Environment – The Silent Victim of War

Why in News?

In the context of recent conflicts in West Asia, particularly the US-Israel war on Iran, environmental damage is no longer episodic but cumulative and persistent and the environment has increasingly emerged as a silent yet significant casualty of modern warfare.

What are the environmental consequences of recent conflicts in west Asia?

• Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change – Military operations are highly energy-intensive.
• Recent estimates suggest that wars generate massive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in short periods.
  • For instance, military mobilisation, missile strikes, and destruction of infrastructure significantly contribute to carbon emissions, exacerbating global climate change.
• Air pollution and toxic contamination – Strikes on oil refineries and storage facilities release large quantities of soot, particulate matter, and toxic gases.
• These emissions can lead to phenomena like black rain and pose immediate health risks such as respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
• The use of chemicals like glyphosate in conflict zones further aggravates environmental toxicity.
• Marine and coastal ecosystem damage – The Persian Gulf region is particularly vulnerable.
• Damage to oil tankers and coastal infrastructure increases the likelihood of oil spills, which devastate marine biodiversity.
• Such spills affect fisheries, coral ecosystems, and long-term ecological balance.
• Soil and water contamination – Destruction of industrial zones releases hazardous substances, including heavy metals, into the environment.
• These contaminants seep into soil and groundwater, affecting agriculture and drinking water supplies.
• Disruption of critical infrastructure – Attacks on desalination plants, essential in arid regions, threaten water security.
• Environmental damage thus directly intersects with human survival and public health.

What are the historical perspectives?

• World wars – World War I led to the destruction of approximately 350,000 hectares of forest.
• World War II caused widespread ecological damage, including deliberate flooding of farmland in the Netherlands and destruction of ecosystems across Europe.
• Vietnam war – The Vietnam War marked a turning point where environmental destruction became a deliberate strategy.
• The use of herbicides like Agent Orange destroyed millions of acres of forests and croplands, leaving long-term ecological and health consequences.
• Gulf war (1991) – The deliberate release of oil into the Persian Gulf created the largest oil spill in history, contaminating vast coastal areas and damaging marine ecosystems.
• Russia–Ukraine conflict – Recent conflicts have impacted the protected ecological zones, including biodiversity-rich habitats, demonstrating that even internationally recognised conservation areas are not immune.
• Shift from episodic to cumulative ecological crisis – Earlier conflicts caused localized and time-bound environmental damage. However, modern warfare signifies a paradigm shift:
  • Multi-domain warfare (land, air, sea, cyber) expands the scale of environmental harm.
  • Persistent emissions and pollution contribute to long-term ecological degradation.
  • Cumulative impacts from repeated conflicts intensify climate change and biodiversity loss.
• Thus, environmental damage is no longer incidental but systemic, creating a prolonged ecological crisis.

What are the existing legal and policy frameworks?

• ENMOD Convention (1976) – Prohibits the use of environmental modification techniques as weapons.
• However, its scope is narrow and does not cover conventional environmental damage caused by warfare.
• Geneva Conventions – Additional Protocol I (1977) – Article 35(3) prohibits methods causing widespread, long-term, and severe environmental damage.
• Article 55 mandates protection of the natural environment during warfare.
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) – Recognises environmental war crimes but sets a very high threshold (“widespread, long-term, and severe”), limiting its applicability.
• UN International Law Commission Draft Principles (2022) – Provides guidelines for environmental protection before, during, and after conflict, including protection of indigenous lands and post-conflict restoration.
• However, these are non-binding.

What are the gaps in the existing frameworks?

• High threshold for liability – The requirement of “widespread, long-term, and severe” damage makes it difficult to hold actors accountable for many forms of environmental harm.
• Lack of enforcement mechanisms – Most frameworks lack independent monitoring and enforcement bodies, leading to weak compliance.
• Exclusion of carbon emissions – Current laws do not adequately address war-related greenhouse gas emissions, despite their global impact.
• Non-binding nature of guidelines – Recent principles lack legal enforceability, reducing their effectiveness.
• Limited accountability and reparations – There is insufficient emphasis on restoration and compensation for environmental damage.

What about ecocide as an emerging legal concept?

• Definition and scope – Ecocide refers to widespread or severe destruction of ecosystems, whether intentional or negligent.
• Significance – Expands accountability beyond wartime actions to peacetime environmental destruction.
• Lowers the threshold for prosecuting environmental harm.
• Recognises the intrinsic value of ecosystems.
• Potential impact – If incorporated into international law, ecocide could:
  • Strengthen deterrence against environmental destruction.
  • Enable prosecution of state and non-state actors.
  • Promote environmental justice and restoration.

What measures could be taken?

• Strengthening legal frameworks – Lower thresholds for environmental war crimes.
• Expand definitions to include cumulative and climate-related damage.
• Binding international agreements – Convert non-binding principles into enforceable treaties.
• Independent monitoring mechanisms – Establish international bodies to assess and document environmental damage in conflict zones.
• Integration of climate considerations – Include military emissions in global climate agreements and carbon accounting systems.
• Emphasis on restoration and reparations – Post-conflict reconstruction should prioritise ecological restoration alongside economic recovery.
• Recognition of ecocide – Incorporate ecocide into international criminal law to ensure accountability.

What lies ahead?

• The environment is undeniably a silent casualty of war, bearing long-term consequences that extend far beyond the battlefield.
• The shift from episodic environmental damage to a persistent ecological crisis underscores the urgency of rethinking existing legal and policy frameworks.
• Recognising environmental protection as integral to peace and security, and embracing emerging concepts like ecocide, can pave the way for a more sustainable and accountable global order.
• Without such reforms, the ecological costs of warfare will continue to undermine both human well-being and planetary health.

Reference

The Indian Express| Ecocide