Ecocide: The unpublicized victim of war

When we think of war, our thoughts instantly turn to the violence, pain, suffering, and triumph that accompany with it. When people criticise the cost of war, the spotlight is generally shone on the impact it has on human lives, political relationships and government bank accounts. We think of the immediate human impact, such as those who lost their lives as a result of the fighting. Rarely do we consider the severe and often long-term environmental impacts that also result from war. People don't realise the hugely detrimental effect war can have on the natural environment. Despite extensive developments in modern warfare technology, Nature remains largely at risk.

War is bad, and its lasting effects are worse. As a result of the harmful environmental impact of war, on the 5th of November, 2001, the United Nations General Assembly declared November 6th the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. The environmental effects of war, which can be persistent and long lasting, are often left unsaid and thus are never fully recognized. Though humanity has always counted its war casualties in terms of dead and wounded soldiers and civilians, destroyed cities and livelihoods, the environment has often remained the unpublicized victim of war, with water wells have been polluted, crops torched, forests cut down, soils poisoned, and animals killed to gain military advantage.

Furthermore, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has found that over the last 60 years, at least 40 per cent of all internal conflicts have been linked to the exploitation of natural resources, whether high-value resources such as timber, diamonds, gold and oil, or scarce resources such as fertile land and water. Conflicts involving natural resources have also been found to be twice as likely to relapse.
As war changes our parameters, it has been noted in the charters: "There is this notion that it is life or death for a nation so you don't worry about niceties. We have this idea that human beings are separate from their environment and that you could save a human life through military means and military preparation and then worry about these secondary things later."

According to the Institute for Economics and Peace, only 11 countries in the world are not involved in any conflict - despite this being "the most peaceful century in human history". Even in relatively peaceful countries the forces assembled to maintain security consume vast resources with relative impunity. But in war, the environment suffers from neglect, exploitation, human desperation and deliberate abuse on a terrible scale.

War is bad for wildlife in as many ways as for people. Conservation suffers because rangers often have to flee the fighting, and may be attacked because rebel armies covet their vehicles, radios and guns. Moreover, rebels often feed their troops on bush meat and finance their operations with ivory, timber, charcoal and minerals from protected areas.

The Geneva Convention places restrictions on methods of warfare "which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment". How exactly, then, does war leave its mark on the environment? Here is an outline of some of the biggest hazards:

Water pollution: Despite research indicating that depleted uranium could contain carcinogenic components, many countries still continue to use the chemical element in missiles. The residue of the toxic metal often ends up in water sources which can lead to serious health issues for both humans and surrounding plant and animal life. Across the globe, traces of perchlorate are commonly found in groundwater sources located near weaponries. As a man-made chemical used to create rocket fuel, fireworks, flares and explosives, perchlorate is not a nice element to find near any water source.

In such circumstances, water testing is required to understand if water is polluted. And, while there are numerous ways to do this, there are also a multitude of potential stumbling blocks, such as sample deterioration or contamination during transport, or the necessity for rapid results. As such, mobile testing has emerged as a solution to the inherent limitations in conventional methods.

Toxic dust: In landscapes which have been subjected to excessive use by heavy military vehicles, toxic dust is a very real environmental issue. Containing heavy metals such as cobalt, barium, arsenic, lead and aluminium, toxic dust can cause serious respiratory disorders for military personnel and local residents alike. When settling on surrounding plant life, the toxic metals quash growth, contaminate soil and prevent regeneration.

Air pollution and Greenhouse gas emissions: According to available stats, it was only the US Department of Defence emitted a colossal 70 million metric tons of CO2 in 2012. Not to mention guzzling up an estimated 4.6 billion gallons of fuel. Whether used in military training operations or in a real life war zone, military vehicles release a huge amount of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and CO2 into the air. At the end of the day, war rapidly accelerates fuel use, which means more demand for oil and a rapid increase in CO2 emissions.

Destruction and degradation of the landscape: From 1990 to 2007, only in Afghanistan, the total forest coverage decreased by a shocking 38%. While infrastructural development did play a role, deforestation was rapidly accelerated by illegal logging carried out by warlords. As a result, animals have lost their habitats, plant species have become extinct and desertification is emerging as a growing concern.

Damage to natural habitats: Despite the best intentions of war engaged countries, wildlife is always put at serious risk. Due to excessive bombing and deforestation, bird migration through has fallen by a colossal 75%. An influx of foreign Westerners into Eastern countries has also upped the demand for the skins of endangered species such as Snow Leopards.

While governments do have policies in place and activists are petitioning for an increase in environmental awareness, the world still has a long way to go when it comes in realising the damage war has on the natural environment and taking steps to prevent further destruction. The environment has long been a silent casualty of war and armed conflict. From the contamination of land and the destruction of forests to the plunder of natural resources and the collapse of management systems, the environmental consequences of war are often widespread and devastating.

Saving future generations from the scourge of war was the main motivation for creating the United Nations, whose founders lived through the devastation of two World Wars. But today we need to attach substantive importance to ensure that action on the environment is part of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peace building strategies, because there can be no durable peace if the natural resources that sustain livelihoods and ecosystems are destroyed.
The writer is an author, educationist & columnist, writes from Kolkata, India