from investments in public infrastructure and essential services towards military objectives.
Direct impacts
Often presenting acute risks for human health and livelihoods, the direct impacts of conflict on the environment are the most visible and well understood. This type of impact is largely due to chemicals and debris generated by bomb damage to settlements, rural areas and infrastructure (case study 6). In some situations, natural resources such as oil wells,forests and water (Water resources) can also be targeted. The direct effects of war are not limited to the countries in which they are waged, as air (Air pollution) and water pollution can be carried across borders, threatening the health of populations in neighboring regions. Direct damage to the environment can also result from the movement of troops, landmines and other unexploded ordnance, weapons containing depleted uranium, and the production, testing, stockpiling and disposal of weapons.
Case study 6: Kosovo conflict |
 The Pancevo industrial complex in Serbia was bombed ten separate times during the Kosovo conflict © Pancevac The 1999 conflict in the Balkans was triggered by the collapse of the Rambouillet peace negotiations, which failed to find a diplomatic solution to the Kosovo crisis. NATO initiated air strikes on targets within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 24 March, suspending its campaign on 10 June. Although the conflict was relatively short, severe damage was inflicted to strategic infrastructure and industrial sites in the Former Yugoslavian Republics of Serbia and Montenegro.[2] The industrial complex at Pancevo, one of more than 50 such sites that were bombed, was hit twelve separate times during the conflict, resulting in the release of 80,000 tonnes of burning oil into the environment. Black rain reportedly fell onto neighbouring towns and villages. In addition, a toxic cocktail of compounds and substances leaked into the air, soil and water around Pancevo, including 2,100 tonnes of ethylene dichloride (a substance causing kidney, liver and adrenal damage), eight tonnes of metallic mercury (known to cause severe birth defects and brain damage), 460 tonnes of vinyl chloride monomer (a known human carcinogen and a source of dioxins when burned), and 250 tonnes of liquid ammonia (which can cause blindness, lung disease and death).[3] The potential environmental contamination and risks to human health were clearly very serious. Neighbouring countries – namely Bulgaria and Romania – expressed their deep concern about transboundary air pollution and the possible toxic sludge in the Danube River. While NATO argued that the environmental damage was minimized by the use of sophisticated weapons and selective targeting, the intensity of the air strikes, the targeting of industrial facilities, and the dramatic media coverage combined to raise fears that an environmental catastrophe had resulted from massive pollution of air, land and water in those countries. To address these claims, Dr. Klaus Töpfer, then Executive Director of UNEP and Acting Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, established the Balkans Task Force to undertake a neutral and independent assessment of the impact of the conflict on the environment and human settlements. A team of international experts, along with two mobile laboratories from Denmark and Germany, were deployed to investigate the purported environmental damage. The field assessment conducted by the Task Force found truth on both sides. The scientific data indicated that while the environment had indeed been contaminated, the situation could not be called an environmental catastrophe. Out of 50 bombed industrial sites, four could be classified as environmental hotspots, as the toxic chemicals released there presented serious risks to human health and required urgent clean-up on humanitarian grounds.[4] The UNEP report also concluded that some of the contamination identified at various sites clearly pre-dated the Kosovo conflict.[5] This finding indicated serious industrial deficiencies in the treatment and storage of hazardous waste and pollution control that needed to be addressed as part of the reconstruction process. In addition to the urgent clean-up of the hotspots, UNEP recommended that further assessments of the potential risks caused by the use of depleted uranium weapons be conducted. UNEP’s environmental assessments in the Balkans responded to a clear need to understand and address the environmental impacts of conflict. This capacity was institutionalized in 2001, with the creation of the UNEP Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch. In 2008, the 10th Special Session of the UNEP Governing Council endorsed the proposal that assessing and addressing the environmental causes and consequences of conflicts and disasters become one of six new strategic priorities for the organization.[6] |
Indirect impacts
By disrupting normal socio-economic patterns, wars force populations to adopt coping strategies, and often lead to internal displacement or migration to neighboring countries. In the refugee camps that are established to provide basic shelter, food and protection, natural resources are critical assets, providing land, water, construction materials, and renewable energy. Damage to natural resources not only undermines the delivery of humanitarian aid, but can also cause conflict with host communities.
Conversely, vulnerable populations that do not flee must find alternative strategies to survive the breakdown of governance, social services and economic opportunities. Despite the long-term consequences, converting natural resources into capital is often a key coping mechanism and lifeline (case study 7).
Once conflict has diminished the resettlement of refugees and the restoration of economic activities can put intense pressure on natural resources. The indirect environmental impacts of war-time survival strategies and post-conflict reconstruction can be more persistent and widespread than the direct impacts of war.
Case study 7: Afghanistan |
 In Afghanistan, UNEP observed landscapes that were completely deforested, such as this site near Qala-I-Nau, Herat © UNEP Natural resources and environmental services underpin the livelihoods of 80 percent of Afghanistan’s population.[7] The combined pressures of warfare, civil disorder, institutional disintegration, the collapse of traditional community-based management systems, and drought have taken a major toll on Afghanistan’s natural resources. Livelihoods were thrown into disarray by the conflict and resulting coping strategies have led to the widespread liquidation of the country’s natural assets. In 2003, UNEP’s post-conflict environmental assessment found that over 50 percent of the natural pistachio woodlands had been cut in order to sell wood for income or to stockpile fuelwood for fear that access to the forests would be lost.[8] In some areas, the presence of landmines also drove farmers into pistachio woodlands to grow food, requiring the complete elimination of the trees. Extensive grazing and soil erosion in the former woodlands now prevent any hope of natural regeneration. As a consequence, the livelihoods that these forests once sustained by producing pistachio nuts and fuelwood for cooking and heating have been destroyed. At the same time, decreased vegetation cover and accelerated erosion have reduced water (Water resources) quality and quantity, further compounding existing water scarcity. Some humanitarian interventions, which provided emergency water through deep well drilling, have also exacerbated the situation. By failing to understand groundwater dynamics, coordinating activities, or monitoring extraction levels, these operations have undermined local karez water systems, placing different users in conflict over the scarce resource. With the loss of forests, water scarcity, excessive grazing and dry land cultivation, soils are exposed to erosion from wind and rain. UNEP found that the productivity of the land base was on the brink of collapse, driving people from rural to urban areas in search of food and employment – a clear case of environmentally induced displacement.[9] As in Darfur, peace in Afghanistan will depend on rehabilitating the natural resource base and addressing tensions relating to access and tenure. |
Institutional impacts
Weak governance institutions and expressions of authority, accountability and transparency are frequently eroded by conflict. When tensions intensify and the rule of law breaks down, the resulting institutional vacuum can lead to a culture of impunity and corruption as public officials begin to ignore governance norms and structures, focusing instead on their personal interests. This collapse of governance structures contributes directly to widespread institutional failures in all sectors, allowing opportunistic entrepreneurs to establish uncontrolled systems of resource exploitation. Conflict also tends to confuse property rights, undercut positive environmental practices, and compromise dispute resolution mechanisms. At the same time, public finances are often diverted for military purposes, resulting in the decay of, or lack of investment in, water, waste and energy services, with corresponding health and environmental contamination risks (case study 8).
Case study 8: Gaza and the West Bank |
 Rescuers search for victims after the banks of a sewage pond collapsed in the village of Umm Naser © Associated Press Access to sufficient clean water (Water resources) is an issue of vital importance in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and across the region. On a per capita basis, the Middle East is the world’s most water-scarce region. Indeed, the Middle East and Northern Africa house five percent of the world’s population, but only one percent of its accessible freshwater resources.[10] Under such circumstances, state-of-the-art technology and careful management are essential to guarantee that this rare resource can be put to maximum use. One of the consequences of the ongoing conflict affecting the OPT is the erosion of the institutional capacity of the Palestinian Authority to manage key natural resources efficiently and provide basic services such as water and sanitation. Following the withdrawal of foreign aid to the Palestinian government after the election of Hamas in January 2006, roads, power plants and waterworks across the 140 square-mile Gaza strip deteriorated rapidly from lack of management and maintenance. The declining state of the sewage infrastructure was tragically highlighted in March 2007, when the earthen wall of a sewage pond in the northern Gaza Strip ruptured, flooding a nearby village and killing four Palestinians. The ponds and adjacent treatment plant were designed to serve 50,000 people in the Beit Lahiya area, but the region’s population had grown to 190,000.[11] The management and planning situation has been further exacerbated by the split between Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Fatah-controlled West Bank, as well as the periodic border closures by the Israeli government. In addition to the problems related to wastewater treatment, good management of [[water (Water resources)] resources] in the region must take water extraction, transport and consumption into consideration. A 2003 UNEP study estimated that 35-50 percent of the water was being lost between the well and the tap, due to the poor condition of waterworks in Gaza and the West Bank.[12] The study also found that groundwater (the primary source of water in Gaza and the West Bank) was in many places threatened by pollution. Sources of pollution varied from sewage problems to pesticides and illegal dumpsites. Among the recommendations of the study was the strengthening of Palestinian water management authorities, policy-making bodies on water issues, and water planning.[13] On the other hand, the clear need for collaboration over groundwater presents an important opportunity to bring the Palestinian and Israeli authorities together for dialogue, technical cooperation, or even co-management. |
References
| Disclaimer: This article is taken wholly from, or contains information that was originally published by, the United Nations Environment Programme. Topic editors and authors for the Encyclopedia of Earth may have edited its content or added new information. The use of information from the United Nations Environment Programme should not be construed as support for or endorsement by that organization for any new information added by EoE personnel, or for any editing of the original content. |
| This is a chapter from From Conflict to Peacebuilding: The Role of Natural Resources and the Environment (report). Previous: The role of natural resources and environment in conflict|Table of Contents|Next: The role of natural resources and environment in peacebuilding |
