The Collateral Damages of War

by Wendy Vanasselt

Along with the destruction of lives and livelihoods, wars can also destroy croplands, forests, water systems, and other natural resources.

Clean air and soils were casualties of the 1990-91 Gulf War after being polluted when Iraqis intentionally ignited hundreds of oil wells. Marine and coastal life was damaged too; spills of 6-8 million barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea killed 15,000-30,000 sea birds and contaminated mangroves and coral reefs.

When Serbian forces systematically destroyed villages and towns in the 1999 Kosovo conflict, they also destroyed clean drinking water supplies and waste systems. And though decades have passed since U.S. forces cleared 325,000 hectares in the Vietnam War by spraying the defoliant Agent Orange, biodiversity losses are still very much in evidence. Areas once covered by forests and mangroves now support just low-density grasslands and mudflats.

The toll on environmental governance is just as significant. War often destroys or weakens the institutions that make inclusive and informed decisions about the environment possible. War creates refugees, leaves government and environmental agencies handicapped or destroyed, and substitutes short-term survival for longer-term environmental considerations. This means that ecosystems continue to suffer even after the fighting has stopped.

War or "armed conflict" is a governance problem for a distressingly large number of people, ecosystems, and institutions. Between 1990 and 2000, 118 armed conflicts worldwide claimed approximately 6 million lives. People and the environment suffered the consequences for years after the wars ended. In 1999, more than two thirds of the ongoing conflicts had lasted for more than 5 years, and almost one third had lasted for more than 20 years.

During and after conflict, governments generally focus on meeting immediate human needs - food, shelter, and safety for citizens and displaced populations. Protection of the environment and sustainable resource management are inevitably relegated to lower priorities.

Even after conflict ends, well-informed environmental decisions are unlikely in the face of economic collapse, the need to rebuild infrastructure, and the disruption of commerce at the local, national, and international levels - common outcomes of armed conflict.

War economies and destabilized governments perpetuate an ongoing cycle of violence and resource exploitation. Land and natural resources may be used as bargaining chips to gain allies during strife, in negotiations to end conflict, or as postwar paybacks to those who helped win the conflict.

In countries where nature tourism provides a major source of income for biodiversity protection, that source quickly evaporates when conflict begins. In Rwanda, income generated by tourists - many of whom come to see mountain gorillas - totaled about $4-6 million annually; this in turn funded conservation projects in parks and forest reserves. However, escalating conflict in the 1990s, and the 1994 genocide caused tourist numbers to plunge; they still have not fully recovered.

War often leads to the breakdown of law and order, leaving protected areas and species vulnerable to exploitation. During Sierra Leone's civil war in the 1990s, regional forestry officers, foresters, rangers, and guards went unpaid for long periods, while illegal mining and logging - and massive deforestation - occurred in forest reserves. In the Central African Republic, hunting and poaching in war-torn provinces reduced the country's elephant numbers by 90 percent to just 5,000 and led to the disappearance of the rhinoceros.

Refugees searching for safe haven can burden the ecosystems in their country of asylum and complicate environmental decision-making. In 2001, there were about 20 million uprooted people worldwide. Some 12 million were refugees and 5 million were "internally displaced persons" -people forced to flee their homes, but still living in their original country.

Often, refugees are forced to settle in resource-scarce areas, putting further pressure on trees, land, water, and wildlife. The unstable in- and outflow of displaced people affects established patterns of rural cropping and food production, and upsets long-term agricultural investments. Streams of refugees can overburden infrastructure for living quarters, clean water supplies, and waste systems.

Civil society, so crucial to informed environmental management, is also weakened during war. War thwarts the ability of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media to operate. It also makes it harder for people to assemble, to communicate within and outside borders and to access information.

Conflict can mean the end of external funding and participation in environmental work. During wartime, foreign funders typically hesitate to support local NGOs. International organizations once active in environmental education, restoration, biodiversity monitoring, and natural resource management may pull out staff, abandon projects, or see their work destroyed by conflict, as experienced in Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, and other countries.

Clearly, a country at peace is more likely to have the political, economic, and civil stability that fosters sustainable development. Simmering conflicts and eruptions of violence slow economic growth, and reduce the latitude for innovation and investment. Civil conflicts in Africa have deterred progress in introducing greater transparency and accountability into governments - critical to democratic and sustainable development.

Amid war's brutality, death, and deprivation, the environment may seem a minor casualty. Yet, the destruction of the environment, along with the demolition of democratic, informed decision-making, can prolong human suffering for decades, undermining the foundation for social progress and economic security. (WRI Features, 861 words)