Armed Conflict and Environmental Damage

Preface

History is full of examples of armed conflicts that have plundered the environment. In the third Punic War, Roman legions, salted the ground to prevent the Carthaginians from challenging Rome; during World War I, the British set Romanian oil fields on fire; and during World War II, Germany and the Soviets adopted scorched earth tactics, other than the US dropping two nuclear bombs over Japan. States have continued to deliberately destroy the environment with impunity even in the modern era, i.e., post-World War II. A few examples are the US bombing of Korean dams in the Korean War of 1950-1953 and the extensive use of chemicals and environmental modification techniques during the Vietnam War of 1961-1975; the targeting of Iranian oil installations by Iraqi bombers during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s; the detonation of 720 oil wells and pumping of enormous quantities of Kuwaiti oil into the Red Sea by Iraqi soldiers during the Gulf War of 1990-1991; the intensive bombing of petrochemical plants, fertilizer-processing factories, and oil refineries in Kosovo by NATO’s in 1999, resulting in the drainage of large quantities of toxic chemicals into the Danube; the catastrophic environmental damage wreaked in Afghanistan and Iraq during a decade of military operations by the US and allied forces since 2001; the extensive damage inflicted on infrastructure in Lebanon in the conflict of 2006; the targeting of fuel stations and tanks during Israel’s military operations in Gaza in December 2008-January 2009, which severely contaminated soil and groundwater; and the use of chemical weapons in Syria in 2013.

The use of chemical weapons in Syria in August 2013 has reportedly caused nearly 2000 casualties. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas has been identified as a major factor responsible for the forced displacement of population in the country. Since March 2011, the bloody and complex civil war has driven nearly three million Syrians into neighbouring countries as refugees. Many more have been internally displaced and are in need of humanitarian assistance. The extensive use of cluster munitions, white phosphorus, high-explosive devices, depleted uranium (DU), landmines, and the use of an excessively large quantity of conventional weapons in international armed conflict (IAC) have made recovery more or less impossible. Evidence gathered by some scientists after the Gulf War, linked DU to birth defects and long-term illnesses, including cancer, in Iraq.

The scenario is equally grim in the sphere of non-international armed conflict (NIAC). Conflicts have affected important wildlife habitats in numerous countries since 1990. NIACs often take place in areas where there is little governmental control. Few public services are available to the hundreds of millions of people inhabiting these remote areas. In these conflicts, the military and the non-state actors deliberately and indiscriminately target the environment in order to deprive the opposing troops of cover, food and water. NIACs are marked by the use of landmines, violation of protected areas due to troop movements, poaching for food and scorched earth practices. The government forces as well as non-state actors are increasingly plundering natural resources to finance their operations. The refugees and internally displaced persons, who require shelter, food, water and cooking fuel, also damage the environment.

The destruction of habitats and the resultant loss of wildlife have been the most common and far-reaching impacts of NIACs on the environment. When large numbers of displaced people are temporarily resettled, they often clear the vegetation to farm and to obtain firewood—practices that swiftly lead to deforestation and erosion. Since internally displaced people are often located in ecologically marginal and vulnerable areas, the ability of the environment to recover subsequently may be limited. With the destruction of the habitat, certain plant and animal species may become threatened locally, or even extinct. In areas of conflict, troops often hunt large mammals in great numbers to obtain food. Further, during an armed conflict, those in power may be in need of immediate revenue. To fund their military activities, they may turn to commercial-scale extraction of natural resources such as timber, ivory and diamonds.

Military forces all over the world are also responsible for damaging the environment during their peacetime activities and in the post-conflict period. There are reports that presence of the Indian and Pakistani military in Siachen is taking a toll on the ecologically fragile environment. The global consumption of petroleum for military purposes is about six per cent of the total world consumption, or almost one-half of the total consumption of all developing countries combined.¹ Together with developmental issues, all these factors contribute to global warming. It has been predicted that global warming will have a severe impact on food and grain production, water resources and human settlements. It will give rise to mass movement and increase the risk of violent conflict, and is likely to cost the world trillions of dollars. The majority of those affected will be from East Asia, South East Asia and South Asia. With the world’s population set to rise from six billion to nine billion people in the next half-century, there is a need to improve the management of our atmosphere, air, lands, soil, and oceans.²

Although armed conflict is a recurring feature, little effort has been made to limit the environmental effects of war. Today, there are a number of laws and regulations that are meant to restrict armed conflict in various ways. This legal framework consists of a body of declarations, conventions and treaties aimed at regulating the various aspects of warfare. However, the standards set by most conventions and protocols have proved inadequate in terms of preventing and redressing environmental degradation caused by armed conflict. International law has serious drawbacks and it seems impossible to prosecute an individual for environmental crimes arising from IACs or NIACs. Domestically, offences against the environment are generally dealt with as regulatory violations that fall under discrete parts of environmental statutes rather than as offences covered by central pieces of criminal codes. A number of environmental offences have been recognised as such following a public outcry over specific incidents.³

Because of these shortcomings, efforts have been made by activists and academics to draw the attention of the international community to the protection of the environment during armed conflict. This book attempts to highlight instances of the environmental devastation caused by armed conflict and arrive at a possible solution to overcome the lacunae in the field of international humanitarian law. The first chapter is introductory; besides defining the term ‘environment’, it surveys the literature relating to environmental damage during armed conflict. The second chapter discusses environmental devastation caused by international armed conflict, taking up examples spanning from World War I to the Israel-Palestine conflict of 2009. Environmental damage by NIACs is covered in the third chapter, which covers 16 such situations. Militaries are the prime users of sources of energy, especially oil, and besides being ‘normal’ polluter are also and ‘special’ polluters, producing toxic and radioactive wastes. The environmental damage caused by armed forces, primarily during training, garrison duty and weapon-testing have been discussed in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter of the book reviews the treaty regime and the provisions of customary international law with respect to the protection of the environment and assesses their effectiveness. The last chapter, chapter 6, presents various options that could help to overcome the legal vacuum with respect to the protection of the natural environment during armed conflict, and also contains recommendations aimed at the United Nations, governments and the armed forces.

I am obliged to the UN Environmental Progamme (UNEP), as this work would not have been possible without consulting several of its reports. I express gratitude to my wife, Ratna, for all her support and to Ms Medha and Ms Chandana for the editorial assistance provided by them. My son, Aditya, contributed valuable comments on certain aspects of the book. Finally, I thank Vij Books India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi for their cooperation in bringing out this edition.

1 Tolba, MK and OA El-Kholy, The world environment 1972-1992: Two decades of challenge, London: Chapman and Hall, 1992.

2 For instance desalination has become a necessity to meet increasing freshwater demand in the Gulf region. The energy intensive nature of this operation presents alarming projections: by 2035, Kuwait, for example, may have to allocate as much as 2.5 million barrels of oil per day for water desalination, equal to the country’s entire 2011-2012 oil production. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2014: Water and Energy, Volume 2, Paris, The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2014, p. 137.

3 The explosion at the Union Carbide chemical plant at Bhopal in December 1984 was the world’s worst environmental accident so far. The plant used highly toxic chemicals in its production process; when water somehow mixed with these, the resulting explosion was catastrophic. Estimates of fatalities and of those seriously affected in the immediate aftermath and subsequently have varied, with official, academic and media reports suggesting around 6,000 or more fatalities, plus 60,000 people seriously affected by the toxic gases and over 20,000 permanently injured as a result of exposure. The ultimate impact of the event on the local natural environment and wildlife is still not clear. The result of this accident was that the Government of India made the amendments to the Factories Act in 1987 and introduced special provisions on hazardous industrial activities. It empowered the State to appoint site appraisal committee to advise on the initial location of the factories using hazardous processes. The Government also enacted, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Besides introducing provisions relating to the environmental offences, the Act empowers the Central Government to take all such measures as it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Throughout history, the environment has remained a mute victim of armed conflict. Militaries, in order to gain advantage over adversaries, have burned crops and fields, sprayed large quantities of chemicals on forests, destroyed dams and dykes and poisoned water supplies. Even in modern times, military commanders place a lot of emphasis on weather and terrain while planning campaigns. They manipulate natural resources for their strategic purposes, and even use natural processes as weapons. In the wake of armed conflict, the focus has always been on the loss of human life and destruction of property. Analysts have never calculated the ecological consequence of such conflicts. The destruction of the environment, depletion of natural resources, and death of flora and fauna has always been overlooked. In many places of the world today the environment is under heavy pressure, affecting the security of man and the community of life. In some places, armed conflicts have caused environmental degradation, while in others environmental degradation has been a factor causing violent conflict. Environmental degradation is increasingly threatening the natural resource base and processes upon which all life on earth depends. Species are becoming extinct at an unprecedented rate, taking with them yet unknown sources of medicines, nutrition and other benefits.

A number of analysts have predicted that environmental change in general and climate change in particular will have enormous impacts on humanity. In April 2007, the United Nations Security Council debated the link between climate change and conflict. The argument was that climate change would aggravate traditional and long-standing security issues, and six areas of linkage were identified: border disputes, migration, energy supplies, resource shortage, societal stress, and humanitarian crises. Christian Aid claims that an estimated 1 billion people will be forced to leave their homes between now and 2050, which might destabilize whole regions where increasingly desperate populations compete for dwindling food and water.¹ Homer-Dixon is of the view that climate change will catalyze insurgencies, genocide, guerrilla attacks, gang warfare, and global terrorism.² It has been reported that the future impacts of climate change will be more than threat multipliers; they will serve as catalysts for instability and conflict. The impacts of extreme weather in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, such as prolonged drought, flooding, and resulting food shortages, desertification, population dislocation and mass migration, and sea level rise would pose serious security challenges to the governments.³

Environment

The word ‘environment’ is derived from the French word environner, meaning to encircle. By broadly applying to surroundings, the environment can include the aggregate of natural, social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or community.⁴ Geographically, the environment can refer to a limited area or encompass the entire planet, including the atmosphere and stratosphere. The term ‘environment’, according to Article 2 of the UN Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment,⁵ includes: (i) natural resources both biotic and abiotic, such as air, water, soil, fauna and flora and the interactions between the same factors; (ii) property which forms part of the cultural heritage; and (iii) the characteristic aspects of landscape.

A look at national laws shows that there is no general agreement on the definition of the term ‘environment. The Environmental Protection Act of Bulgaria defines environment as a complex of natural and anthropogenic factors and elements that are mutually interrelated and affect the ecological equilibrium and the quality of life, human health, the cultural and historical heritage and the landscape. ⁶ The Environment Act of India—-includes water, air and land and the interrelationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property in its definition of the environment.⁷ According to the British Act, the environment consists of all, or any, of the following media, namely, the air, water and land; and the medium of air includes the air within buildings and the air within other natural or man-made structures above or below ground.⁸ The United States Council on Environment Quality defines the term environment as man’s total environmental system including not only the biosphere but also his interactions with his natural and manmade surroundings. These definitions, however, exhibit one common aspect that the environment is not confined to national boundaries and it embraces all forms of life on this planet.

Despite the inability of the international legal community to agree on a useful definition of environment, it is clear that the trend is to view the environment as a very broad and inclusive entity.⁹ The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm represented a first taking stock of the global human impact on the environment, and attempted to forge a common outlook on how to address the challenge of preserving and enhancing the human environment. It proclaimed that:

Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has been reached when, through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man’s environment, the natural and the manmade, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights the right to life itself.

The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world; it is the urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all Governments.

Unfortunately, the damage and destruction of the environment has remained unchecked for the last five decades, not only because of its exploitation and haphazard economic development, but also due to armed conflict. Armed conflict has a direct impact on the environment through toxic hazards from the bombardment of industrial sites and urban infrastructure; landmines, unexploded ordnance and munitions including depleted uranium; use of hazardous chemicals; environmental damage caused by human displacement; use of extractive industry to fund conflicts; loss of infrastructure for water supply, sanitation and waste disposal; and scorched-earth tactics that directly affect the resources necessary for the livelihood.

War or Armed Conflict

The terms ‘war’ and ‘armed conflict’ have been used interchangeably by historians. After the adoption of the United Nations Charter, the use of the term ‘armed conflict’¹⁰ has been preferred over ‘war’.¹¹ The use of the term ‘armed conflict’ is not entirely new in international law. It has always been seen as the manifestation or expression of the concept of war. The Hague Convention IV of 1907 stressed that parties should make an effort to find means of preserving peace and preventing armed conflict between nations. As a rule, armed conflicts are generally defined as the use of armed forces by one or more states against another state or several states (international armed conflict or IAC), or between one or more armed groups against their own government or between armed groups themselves (non-international armed conflict or NIAC).

The modern international law of war is now called the ‘law of armed conflicts’ or ‘international humanitarian law (IHL)’. Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably. IHL has been defined as international rules, established by treaties and customs, which are specifically intended to solve humanitarian problems directly arising from international or noninternational armed conflicts and which, for humanitarian reasons, limit the rights of the parties to a conflict to use the methods and means of warfare of their choice or protect persons and property that are, or may be, affected by conflict.¹²

IHL distinguishes two types of armed conflicts: (a) IAC, involving two or more opposing states; and (b) NIAC, between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only.¹³ An IAC occurs when one or more states take recourse to armed force against another state, regardless of the reasons or the intensity of the conflict.¹⁴ The provisions of IHL may be applicable even in the absence of open hostilities. Moreover, no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required.¹⁵ The existence of an IAC, and as a consequence, the possibility of applying IHL to the situation, depends on what actually happens on the ground. It is based on factual conditions. For example, there may be an IAC, even though one of the belligerents does not recognize the government of the adversary.¹⁶

NIACs are armed confrontations occurring within the territory of a single State and in which the armed forces of no other State are engaged against the central government.¹⁷ IHL treaty law makes a distinction between two types of NIACs, as se out in common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the definition provided in Article 1 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II.¹⁸ Internal disturbances and tensions (such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, or other acts of a similar nature) do not amount to a NIAC. They also do not encompass conflicts extending to the territory of two or more States. When a foreign State extends its military support to the government of a State within which a NIAC is taking place, the conflict remains non-international in character. Conversely, if a foreign State extends military support to an armed group acting against the government, the conflict becomes international in character.

Today, no one would deny that the nature of armed conflict is changing. The distinction between the two kinds of armed conflict–IAC and NIAC–is becoming less relevant and is gradually disappearing.¹⁹ In reality NIAC are often ‘mixed’ conflicts, that is, they take place largely within the territory of one State, but take place in an internationalized setting with a high level of foreign intervention involving both State and non-State actors. These conflicts both affect and are affected by the actions of neighbouring states and the international community at large. Thus, it is becoming increasingly difficult to categorize these conflicts as either IAC or NIAC. The changing tactics used in armed conflict have resulted in a shift in the casualties of war from combatant soldiers to innocent civilians, with an estimated nine civilian deaths for every death of a soldier. Armed conflict has moved from conventional battlefields to urban and rural centres, causing massive numbers of residents to flee to regions which lack adequate resources and infrastructure. This gives rise to not only economic, social and moral crises, but also massive pressure on the environment. The one thing common to these conflicts is that the environment is a constant victim, and the scale of destruction has increased over time.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has concluded that as the technology of weapons has increased, the number of munitions used to kill an enemy soldier has increased correspondingly. Thus, the amount of environmental damage resulting from warfare is also escalating.²⁰ The IHL instruments discourage the excesses of armed conflict, including the targeting of non-combatants, ill-treatment of prisoners of war, and destruction of dams and nuclear power stations. However, with the increasingly devastating potential of modern weapons and warfare, it has become apparent that the existing provisions of IHL do not fully address the danger that armed conflict poses to the environment. The danger may take the form of the indiscriminate use of landmines, the explosive remnants of war, radioactive hazardous wastes, damaged military machinery, or environmental destruction caused by mass movements of displaced persons. While there are relatively few instances of the deliberate targeting of the environment during IAC, there are a large number of NIACs, in which the environment is deliberately targeted, both by the government as well as the opposing forces.

Armed conflict was common in many parts of the world during the period of the Cold War, but today, almost all NIACs are concentrated in the poorest and most vulnerable areas of the world, i.e. Africa and Asia. According to the United Nations Environmental Programme, 40 per cent of all the intra-state conflicts since 1960 have had a link to natural resources, and these conflicts are twice as likely as IACs to recur within five years. The damage to the environment caused by these conflicts is not only deplorable in itself, but may increase the vulnerability of affected populations as well. For example, it may lead to the displacement of the population and the fleeing of increasing numbers of refugees to other countries. When civilian populations are displaced by armed conflict, the effects on the environment can be as great as those of direct military activities.²¹ Once damaged, degraded or destroyed in armed conflict, the natural resources become future causes of conflict.²²

Armed Conflict and the Environment

Environmental degradation and armed conflict are interconnected issues.²³ Throughout history, armed conflict has always left its mark on the environment.²⁴ Until the late seventeenth century, the environmental impacts of war were largely limited to the areas of conflict and the source locations for metal and wood. The damage to the environment became more severe with advances in technology.²⁵ Warfare and together with it, environmental damage, took a new dimensions in Europe in the 1790s, when under Napoleon, France increased the intensity of warfare and expanded its reach. By the late 1800s, accurate rifles and machine guns transformed the battlefield, and more powerful explosives were invented to damage both urban and rural targets. World War I saw a new level of environmental destruction as new weapons capable of producing terrifying results were unleashed. In the battle of Somme, 250,000 acres of farmland was destroyed and became unfit for agriculture. As a direct impact of war, almost 500,000 acres of French forests were destroyed. According to Lanier-Graham, in order to keep the Allied war effort going, over 20 billion board feet of timber was harvested.²⁶ In all, the effects of World War I on the environment were far-reaching, spreading across the globe.

The level of environmental devastation reached a new high in World War II. The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two single most destructive events in human history. The massive amounts of radiation released made soil and water, inhospitable to both plants and animals. A few battlefields of WW I and II still remain unfit for cultivation or dangerous to population because of unexploded devices (especially mines) and projectiles embedded in the soil.²⁷

The post-World War II period saw an escalation with competition between the superpowers for developing military technology of increasing sophistication. The developed countries competed to build successive generations of ships, aircraft, missiles and fighting machines. The existing weapons, including chemical arsenal grew larger and more lethal.²⁸ The Vietnam War witnessed large-scale use of chemicals defoliants and destruction of forests, and attempts at rain-making by the US. In addition 14 million tons of bombs and shells, American planes sprayed 44 million litres of Agent Orange and 28 million litres of other defoliants over Vietnam. Nearly three million tons of bombs were dropped creating millions of craters. Many of these craters still exist 45 years after the end of the conflict. The result was serious damage to 1.7 million hectares of upland forest and mangrove marshes, widespread soil poisoning or loss of soil, and destruction of wildlife and fish habitat. These were widely criticized and resulted in international efforts to tackle the environmental consequences of warfare.

Destruction of the environment during Operation Desert Storm is a recent reminder of the military’s destructive capability. The major factors that led to environmental destruction were: the explosive remnants of war left by the coalitions forces; and the deliberate destruction of oil wells by the Iraqi force. The daily release of heat from Kuwait’s 950 oil wells was estimated to be about 86 billion watts, equivalent to that of a 500 acre forest fire. The fires burned nearly 5,000,000 barrels of oil daily and smoke spread as far as 800 miles south of Kuwait. During the Persian Gulf War, the plumes of burning oil wells darkened skies for months far downwind causing heavy pollution on nearby deserts, farmlands, and the Gulf’s waters.

The destruction caused by the US and coalition forces was also significant and lasting.²⁹ While the UN (or the US) devised a means to punish Iraq by imposing sanctions and constituting a compensation commission under international law, no action was taken to fix the responsibility for the environmental harm caused by the coalition forces.³⁰ Several authors have justified the acts of the US and the coalition forces and the environmental degradation as ‘collateral damage’. Though some of the coalition countries helped Kuwait to clean up the residue and ravages of armed conflict,³¹ no such action was taken for the rehabilitation of the Iraqi natural environment.³²

During the Gulf War, the US and its allies used depleted uranium (DU) weapons and large-scale mining both on land and at sea. This created a massive battlefield remnants problem. Although the radioactive levels of DU weapons are considered too low to be a general environmental threat, special handling is required to avoid contamination. It was reported by Iraqi doctors that the DU left behind by the US military had contributed to a spike in cancer rates and birth defects among Iraqi civilians. Recent studies have found that DU particles can persist in the environment for 30 years and that short-term studies cannot accurately predict the corrosion of penetrators.³³

While the Iraqi use of mines and burning of oil wells received a lot of attention, the uses of cluster bombs and depleted uranium by the US and its allies the received must less attention. For instance, the US and allied forces used nearly 61,800 cluster bombs, containing some 20 million bomblets. By a rough estimate, if 10 per cent of these bomblets were duds, they would have left about 2 million unexploded mines.³⁴

Operation Allied Force, the United States-led NATO bombing campaign against the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) on behalf of Kosovo, was initiated on 24 March 1999. The NATO forces targeted an aircraft production factory, fuel storage facilities, oil refineries, pharmaceutical plants, fertilizer production facilities, and petrochemical plants. These airstrikes caused the release of 2,100 metric tons of ethylene dichloride (EDC) and 200 kg of metallic mercury into an adjacent wastewater canal leading to the Danube River. They also resulted in the burning of hundreds of tons of oil products and chemicals releasing highly toxic dioxins, hydrochloric acid, carbon monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide into the air. The impact of the release of these chemicals into the environment was devastating to humans and the ecosystem.

During the war in the Balkans, NATO forces bombed petro-chemical plants in the suburbs of Belgrade. These air raids destroyed a plastics factory and an ammonia production unit within the complexes, releasing toxins such as chlorine, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride monomer into the atmosphere. These chemicals not only have an immediate and life-threatening effect on humans but also have a residual effect on the environment. Similarly, during the armed conflict in Lebanon in 2006, the bombing of the Jiyeh power station led to the release of approximately 10,000 to 15,000 tons of fuel oil into the Mediterranean Sea. This resulted in significant contamination of the shoreline, including protected ecological reserve.³⁵ The consequences of this attack were such that clean-up activities exceeded local capacities and thus required intensive international assistance.³⁶

Damage to the environment is not confined to IAC. During the past four decades, NIAC have far outnumbered IAC and the environmental damage caused by these has been a matter ofconcern for the international community. A partial list of the countries affected by NIACs includes Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Sri Lanka, the Solomon Islands, Sudan, South-Sudan and Syria. By definition, an NIAC is a conflict taking place within the borders of a single State, however, in most cases, the environmental impact of such conflict spill over to the neighbouring states, as happened in the Great Lakes region of Africa. During the past 50 years, Africa has been plagued by a large number of armed conflicts. Most of these have been NIACs and many have occurred in countries with a rich biodiversity and over 80 percent have occurred fully or partially in biodiversity hotspots. At least half of the conflict zones included forests and in Africa, such conflicts have affected up to two thirds of forested lands.

After the first Gulf War, the Iraqi Government was responsible for the systematic destruction of the Mesopotamian Marshes, the largest wetlands in Southwest Asia, extending along the Tigris, the Euphrates and the Shatt-el-Arab. They had been occupied by the descendents of the Sumerian and Babylonian people. Reeds were their main building material, while rice, fish, water buffaloes and birds were their main source of food. In 1991, after the Maadan and other Shia tribes revolted against the Iraqi regime, the government responded with an attack on the environment that supported them. It built a system of draining canals that reduced the marshes to 7 per cent of their initial 15,000 sq km. The wetlands turned into a salt crust, and the vegetation and wildlife disappeared.

In the ongoing conflict in Damascus, Syria, the use of chemical weapons-most probably a nerve agent–in August 2013, caused nearly 2000 casualties.³⁷ Even those who survived the suspected chemical weapons attack may have life-long disabilities and health problems for which there are few effective treatments. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas has been identified as a major driver of forced population displacements. Since March 2011, the conflict has driven more than 2.8 million Syrians into neighbouring countries as refugees,³⁸ while 6.5 millions are internally displaced and in need of humanitarian assistance.³⁹ These factors will have a tremendous impact on the natural environment in Syria as well as the neighbouring countries. In a country torn apart by conflict, agencies charged with protecting the environment are usually weak, and the government is consumed with restoring its security from civil uprising. According to the World Resource Institute; Amid war’s brutality, death, and deprivation, the environment may seem a minor casualty. Yet, the destruction of the environment, along with the demolition of democratic, informed decision-making, can prolong human suffering for decades, undermining the foundation for social progress and economic security.⁴⁰

A study of post-World War II armed conflicts in Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf region, former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Syria manifest that no considerations have been given by the military commanders to the environmental damage during military operations undertaken in support of the war effort. The focus has been on the defeat of the adversary and environmental damage has been considered an unavoidable side-effect of the armed conflict. No military commander has ever been prosecuted by his government for causing serious unwarranted damage to opponent’s natural environment.

The UN General Assembly, in recognition of the threat war poses to the environment, established the Post Conflict Management Branch (PCMB) of the UN Environmental Progamme (UNEP) in 2001. Creating the link between the protection of the environment and armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly proclaimed on 5 November 2001, that November 6 of each year would be named International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflicts. Through its Disasters and Conflicts Sub-programme, the PCMB assesses the effect of armed conflict on the environment, provides measures for environmental recovery, and works on building environmental cooperation. Among the countries in which the PCMB has worked are Afghanistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Armed conflict affects the environment in six ways.

First, toxic hazards from conventional bombardment, oil fires, and conflict in industrial areas create areas of contamination. During the war in Kosovo, for example, NATO bombed oil refineries in the Serbian cities of Pancevo and Novi Sad. This caused toxic chemicals to leak into the Danube and affected water and soil in Serbia and its neighbours. During the first Gulf War in 1991, Iraqi forces ignited a large number of oil wells. The oil from the fires spewed into the Persian Gulf and killed more than 25,000 birds.

Second, refugees escaping armed conflict cause the depletion of natural resources. Often forced to settle in resource-scarce areas, they put further pressure on forests, land, water, and wildlife. They also put an extra burden on existing infrastructure, e.g., living quarters, water supplies, and waste systems. The UN refugee agency, UNHCR has reported that in 2012, 45.2 million people worldwide lived away from their homes due to forcible displacement. Most were in the developing world, which hosts four-fifths of the world’s refugees. In Jordan alone, it has been estimated that the number of Syrian refugees reached 1.2 million by the end of 2013.

Third, the armed conflict often causes deforestation, either as an unintended side-effect of combat operations or as an intended effect. One example of direct deforestation is the use of chemicals by the US in the Vietnam War. On the other hand, the conflict in Rwanda led to indirect deforestation, as displaced people felled large sections of forests for survival and the Rwandan army cleared a swath of vegetation up to 100 meters wide along a key trail to reduce the threat of ambush. Similarly the Congolese army in 1999, created a corridor that ran through a national park to prevent insurgent factions from advancing unseen.

Fourth, landmines, cluster munitions, unexploded ordnance, and weapons made of depleted uranium disseminate toxic materials, displace people to more fragile ecosystems, and disrupt resource management and ecotourism. According to the UN, in 2003, there were more than 100 million unexploded landmines in more than 60 countries. Over the past decade, States have removed just 3 million of them. Addressing this problem is costly and time consuming: while it takes just three US dollars to make a landmine, it takes several hundred dollars to dismantle one. In Sudan, direct damage from military attacks, such as bombings, has been negligible, but unexploded landmines have endangered wildlife.

Fifth, armed conflict leads to pollution of air, water and soil. For example, the US and coalition forces left thousands of tons of waste in Afghanistan and Iraq, which will affect the local population for decades to come. The conflict continues to pose dangerous risks to human health and the surrounding environment. According to the Science for Peace Institute, University of Toronto, 10 to 30 per cent of all environmental degradation in the world is a direct result of the various militaries.⁴¹

Sixth, armed conflict can wreak havoc on government conservation efforts, especially in protected areas. For example, during the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, parks and reserves lacked funds for staff, infrastructure, research, and management training. In countries where nature tourism provides a major source of income for biodiversity protection, that source quickly evaporates when conflict begins. Armed Conflict often leads to the breakdown of law and order, leaving protected areas and species vulnerable to exploitation. For example, during the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and Sierra Leone’s civil war in the 1990s, regional forestry officers, foresters, rangers, and guards went unpaid for long periods, and illegal mining and logging, killing of protected species and massive deforestation occurred in forest reserves. In the Central African Republic, hunting and poaching in war-torn provinces reduced the country’s elephant numbers by 90 per cent and led to the disappearance of the rhinoceros. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge’s trade in timber brought US$10-20 million a month in funds for its civil war effort. This has continued in the Congo, where reports from 2013 reveal that the Lord’s Resistance Army has poached elephants to collect and sell ivory in an effort to garner monetary support for its efforts. Even after armed conflicts end, weak political institutions may not have the authority, ability, or funds to effectively manage their country’s natural resources. In addition, the military establishments consume great amounts of fossil fuels, causing negative impact on land, air, wildlife and water resources.

Ecocide

The term ecocide was used for the first time in 1970 at the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington, with reference to deliberate destruction of environment. In 1972, at the UN’s Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, then Prime Minister of Sweden referred explicitly to the Vietnam War as an ‘ecocide’.⁴² However, there was no reference to ecocide in the official documents of the Stockholm conference. Later, Dai Dong, a branch of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation, sponsored a Convention on Ecocidal War (CEW) in Stockholm. The CEW called for a UN convention on ecocidal warfare, to define the term and condemn it as an international crime of war. A draft International Convention on ecocide was also prepared.⁴³

Ecocide refers to the process whereby an organism destroys its ecosystem through its own intentional or unintentional actions. While the term can apply to biological processes, increasingly it is used to describe human activities and practices that cause widespread damage to habitats and environments. A proposed definition of ecocide is: The extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished. ⁴⁴ According to Broswimmer (2002:109), ecocide includes the use of weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, bacteriological, or chemical; attempts to provoke natural disasters such as eruption of volcanoes, earthquakes, or floods; the military use of defoliants; the use of bombs to impair soil quality or to enhance the prospect of disease; the bulldozing of forests or croplands for military purposes; the attempt to modify weather or climate as a hostile act; and, finally, the forcible and permanent removal of humans or animals from their habitual place of habitation on a large scale to expedite the pursuit of military or other objectives.⁴⁵

The term ‘ecocide’ or ‘eco-war’ has also been used for the extensive destruction of ecosystem associated with military conflicts.⁴⁶ Ecocide can and often does lead to cultural damage and destruction; and the direct destruction of a territory can lead to cultural genocide. For example, destroying an indigenous peoples’ territory can critically undermine its culture, identity and way of life.⁴⁷ Environmental devastation, particularly directed at areas on which indigenous peoples depend for their survival, could be tantamount to genocide or ‘ethnocide’.⁴⁸

Since the 1970s many scholars and legal analysts have argued for the criminalization of ecocide. The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in its study of the genocide Convention for the UN’s Human Rights Commission, proposed the addition of ecocide, as well as reintroduction of cultural genocide, to the list of crimes.⁴⁹ The UN International Law Commission (ILC) had also unsuccessfully considered the inclusion of ecocide in the Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, which later became the Rome Statute of the international Criminal Court (ICC).⁵⁰ The proposed Article 26 on crime of damage to the environment during peacetime was removed mysteriously from the Code.⁵¹ In the final version adopted by the ILC, after further amendments by the Drafting Committee, Article 8 (2)(b)(iv) on war crimes referred only to the intentional creation of ‘widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment’ in the context of war. At present, this is the only provision in international law to hold a perpetrator responsible for environmental damage; albiet, limited to wartime situations and intentional damage. However, it has not been used by the ICC, and nor have comparable articles been used by the ad hoc courts. Environmental crimes, such as the pollution of water wells and destruction of ecosystems, can also be seen in the lights of crime against humanity. This interpretation was used in the original prosecution of President Bashir of Sudan who destroyed the water wells and environmental bases of the population in Darfur, thus forcing them to migrate. This charge was not accepted by the ICC as it was not considered to be a core feature of the attacks.

The term ecocide has appeared in a number of national penal legislations.⁵² Vietnam, as a consequence of its experiences during the long Vietnam War, was the first county to include the crime of ecocide in its domestic law,⁵³ followed by Russia in 1996. Other countries which have included ecocide in their national penal codes are Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Some like Armenia, Belarus, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia have included ecocide as a Crime Against Peace. In Georgia, the crime of ecocide is punishable by imprisonment extending from eight to twenty years.⁵⁴

Environmental Terrorism

Schwartz (1998), who put forth the concept of ‘environmental terrorism’, says that environmental destruction or the threat of destruction can be labelled ‘terrorism’ when: (i) the act or threat breaches national and/or international law governing the disruption of the environment during peacetime or wartime; and (ii) the act or threat exhibits the fundamental characteristics of terrorism (i.e., the act or threat of violence has specific objectives, and the violence is aimed at a symbolic target). To be classified as environmental, an act must meet these two criteria and the perpetrator must use the environment as an authentic symbol to instil fear in the larger population over the ecological consequences of the act.⁵⁵ Saddam Hussein’s action of ordering the detonation of a large number of oil wells in the 1991 Gulf War amounted to environmental terrorism.⁵⁶

Conflict Timber

Timber is an easily exploitable, valuable and readily marketable commodity, and has been the resource of choice in several recent IACs and NIACs.⁵⁷ For example large areas of forests in the Philippines were cleared, leading to erosion.⁵⁸ In 2001, a UN panel of experts investigating the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) coined the