Environmental damage during occupations.

 





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.

Gaza, 2014

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 damaged or degraded by periods of violence. Measures taken by the occupied population to oppose the occupier can also lead to environmental harm. The increased military presence can impact landscapes by vehicle movements or training areas, or by the building of walls and fences that can disrupt wildlife movements, or separate people from the resources they are dependent on. Poor waste management at military bases, whether operated by states or private contractors, can harm public health and the environment. Meanwhile, militarised responses to security issues can create more serious environmental harm than civil responses would.

Inequitable resource management is common to occupations, with resource grabs and over-extraction common, whether of water or minerals. Environmental oversight can be limited or preferential, facilitating environmental degradation. The occupied population may be unable to enjoy the same environmental human rights as those of the occupier, and be forced to live with limited resources, poorer environmental services and higher levels of pollution.

Politically focused development is common as the occupying power seeks to make its mark on a territory. In this way major infrastructure works may be undertaken with little environmental oversight.


Location: Gaza

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Highlighting Rapidly Growing Links between Climate and Conflict

Image
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...
Read more

Climate and security: environmental impact of armed conflict and climate-driven security risks.

Image
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...
Read more

Speech delived by the UNEP Executive director during the United Nations Security Council Briefing on Climate and Security – environmental impact of armed conflict driven security risks.

Image
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...
Read more