International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict

International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict

The International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict, observed annually on November 6th, represents a significant milestone in international efforts to recognize the often-overlooked relationship between warfare and environmental destruction. Established by the United Nations General Assembly on November 5, 2001, through Resolution A/RES/56/4, this observance emerged from growing awareness that environmental damage in conflict zones has profound consequences that extend far beyond the duration of active hostilities, affecting ecosystems, human health, and sustainable development for generations. The declaration occurred during Kofi Annan's tenure as Secretary-General, reflecting the UN's evolving understanding of security as encompassing not just political and military dimensions, but environmental protection as well. This day serves as an annual reminder that environmental protection must be integrated into peacebuilding strategies and that sustainable management of natural resources is fundamental to lasting peace and security worldwide .

The historical significance of this designation cannot be overstated, as it marked the first time the international community formally acknowledged the environment as "the silent victim of war" – a casualty that typically receives less attention than human suffering but nevertheless has grave implications for human well-being and post-conflict recovery. For centuries, military strategies have included environmental manipulation as a tactic of war, from poisoning wells to burning crops, but these actions were rarely considered beyond their immediate tactical value. The formal establishment of this International Day represented a paradigm shift toward recognizing that environmental damage from conflicts creates long-term vulnerabilities for affected populations, undermining their capacity to rebuild livelihoods and societies after peace is restored. Furthermore, the day emphasizes the crucial insight that natural resources often serve as drivers of conflict, with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) finding that over the last 60 years, at least 40 percent of all internal conflicts have been linked to the exploitation of natural resources .

The institutionalization of this day gained further momentum on May 27, 2016, when the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted resolution UNEP/EA.2/Res.15, which explicitly recognized "the role of healthy ecosystems and sustainably managed resources in reducing the risk of armed conflict" and reaffirmed the UN's strong commitment to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. This subsequent resolution reinforced the original purpose of the day by connecting environmental protection in conflict settings to the broader 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, creating an explicit link between peaceful societies and environmental sustainability as articulated in Sustainable Development Goal 16. This evolutionary process demonstrates how the understanding of environment-conflict linkages has become increasingly sophisticated over time, expanding from initial concerns about environmental damage during warfare to encompass the role of resource management in conflict prevention and peacebuilding .

The Environmental Impacts of War and Armed Conflict

Direct Environmental Damage

Armed conflicts inflict multifaceted damage upon the environment through both direct and indirect mechanisms, creating complex challenges that persist long after hostilities cease. The direct ecological impacts of warfare manifest in numerous forms, including polluted water wells, torched croplands, decimated forests, poisoned soils, and systematic killing of wildlife – all tactics historically employed to gain military advantage. These destructive practices transform once-productive landscapes into degraded environments unable to support human and ecological communities. For instance, during the Vietnam War, the United States military sprayed approximately 20 million gallons of herbicides, including the notorious Agent Orange, over Vietnamese forests and croplands to deprive guerrilla fighters of cover and food sources. This deliberate environmental modification resulted in widespread deforestation and soil contamination that persists decades later, demonstrating the long-term consequences of militarized landscapes . Similarly, during the 1991 Gulf War, retreating Iraqi forces set fire to over 600 oil wells in Kuwait, creating massive atmospheric pollution and coating vast areas with oil slicks that damaged terrestrial and marine ecosystems alike.

The scale of contemporary environmental destruction in conflict zones is staggering. In Afghanistan, decades of conflict have resulted in approximately 95% deforestation in some regions since 1990, as forests were indiscriminately cleared for military purposes, fuelwood, and illegal timber trade that financed armed groups . Modern warfare in highly industrialized areas creates additional hazards when military actions target or damage industrial facilities, releasing hazardous materials into the environment. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated this risk, with attacks on nuclear facilities, chemical plants, and critical infrastructure creating threats of catastrophic pollution. The destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023 exemplifies how warfare can trigger environmental disasters with far-reaching consequences for water supplies, agriculture, and ecosystems downstream . These examples illustrate that the environmental costs of war extend far beyond the battlefield, creating transboundary pollution problems and undermining the ecological foundations necessary for post-conflict recovery.

Natural Resources as Conflict Drivers and Financing Mechanisms

Beyond direct environmental damage, natural resources frequently serve as both drivers and financing mechanisms for armed conflicts, creating a vicious cycle where resource exploitation fuels violence that in turn leads to further environmental degradation. The United Nations Environment Programme has documented that conflicts linked to natural resources are twice as likely to relapse within five years of a peace agreement, highlighting the persistent instability created when combat economies become entrenched around resource extraction . High-value resources such as diamonds, gold, timber, and oil have financed numerous conflicts across Africa and Asia, enabling militant groups to perpetuate violence while enriching themselves. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, illicit exploitation of mineral resources is estimated to generate approximately USD $1.25 billion annually, with 10-30% of these revenues going to armed groups that use these funds to sustain their operations and purchase weapons .

The nexus between resources and conflict is not limited to high-value minerals but extends to scarce resources essential for survival, particularly fertile land and water. In Darfur, climate change-induced water scarcity exacerbated tensions between pastoralists and agricultural communities, contributing to the violent conflict that erupted in 2003 . Similarly, in Senegal's Casamance conflict, armed groups financed their operations through illegal logging of precious hardwoods, simultaneously degrading forest ecosystems and perpetuating violence . These examples demonstrate how environmental scarcity and opportunistic resource exploitation can become intertwined with ethnic, political, and economic grievances, creating complex conflicts that are difficult to resolve through traditional diplomacy alone. The recognition of these connections has fundamentally shifted how the international community approaches conflict prevention and peacebuilding, leading to greater emphasis on resource governance as an essential component of stability operations in fragile states .

Climate Change and Conflict Interconnections

The relationship between armed conflict and climate change represents another dimension of the environment-security nexus, with climate change simultaneously exacerbating conflict drivers while military activities contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Research indicates that climate change acts as a "threat multiplier" in fragile contexts, where pre-existing vulnerabilities combine with climate-induced stresses such as drought, flooding, or extreme weather events to increase the likelihood of conflict. These environmental stresses can undermine food security, displace populations, and intensify competition over diminishing resources, creating conditions conducive to violence. The conflict in Darfur has been frequently cited as an example where climate-related desertification contributed to tensions between herders and farmers that eventually escalated into widespread violence . Similarly, the Syrian civil war has been partially attributed to a prolonged drought that displaced rural populations and exacerbated political grievances, demonstrating how environmental degradation can interact with socio-political factors to spark conflict .

Simultaneously, military activities themselves contribute significantly to climate change through substantial greenhouse gas emissions from weapons, vehicle fleets, infrastructure destruction, and reconstruction processes. A striking example comes from the first seven months of the war in Ukraine, where emissions were equivalent to the entire annual carbon output of the Netherlands, highlighting the climate costs of modern warfare . The 1991 Gulf War similarly contributed approximately 2% of global CO2 emissions that year, illustrating how major conflicts have measurable impacts on the global climate system . Furthermore, the process of post-conflict reconstruction generates additional emissions through energy-intensive manufacturing and transportation of building materials, creating a carbon footprint that is rarely accounted for in climate negotiations. These interconnections highlight the need for integrated approaches that address both climate change and conflict simultaneously, recognizing that environmental protection and peacebuilding are mutually reinforcing objectives rather than separate domains of action .

International Response and Protection Mechanisms

Legal Frameworks and Protection Gaps

The international community has developed various legal instruments to address environmental protection during armed conflict, though significant gaps in implementation and enforcement remain. The principal legal provisions specifically addressing environmental warfare are found in Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits warfare causing "widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment" (Articles 35 and 55). These provisions represent important milestones in establishing the principle that environmental protection should be considered even during military operations. However, the threshold for proving violations is exceptionally high, requiring demonstration of damage that is simultaneously widespread, long-term, AND severe – a cumulative standard that has proven difficult to meet in practice. This high threshold has been widely criticized by environmental and legal scholars as effectively preventing most cases of environmental damage from being considered violations of international humanitarian law, even when significant ecological harm has occurred . For instance, the environmental destruction caused by Agent Orange in Vietnam or the oil fires in Kuwait might not meet this stringent legal test despite their devastating ecological consequences.

Recognizing these limitations, there have been ongoing efforts to strengthen the legal framework for environmental protection in conflict settings. The International Law Commission (ILC), a UN body of legal experts, has developed 27 draft principles for the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts (PERAC), which include measures for preventing environmental damage during conflicts and remediation in their aftermath. These principles represent the most comprehensive attempt to date to address the full cycle of conflict-related environmental harm, encompassing prevention, conduct during hostilities, and post-conflict recovery . At the national level, some innovative approaches have emerged, such as Colombia's Special Jurisdiction for Peace recognizing a territory as a victim of conflict, thereby creating legal standing for environmental remediation. These developments reflect a growing recognition that environmental justice must be an integral component of transitional justice processes in post-conflict societies, acknowledging that harm to ecosystems represents harm to communities that depend on them . Despite these advances, the primary challenge remains implementation, as political will to prioritize environmental concerns during and after conflicts often remains limited.

UN Initiatives and Multilateral Partnerships

The United Nations has established numerous initiatives and partnerships to address the interconnected challenges of environmental protection and armed conflict, working across its various agencies and with external partners. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has played a leading role in documenting environmental dimensions of conflicts and developing practical responses. Since 1999, UNEP has conducted post-conflict environmental assessments in more than twenty countries, providing scientific evidence of damage and recommendations for remediation. These assessments have been instrumental in raising awareness about the environmental consequences of conflicts and shaping recovery efforts. Beyond assessment activities, UNEP collaborates with other UN entities through mechanisms like the UN Framework Team for Preventive Action to develop early warning systems that identify and transform natural resource tensions before they escalate into violence .

Several notable partnerships exemplify the multilateral approach to addressing environment-conflict linkages. The EU-UN Partnership on Land and Natural Resource Conflicts brings together six UN agencies and departments (UNEP, UNDP, UN-HABITAT, PBSO, DPA, and DESA) to help countries identify, prevent, and transform tensions over natural resources as part of conflict prevention and peacebuilding programs. This collaborative approach recognizes that no single agency possesses all the tools necessary to address the complex relationships between resources and conflict . Another significant initiative is the Global Research Programme on Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and Natural Resources, a collaboration between the Environmental Law Institute, UNEP, and the Universities of Tokyo and McGill. This four-year research program produced more than 150 case studies by over 230 scholars and practitioners, representing the most comprehensive collection of knowledge and lessons learned on managing natural resources during post-conflict peacebuilding . Additionally, the UN Partnership on Women and Natural Resources in Peacebuilding Settings (UNEP, UN Women, UNDP, and PBSO) focuses on the gendered dimensions of resource management in conflict-affected areas, recognizing that women are disproportionately affected by resource scarcity yet often excluded from decision-making processes about resource governance .

Environmental Peacebuilding and Sustainable Recovery

The concept of environmental peacebuilding has emerged as a transformative approach that addresses both environmental and peace objectives simultaneously, recognizing that effective natural resource management can contribute to conflict prevention, resolution, and recovery. This approach is based on the understanding that environmental cooperation can sometimes build trust between conflicting parties, as shared dependence on resources like water basins or forests can create incentives for collaboration across conflict lines. Environmental peacebuilding initiatives take various forms, including joint monitoring of natural resources, cooperative management of transboundary ecosystems, and inclusive planning processes for resource allocation in post-conflict settings. These approaches recognize that cooperative resource management can sometimes create windows of opportunity for dialogue between conflicting parties, even when political differences seem intractable .

Sustainable recovery efforts increasingly incorporate ecological restoration as a fundamental component of rebuilding war-torn societies. Activities such as reforesting degraded landscapes, restoring wetland ecosystems, rehabilitating agricultural soils, and clearing waterways of pollution directly support economic recovery by restoring the natural capital upon which livelihoods depend. For example, in Colombia, peacebuilding efforts have included programs to restore forests in areas previously controlled by FARC guerrillas, simultaneously creating employment opportunities for former combatants while rehabilitating ecosystems damaged by decades of conflict. These initiatives demonstrate the potential for green recovery programs that address both environmental damage and socioeconomic needs simultaneously. The increasing integration of environmental objectives into peacekeeping operations, humanitarian response, and development assistance reflects growing recognition that sustainable peace depends not only on political agreements but also on restoring the ecological foundations that support human well-being and economic development .

Contemporary Relevance and Future Directions

Emerging Trends in Warfare and Environmental Impacts

Modern armed conflicts present evolving challenges for environmental protection, with changing warfare methods and technologies creating new forms of environmental risks. The urbanization of warfare means that conflicts increasingly occur in densely populated areas where damage to industrial facilities, water systems, and energy infrastructure creates complex pollution hazards with immediate public health consequences. The use of explosive weapons in cities generates vast quantities of debris that can contaminate soil and water resources, while attacks on wastewater treatment plants release untreated sewage into rivers and coastal areas. Furthermore, the conflict in Ukraine has highlighted the risks to nuclear facilities when warfare occurs in countries with extensive nuclear power infrastructure, creating potential for radiological contamination that could cross international borders . These trends underscore the need for updated military guidelines and enhanced precautions in attack planning to avoid environmental damage that disproportionately affects civilian populations long after active hostilities have ended.

Another significant trend is the growing understanding of the climate footprint of conflict, with recent research attempting to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions associated with warfare and military activities. The unprecedented carbon costs of the war in Gaza provide a stark example, where emissions from the first 60 days exceeded the annual emissions of 20 individual countries, and reconstruction is projected to generate emissions higher than more than 130 countries . Similarly, analyses indicate that NATO rearmament could increase emissions by 200 million tonnes annually, highlighting the climate implications of military buildup in response to geopolitical tensions . These findings challenge traditional exclusion of military emissions from international climate agreements and underscore the need for greater transparency and accountability for the climate impacts of conflicts. As Secretary-General António Guterres has emphasized, "We must use all of the tools at our disposal... to keep the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources from fueling and financing armed conflict and destabilizing the fragile foundations of peace" .

The Way Forward: Integration, Prevention, and Accountability

Addressing the environmental dimensions of armed conflict requires integrated approaches that bridge traditional boundaries between environmental governance, humanitarian action, and peacebuilding. Future efforts must focus on mainstreaming environmental protection across the conflict cycle, from prevention and response through recovery and peacebuilding. This includes developing more robust early warning systems that monitor environmental stress as an indicator of potential conflict, integrating environmental considerations into military doctrine and training, and ensuring that environmental recovery is prioritized alongside political and security objectives in peace processes. The draft principles developed by the International Law Commission provide a comprehensive framework for such integrated approaches, but their adoption and implementation will require sustained political commitment and resource allocation . Furthermore, greater attention must be paid to the gendered impacts of environment-conflict linkages, recognizing that women often bear disproportionate burdens when resources are degraded or scarce, yet also possess unique knowledge and perspectives that can contribute to more sustainable resource management in post-conflict settings .

Preventive approaches offer particular promise for reducing the environmental toll of conflicts before they occur. These include environmental screening of conflict zones to identify hazardous sites such as chemical plants, tailings dams, and energy infrastructure that could create pollution incidents if damaged, enabling parties to conflict to take precautions to avoid these facilities . Similarly, strengthening governance of high-value natural resources in conflict-prone areas can reduce incentives for resource-driven conflicts, while promoting cooperative management of shared resources like transboundary water basins can build resilience against climate-related stresses that might otherwise exacerbate tensions. As the policy landscape evolves, there is growing recognition that accountability mechanisms for environmental harm in conflicts must be strengthened, whether through international criminal law, national jurisdictions, or transitional justice processes that acknowledge environmental crimes as serious violations deserving of redress . These forward-looking approaches recognize that protecting the environment during armed conflict is not merely an ethical imperative but a practical necessity for sustainable peace and human security.

Conclusion

The International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict serves as an annual reminder of the silent victimhood of nature during hostilities and the profound interconnections between environmental protection and sustainable peace. Since its establishment in 2001, this observance has helped galvanize international attention, research, and action on the environmental dimensions of conflicts, leading to more sophisticated understanding of how natural resources can drive violence, how environmental damage undermines recovery, and how ecological cooperation might sometimes contribute to peacebuilding. The day challenges us to recognize that environmental security is an essential component of human security, and that the traditional separation between environmental governance and conflict management is no longer tenable in an era of climate change, resource scarcity, and complex emergencies.

As the world continues to grapple with numerous armed conflicts and their aftermath, the principles underlying this International Day remain urgently relevant. The devastating environmental impacts documented in conflicts from Vietnam to Ukraine demonstrate that the ecological foundations of human well-being are increasingly at risk in warfare, while the persistent links between resource exploitation and violence underscore the need for integrated approaches that address both environmental and security challenges simultaneously. Looking ahead, the full implementation of international frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals will require greater attention to the environment-conflict nexus, as durable peace depends fundamentally on sustainable resource management that meets human needs without undermining the ecological systems that support all life. On this day each year, the international community reaffirms its commitment to protecting the environment from the scourge of war, recognizing that such protection is not a luxury to be addressed after peace is secured, but an essential precondition for peace itself.

Photo from: Freepik

Share this

myearthisone