This year, 2019, marked a new nadir for the environment that may reflect an ominous trend in warfare: Environmentally sensitive targets are being weaponized and taken hostage. Farmland went up in flames and burning oil tankers dominated the headlines, serving as a stark reminder of conflict’s ripple effects.

On November 6, we pause to observe the United Nations’ International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. Let us reflect and understand the devastating environmental effects of conflict on lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems. Let us also consider the forces that grassroot activists, practitioners, and legal scholars have set in motion that might offer some hope as we defend the environment.

The range of disturbing incidents and patterns of environmental destruction in current conflicts highlight and reinforce the calls of many, past and present, to work towards meaningful change in how we see the environment.

It is not just a victim. It could also be a source of collective action and a tool for peacebuilding.

Attacks on Environmentally Sensitive Infrastructure

Two worrying trends dominated the field of environmental impacts of conflicts in 2019. The first trend was an uptick in threats and direct attacks on environmentally sensitive infrastructure. This gradually built up through 2018, as the Houthi rebels managed to successfully target Saudi oil fields and refineries with long-range drones and cruise missiles. The tension slowly increased in the Middle East when the United States pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran to curb its nuclear program and stepped up oil sanctions against the Iranian regime.

To retaliate, Iran started a range of clandestine naval operations against several oil tankers in the Persian Gulf to pressure the United States via Saudi Arabia. The oil trade represents the core power for Saudi Arabia and its allies, and for the world economy that depends on it. Apart from the economic incentives, destruction of oil infrastructure comes at a price for the environment that recalls the Tanker War and 1991 oil fires. The ecological remediation process to clean-up the pollution from those attacks is still ongoing.

In reaction to Iran, a covert operation at the Baniyas refinery on the coast of Syria is blowing up underwater pipelines. This made it difficult for Iranian tankers to unload their oil products. It also resulted in a large oil spill and marine pollution that persisted for months. At the same time, the SAFER floating storage and offloading terminal, a rusty oil mooring tanker loaded with 2 million barrels of crude at the coast of Yemen under Houthi control, raised the risk of an environmental disaster.

Debated all the way up to the UN Security Council, a solution still hasn’t been found, and it seems as if the Houthis are using the oil vessel as a bargaining chip. These operations reached a new low point on September 14, when dozens of Iranian drones and cruise missiles hit Abqaiq, the world’s largest oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia, causing weeks-long emergency flaring of oil that was visible on satellite images. The latest incident was an alleged attack on an Iranian oil tanker in October 2019, causing a large crude oil spill in the Red Sea.

Cropland Goes Up in Flames

The other worrying trend took place in Syria and Iraq, which both saw heavy rainfall in the winter of 2018/2019. The resulting spike in growth of crops and weeds alike made way for fertile ground. The subsequent heatwave in late spring led to dry, vulnerable lands. The war of flames started with the so-called Islamic State extorting farmers: If they wouldn’t pay, their fields would be burned down. This soon happened often. In Syria, armed forces deliberately targeted farmlands with incendiary bombs.

We soon witnessed the largest crop fires in the history of the region. Hundreds of thousands of acres of harvestable land went up in flames, killing farmers and firefighters, and destroying farmers’ livelihoods. Lack of proper equipment, damaged water infrastructure, improvised explosive devices planted in the fields, and ongoing attacks prevented effective firefighting.

Iraq was on its way to becoming self-sufficient with food production, while Syria’s north and northeastern crop fields—traditionally the breadbasket of the country—now are nothing but scorched fields and lost hopes.

But 2019 also gave birth to glimmers of hope, as civilians became more vocal, refusing to be victims of environmental degradation. The global movement’s demanding an answer to the climate crisis inspired them. Civil society organisations in conflict-affected areas managed to effectively organize themselves and taking environmental issues to the streets and into the political arena.

Activist movements in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey organized themselves around water, deforestation, and desertification problems, caused by dam building, damaged water infrastructure, disappearing water sources, and growing pressures from displaced groups. Until the invasion of Turkey in early October, a thriving ecological movement in northeast Syria sought to tackle the conflict-related environmental damage, and PAX just began a project to help partners research these issues.

What we have seen are two sides of the environmental coin: Armed forces and other groups know how to deploy environmental vulnerabilities as a weapon and are actively gambling with them. On the other side, those affected by environmental degradation are drawing the line. Their concerns cut through all layers of society, but in particular, the more socioeconomically vulnerable groups have had enough of it. Plagued by lost hopes, corruption, and endless wars that weakened their systems and saw their land literally going up in flames, they are demanding change and are taking their protest to the streets.

These violent environmental omens should inspire radical change. And a number of legal and policy initiatives brewing may provide guidance on what should come next. First, the International Law’s Commission Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict require robust support and implementation. Next, the expected update of the International Committee of the Red Cross’ Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instruction for Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict provide an opportunity to engage with military decision-makers on their planning.

Third, the environment must also be considered part of a humanitarian response. And lastly and most important, we should support amplifying the voices of those from conflict-affected countries on environmental issues and seek regional and international cooperation to tackle the causes of environmental degradation and use the environment as a tool for peace and security. That is a lesson we should revisit each November 6. Let us acknowledge the environmental problems born of conflict and explore opportunities to solve them.