a publication of the
Environmental Associates

Know Your Environment

War and The Environment

Some of the ways that military actions can affect the ecosystem.

by Roland Wall, February 2002

  1. War's forgotten victim
  2. A question of priorities
  3. "A new kind" of warfare
  4. Study war no more?
  5. References
unexploded ordnance "The most toxic and widespread pollution facing mankind..." according to a U.S. State Department report. Landmines and other unexploded ordnance not only endanger human life, but have rendered large areas of land around the world unusable. The environmental effects of abandoned weapons are often underestimated.
Photo: Courtesy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

War's Forgotten Victim

In the opening months of 1991, the eyes of the world were fixed on the burning oil wells of Kuwait. Violating international treaties, Iraqi forces had destroyed over seven hundred of the wells and spilled ten million gallons of crude oil—the largest human faciliated discharge of oil ever—into the tiny nation's waterways and deserts. Faced with abandoning the country his forces had invaded the year before, Saddam Hussein was now using the environment itself as a weapon of mass destruction. Though these moves barely slowed the Allied forces, their environmental damage is still being felt.

According to Green Cross International, an organization that works to ameliorate the environmental effects of war, "The oil contamination of the terrestrial ecosystems [in Kuwait] reached levels on a scale unprecedented in the history of the planet. The impacts on the environment will take decades to partially disappear and their full effects may never be known." [1]

We are used to thinking of human effects on the environment—like pollution or sprawl—as being the result of growth, a byproduct of consumption and development. Often, policy makers must balance environmental problems against long term economic benefits such as jobs, food production or human welfare.

Yet the environmental consequences of economic activity can pale before the damage associated with the far more ambivalent benefits of war. Regardless of the political logic, violent conflicts within and between nations are—by definition—designed to bring about the purposeful destruction of humans, resources and landscape. Ultimately, as Green Cross Executive Director Bertrand Charrier notes: "The environment has always been one of the 'victims' of war." [2]

Iraq's actions in the Persian Gulf brought the connection of war and the environment to world attention. Though wars throughout history have included premeditated destruction of the ecosystem, assaults on this scale remain, thankfully, more the exception than the rule. Perhaps of greater concern, however is the wide range of inherent environmental damage that occurs in the preparation, execution and aftermath of any violent conflict.

Warfare can affect many aspects of the environment. Land use, water supply, air quality, biological resources, and the functioning of ecosystem services are often disrupted by war. Military impact on natural capital is global, ongoing, and persistent. It can result from the actual physical destruction of landscape, the release of pollution during (or in preparation for) combat, or from the social disruption that leads to refugee populations, resource depletion and subsistence living.

Yet, though it is self-evident that war causes environmental damage, it is surprising how seldom the issue is raised by environmental advocates. The impact of a particular weapons testing ground may be debated, or we may condemn the senseless loss of species to combat, but it is rare to perceive war itself as being, fundamentally, an attack on the environment.

A few examples will demonstrate the many forms these attacks may take:

top of page

A Question of Priorities

When looking at the effects of military action on the environment, it is important to recognize that military matters receive overriding priority in public policy forums. For nations, particularly those in the midst of armed struggles, war is often a matter of national and social survival. Environmental issues, regardless of their urgency, are almost always secondary to these goals.

In the central African nation of Rwanda, for example, it is estimated that in 1994 upwards of 600,000 people died in one 90 day period of organized massacres. That the struggle in this country may also threatened the remnants of the rare mountain gorilla population is hardly likely to be a major concern for the combatants.

Similarly, when asked about the use of depleted uranium (DU) in armor piercing ordnance during the recent Kosovo conflict, a U.S. military spokesman's comment on the controversial practice was simple: "We have the capability and we have DU rounds in the inventory, and if it's determined that's the best weapon to use against the target, it will be used."

The Center for Defense Information, a think-tank sometimes critical of the Pentagon, expressed it even more starkly: "They do a risk-benefit analysis, and blowing holes in tanks wins." [6]

Another issue that arises when discussing the impacts of war on the environment is the difficulty in gaining accurate information. By necessity, much of a nation's military preparation and action takes place in secrecy, and often public statements cannot be verified. While crucial to carrying out the immediate goals of armed conflict, secrecy and deception can confuse discussion of complex environmental issues.

In the case of the U.S. government's testing of secret, high performance aircraft, for example, a variety of stories were used to cover the Air Force's activity in the Nevada desert, including the recent acknowledgement that fantastic tales of "UFO's" were actively circulated. While this may be seen now as a clever tactical ruse, it might also have blurred a more down to Earth truth—that in the course of developing state-of-the-art combat aircraft, the U.S. military may have been destroying dangerous chemicals by questionable and illegal techniques. [7]

With growing ecological concerns around the world, environmental misinformation has also become part and parcel of propaganda campaigns. During the Kosovo conflict, Serbian sources made widely quoted claims that NATO action was leading to a generalized environmental disaster in the Balkans. A subsequent report by the UN's Balkans Task Force (BTF) indicated that, while there were specific areas with environmental damage, the Balkans as a whole were not threatened by the action. Blurring the issue even more, the BTF noted that "Part of the contamination identified at some sites clearly pre-dates the Kosovo conflict, and there is evidence of long-term deficiencies in the treatment and storage of hazardous waste." [8]

Another feature which is characteristic of war is a breakdown in a society's infrastructure. Physical facilities for transportation, health care, water supply, sewage disposal, electricity and communication, to a few, can all be significantly compromised. Key people in various service positions (including environmental protection) may have been casualties of the conflict. Traditional methods of farming and conservation are often eliminated. Systems for environmental protection may have been deactivated, and resources for such services may have been diverted to military assets.

By the same token, war can lead to a breakdown in ecological infrastructure, impairing important ecosystem services. Again, the Persian Gulf provides an illustration. Not only did the oil spills endanger the arid region's water supplies, the thick clouds of smoke from the nine months of oil fires had notable impact on local and regional climate. Studies show that the temperature of the region dropped a full ten degrees Centigrade during the period the fires were burning.

Similarly, actions such as deforestation, habitat destruction and degraded human waste disposal—all associated with war and its aftermath—can affect other key ecosystem services such as erosion control, water quality and food production.

This is exacerbated by the unprecedented scale of destruction which modern weapons can perpetrate. Warfare today uses explosives and machinery to subdue enemies and territories. As one writer observes "The intensity of environmental damage resulting from wars has been remarkably parallel to the technological 'advancement'...in warfare." [9]

The result is that ecosystem services can be disrupted on enormous scales, over both distance and time. Two decades of war and unrest in Cambodia, for instance, have destroyed 35% of its forest cover. In Vietnam, bombs alone are estimated to have consumed over 2 million acres of land. And in Afghanistan, one quarter of the forests were destroyed, leading to the conclusion that "...the damage to the forests may be the greatest environmental catastrophe that occurred in Afghanistan during the war..."

top of page

"A New Kind" of Warfare

In one instance, at least, it might be argued that, in the past, environmental issues led to some military restraint. For the superpowers during the Cold War, it was apparent that the use of the destructive force of nuclear weapons systems would lead to global environmental cataclysm. Despite the tensions and low-level conflicts of that period, it appears that fear of such environmental annihilation required all parties to limit military activity. Similarly, for the past 80 years, fear of the consequences of chemical warfare has largely (though not completely) kept the use of such weapons in check.

Modern warfare—that is, conflict in the years since the Cold War ended—has made the environmental effects of war more problematic. There are currently some 40 armed conflicts going on in the world, involving tens of millions of people. Many of these are taking place in locations that are critical in the efforts to maintain biodiversity—Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Because these are often in highly populated, lower income nations, they also tend to be regions which are already suffering severe environmental stresses.

Scientific American [10] in it's special report "Waging a New Kind of War," noted that: "More than 100 conflicts have erupted since 1990, about twice the number for previous decades. These wars have killed more than five million people, devastated entire geographic regions, and left tens of millions of refugees and orphans." These lower level wars have lacked the catastrophic ecological consequences that would have resulted from a war of superpowers. Instead, they may go on for years, incrementally chipping away at natural resources.

Only a few of these conflicts involve the organized militaries of more than one nation. Most combat occurring today is not the traditional style of war fought between armed countries but is the result of civil war, ethnic and religious conflicts, and other types of irregular actions.

Often a proliferation of sophisticated small arms has been a key element in these struggles. Such weapons have "given paramilitary groups a firepower that often matches or exceeds that of national police or constabulary forces." As a result, "societies awash in weapons often find themselves caught in a culture of violence even after the formal conflict ends." [11]

This is significant in environmental terms because modern warfare—rather than being one political or economic system trying to displace another—often, in fact, represents a general breakdown in all political and economic systems. Such war is more a pattern of chaotic violence than a series of pitched battles and there is an absence of moderating influences—internal or external—to limit patterns of environmental destruction.

Put another way, the United States Department of Defense may be able to devote meaningful resources to limiting its environmental impacts; groups such as the Congolese Liberation Movement are not likely to have the means or the motivation to do so.

Often, modern wars transcend national borders and traditional concepts of citizenship. Geographic regions, ethnic groups, religious sects and historical nationalities may all be in conflict. Lacking stable homelands, many people who are affected by violence end up as refugees. These masses of stateless people can be a serious environmental aftermath of war.

The United Nation's High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates there may be as many as 20 million people at present who have fled their countries or otherwise been displaced. Because refugees are thrown—sometimes without warning—into a hardscrabble existence, scratching to survive, their impact on the local environment can be significant. According to UNHCR literature [12] "The arrival of a huge influx of refugees inevitably places intense pressure on the environment of the host country. Local deforestation, soil erosion, water contamination and depletion are all greatly accelerated by refugees."

top of page

Study War No More?

Trying to lessen the impact of war on the environment can be a frustrating exercise. Any measures that can be put in place will be faced with a series of obstacles. International law is of limited use in full scale war, particularly when formal nation-states are not the combatants. The enforcement of treaties and conventions is itself often ultimately linked to military intervention. Similarly, self imposed restraints on the level of environmental damage allowed in combat—as promoted by many U.S. and NATO policies—will almost certainly not be a priority during battle. The most effective solution—limit or eliminate military action—is a goal which has eluded humanity since prehistory.

This does not mean, however, that there is no point in trying to address the issue. While environmental damage will always be a collateral effect of warfare, with adequate preparation, clear rules of engagement and timely post war interventions, this damage can be lessened and ultimately corrected. In working towards these goals, it is convenient to employ two terms used for peacetime environmental management: pollution prevention and environmental remediation.

In domestic and peacetime environmental management, pollution prevention is a model of planning which reduces the sources of pollution. In domestic activities, the U.S. EPA considers pollution prevention to be the national environmental policy. The goal here is "preventing pollution before it is created, so there is less or no need to control, treat, or dispose of it." [13]

Preventing pollution in war would probably have to start with understandings and agreements reached during times of peace. The 1997 Treaty to Ban Landmines, 1977's Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, and the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, all can be thought of as examples of pollution prevention policies. Though by no means perfect, such treaties provide a set of international standards and expectations, limiting the preparation of strategies in peacetime that may lead to the use of environmentally damaging techniques during war.

The use of international law for this purpose was discussed by experts at the Environmental Law Institute's "First International Conference on Addressing Environmental Consequences of War" [14] in 1998, one of the few gatherings to have specifically addressed the issue.

There was disagreement over whether the need was for additional international standards or simply better adherence to existing ones. According to Richard Falk of Princeton University, "the current standards have no bite." Adam Roberts, of Oxford, however, indicated a need for better implementation of existing law and for "improving the international culture of how the environment is viewed."

"Pollution prevention" can also be thought of as the operational guidelines for military officers which limit their use of environmentally damaging tactics. The U.S. Department of Defense—complying with American environmental laws—has an extensive environmental management system, as does NATO. Such systems are less developed in many nations, however, and are largely non-existent among the insurgent and irregular forces in some of the most environmentally threatened regions.

There is also the problem that, as retired Adm. Elmo Zumwalt observed: "...military leaders will use any weapon that will give an advantage over the enemy." Zumwalt, once commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, emphasized the need for international law. "The only restraint will flow from international treaties which pressure governments not to authorize the use of environmentally destructive weapons." [15]

For the most part, however, the existing international law only applies to intentional environmental destruction. Despite the best efforts of diplomats and scholars, war will inevitably damage key natural ecosystem services. In post war settings, timely and effective remediation is a key to minimizing the damage to the environment.

Environmental remediation is a well known concept, applied in settings such as superfund sites and wetland restoration. In essence, remediation consists of evaluating the amount of damage done to the environment in a location, determining what level of correction is needed to remove hazards to humans in the area, and re-establishing environmental quality for a location.

In the case of the Persian Gulf, remediation has been going on since the war ended. By quick action, 95% of the spilled oil was retrieved and exported. Though the remaining spills continue to threaten the environment, the catastrophe would have been compounded significantly without such remediation.

Similarly, in Kosovo, UN experts—while dispelling claims of "environmental catastrophe affecting the Balkans as a whole"—identified four "hot spots" where the environmental damage was a direct result of the Kosovo conflict. These areas will require immediate action. They maintain that the situation is severe enough that the international community should provide environmental assistance as part of humanitarian aid packages, "thus avoiding further harm to human health and the environment." [16]

In dealing with the effects of war, remediation can take many forms. It may borrow techniques from waste management, erosion control or public health, to a few. It may involve rapid, crisis based responses, as in the Kuwait fires, or—like a re-forestation effort in El Salvador—it may be part of a long term environmental sustainability plan.

Refugee relief efforts can also be thought of as a form of remediation. Organizations like the International Red Cross and the UNHCR have begun to incorporate environmental management into their strategies. In some cases the remediation may consist of very concrete, commonsense steps to lessen the impact refugee populations can have on fragile ecosystems.

CARE International, for example found that for the Rwandans fleeing to Tanzania, details as simple as grain milling techniques and lids for cooking pots could achieve a 75% reduction in the amount of fuel wood needed. Considering that over 200,000 refugees fled Rwanda in a single day, reduced wood requirements can save entire forests.

This last example underscores the fact that information and management skills may be the most important factors in reducing and mitigating the environmental effects of warfare. Science-based understanding of environmental damage and remediation will a necessity in carrying this out. This is particularly critical in the face of the repeated misinformation and deceptions that the various political actors in a conflict may employ. It will be the responsibility of the international scientific community (such as the World Health Organization and the Royal Society, both of which are currently preparing assessments of DU ordinance) to provide sound, unbiased guidance in this area.

In the end, as Mikhail Gorbachev [17] pointed out, all weapons destroy the environment. ''The most important thing now is to prevent war, not just to improve the international laws of war.''

Yet, with this goal seeming to become more elusive every year, it will fall upon policy makers, diplomats and scientists to develop methods which will, at least, have a chance of preventing environmental catastrophe. To do this, society must look beyond the political rationales and recognize warfare for what it is: a direct and relentless assault on human and natural ecosystems.

top of page

References

  1. Charrier, B. Presentation to the United Nations Compensation Commission, Jan. 25, 2000. [go back]
  2. Charrier, B. 1998. Foreword, An Environmental Assessment of Kuwait , Seven Years after the Gulf War, Green Cross International. [go back]
  3. Hidden Killers: The Global Problem with Uncleared Landmines, a Report on International Demining. Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1993. [go back]
  4. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Feb. 1, 2000 [go back]
  5. Bozheyeva, G., Y. Kunakbayev and D. Yeleukenov. 2000. Former Soviet Biological Weapons Facilities in Kazakhstan: Past, Present, and Future. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies [go back]
  6. Both quotes from "Kosovo update: NATO unleashes DU," Ben Geman, Boston Phoenix, April 22-29, 1999. [go back]
  7. Manning, M. "Workers appeal Area 51 ruling." Las Vegas Sun, 9/12/96. [go back]
  8. The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment & Human Settlements. United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, 1999. [go back]
  9. Formoli, T.A. Impacts of the Afghan-Soviet war on Afghanistan's environment. Environ. Conserv., 1995, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 66-69 [go back]
  10. Scientific American, June 2000, Special Report: Waging a New Kind of War. [go back]
  11. Boutwell, J. and M. Klare, "A Scourge of Small Arms." Scientific American, June 2000. [go back]
  12. UNHCR, Issues: Environment. On-Line: www.unhcr.ch/issues/environ/environ.htm [go back]
  13. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxins. "About P2." May, 2000.
    On-Line: www.epa.gov/p2/ [go back]
  14. Environmental Law Institute. June, 1998. First International Conference on Addressing Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic, and Scientific Perspectives. [go back]
  15. Quoted by Danielle Knight, IPS World News. "Protecting the Environment from War." June 1998. [go back]
  16. "Immediate Environmental Clean-Up Action Needed as part of Humanitarian Aid in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." UNEP Press Release, November 24, 1999. [go back]
  17. Quoted by Knight, cited above. [go back]

top of page