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

Madam President, Excellencies, I thank the Government of Sierra Leone for convening this timely meeting. In 2001, the United Nations General Assembly invited the United Nations system, and international and regional organizations, to mark 6 November each year as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict – an enduring reminder that protecting nature is inseparable from protecting people in times of crisis. In doing so, Member States recognized that environmental harm during armed conflict can degrade ecosystems and natural resources long after hostilities end, often across national borders and beyond the present generation. My first point is that environmental damage caused by conflicts continues to push people into hunger, disease and displacement – and therefore increasing insecurity. Conflicts lead to pollution, waste and the destruction of critical ecosystems, with long-term implications for food security, for water securi...

Armed conflict increasingly generates severe and lasting environmental harm, with direct implications for international peace and security.  Warfare  damages ecosystems; contaminates air, soil and water; destroys agricultural land; accelerates deforestation and biodiversity loss; and devastates urban infrastructure. These impacts erode livelihoods, aggravate humanitarian need, fuel displacement and entrench cycles of instability by intensifying  competition over scarce resources . The United Nations estimates have found that a quarter of the world’s population, approximately 2 billion people, live in conflict-affected areas.1 This widespread conflict not only destabilizes human populations but also drives the degradation of natural resources, which include renewable resources like water, land, forests and other ecosystems. In turn, this  environmental decline  deepens fragility and worsens humanitarian crises. Illustrative cases underline the global scope. For i...

While climate change exacerbates conflict-causing tension, conflict, in turn, leads to pollution and ecosystem damage, the Security Council heard today, in a wide-ranging discussion on climate and security. “Imagine a mother living in one of the most vulnerable neighbourhoods” of Haiti’s capital, Maranatha Dinat, World Relief Haiti, told the 15-member organ. “Her home, already weakened by erosion, is flooded after heavy rains come. She is forced to flee with her children, crossing gang-controlled areas and unsafe roads to reach an improvised camp. This is the reality for thousands of Haitian families,” she said. When hurricanes tear off roofs, rising waters flood the plains or droughts dry out the hills, “it is always the same displaced or marginalized families who pay the highest price”, she added. “In a country where much of the population depends on subsistence agriculture, every climate shock becomes both a humanitarian emergency and a driver of instability,” she added. The in...

While armed conflicts and military activities can cause or facilitate many different forms of environmental harm, addressing the environment during and after conflicts can also create opportunities for building and sustaining peace , and for helping to transform societies through sustainable recovery. Shared natural resources can provide the basis for dialogue between warring parties , as can common environmental threats that extend across human boundaries and borders. Unpredictable energy supplies during conflicts can encourage a transition to solar power , while the devastation conflicts cause can be an opportunity to build back greener , or to create new domestic legal frameworks to sustainably manage resources. However, these opportunities are dependent on more attention being paid to the environment before, during and after conflicts . Public interest is far greater than it has been historically, thanks in part to improved documentation of harm. This is creating expectations ...

  It is rare these days for conflicts to conclude cleanly with a peace agreement and a ceasefire. Low level conflict and insecurity can continue for long periods. In this respect many of the forms of harm that occur during conflicts are also applicable to this phase, particularly in its early stages. Transitions to peace are typified by weak state control, this means that environmental governance , and the capacity to provide it is often absent. Attention to environmental issues in the face of many competing social and economic priorities is usually limited. These conditions are key to many post-conflict environmental problems. In some instances, peace and power sharing agreements have impeded governance by creating fragmented political systems . Debris and rubble in Mosul in 2018. The city was left with at least 8 million tonnes of rubble. Unless managed properly, the disposal of post-conflict rubble and debris can create new environmental problems. Credit Hassan Partow/UNEP In th...

  Occupations may be relatively short-lived, or can last decades. While states have an obligation to protect the occupied population, their environmental obligations are less well defined. As with conflicts, occupations can hold back sustainable development, for example by limiting access to materials or technologies, or by acting as a barrier to investment. Pre-existing environmental programmes and projects may be curtailed, or replaced by a new incoming administration. Particularly problematic in the face of the intensifying climate crisis, occupations can also constrain the ability of communities to adapt to climate change, rendering them more vulnerable. A water tower lies ruined in Gaza 2014. Sporadic periods of violence during conflicts cause damage to environmental infrastructure that often goes unrepaired. Credit: Robin Lloyd/ECHO A lack of investment and development can lead to the slow collapse of critical environmental infrastructure , infrastructure that may be damage...

  The environmental impact of conflicts themselves vary greatly . Some international armed conflicts may be brief but highly destructive. Some civil wars may last for decades but be fought at low intensity. Many contemporary conflicts have blurred the lines, lasting years but with sustained periods of high intensity warfare. Who is fighting, where they’re fighting and how they’re fighting all strongly influence the environmental impact of a conflict. High intensity conflicts require and consume vast quantities of fuel, leading to massive CO2 emissions and contributing to climate change. The first three years of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine generated 230 MtCO2e – equivalent to the annual emissions of Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia combined. It is the first time that an effort has been made to calculate the emissions from any conflict. Large scale vehicle movements can lead to widespread physical damage to sensitive landscapes and geodiversity , as can the intensive u...

The environmental impact of wars begins long before they do. Building and sustaining military forces consumes vast quantities of resources. These might be common metals or rare earth elements and critical minerals, water or hydrocarbons. Control over militarily relevant critical minerals is becoming an increasingly important strategic consideration for militaries, as evidenced by policies towards Ukraine and the DRC . Maintaining military readiness means training, and training consumes resources. Military vehicles, aircraft, vessels, buildings and infrastructure all require energy, and more often than not that energy is oil, and energy efficiency is low. The CO2 emissions of the largest militaries are greater than many of the world’s countries combined. We estimate that militaries are responsible for 5.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, however military emissions reporting to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is poor. Militaries also need large areas of la...