It is important to take an inclusive and tangible approach to protecting civilians by protecting the environment during armed conflicts. In recent decades, the link between conflict, the environment and the protection of civilians has become painstakingly clear. From Iraq to Ukraine, Libya to Yemen, dozens of incidents have surfaced where environmental damage resulting from conflict has led to acute or chronic health risks to civilians and their communities, undermining their socioeconomic development.

Therefore, states, international organizations, and civil society should join forces to make environmental damage in conflicts visible and act to reduce it. We believe this should be done  through more research on this conflict-environment nexus, as improved information flows and assessments will support a stronger norm to limit and ideally prevent such damage. Moreover, this will help to generate more funding for addressing these environmental impacts and policy changes that will foster humanitarian response and improve civilian protection. And improved data collection and monitoring will enable us to hold responsible actors accountable for their actions.

Environmental Impact of Conflict

Recognition of the impact of conflict on the environment and the protection of civilians is growing. In May the United Nations Secretary-General issued the latest report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. For the first time since the annual report was launched 20 years ago, it featured a section on the environmental impact of conflict. This is a welcome development following earlier initiatives within the United Nations, such as those of the different UN human rights rapporteurs in relation to toxic remnants of war, the resolutions of the UN Environment Assembly, and the work of the International Law Commission. The head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Peter Maurer, later underscored the relevance of the environment in this debate, stating that “the environmental consequences of conflict are often overlooked. International humanitarian law protects the natural environment as a civilian object. This includes vital natural resources which, if damaged can have implications not only for the survival of civilian populations but also for environmental risks.”

There are many examples where environmental impacts caused direct or indirect risks to the lives and livelihoods of civilians. These include the burning oil wells in Kuwait in 1991 and in Qayyarah, Iraq, in 2016, not to mention the ongoing shelling affecting heavy industrial zones with chemical factories and toxic waste storage facilities in Ukraine, which could cause a major environmental disaster. We have also witnessed increased targeting of essential or, according to some, “environmental infrastructure” such as sewage facilities, water filtration stations, and irrigation plants in Gaza, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. In some cases, this has contributed to mounting public health crises driven by lack of food, the rise of communicable diseases, and inadequate healthcare.

When Environmental Governance Collapses

Beyond targeting such infrastructure, conflicts also result in the collapse of environmental governance, which can lead to waste accumulation and the spread of communicable diseases like cholera, leishmaniasis, a problem that occurred in Syria and Yemen. A growing body of research demonstrates the links between many toxic remnants of war resulting from military activities and health risks to civilians. Moreover, in Syria, for example, the destruction of professional oil refineries has resulted in polluting coping strategies such as artisanal oil refining. Researchers have linked the rise in antibiotic resistance among wounded people in Mosul, Iraq, to conflict-pollution sources such as heavy metals. These cases underscore how protecting the environment is clearly linked to protecting civilians, and steps can be taken to address this link.

In sum, much can still be done to strengthen and broaden the norms in the Protection of Civilians (PoC) framework and link these with other processes related to Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict (PERAC), as promoted through the International Law Commission and UNEA resolutions.

How to Advance Civilian Protection Norms

Effective new policy frameworks must be grounded in solid data. This will help us understand what is happening on the ground, how military activities resulted in environmental threats to the health and well-being of communities, who is responsible, and what is needed to prevent and minimize these impacts. Improved identification, documentation and monitoring  will highlight trends and impacts that States can address in a relevant policy framework.

Our first suggestion is to include more references to environmental health risks in conflicts in upcoming Protection of Civilian reports with data collected by various relevant UN agencies, local authorities, researchers, and civil society organizations. This will improve awareness of the link between Protection of Civilians and Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict. It will also highlight the need for action.  

Second, an annual discussion in the UN Security Council, preferably on November 6, the UN day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict, could be an opportunity for debate that could lead to an ongoing process. Relevant UN agencies, academics and civil society can report on progress made, be it from a legal, humanitarian, or human rights perspective. Last year’s Arria-formula meeting on this topic provided a good starting point. Ideally, an effective multilateral platform would be created to discuss state responsibility for military operations and their targeting decisions. Currently no such platform to have this discussion exists. UN Environment Assembly’s aim is considered by its members to be focused on the environment, and conflicts are too political to discuss there, while the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council do not consider environmental issues relevant to the topics around disarmament and conflict-prevention, as the focus is on security.

Third, providing more support for mainstreaming environmental assessment in humanitarian response to conflicts can result in more environmental data and inclusive support where those additional risks from environmental damage to the health and wellbeing of civilians and their communities can be tackled.

In the life-cycle of conflicts, state accountability and international response can be improved to prevent and minimize these environmental health risks through informed research and multilateral discussions among member states and civil society. We see a strong need to demonstrate how protection of the environment is clearly linked with protection of civilians. Steps can be taken now to better protect both the environment and civilians.