The Weaponization and Destruction of Land and Forests

War and preparations for war have a wide range of negative environmental consequences, to water, land, and air. This article will focus on the impacts of military activities on land.

Many materials that are used and activities that are carried out in conflict zones can cause significant damage to the local environment: remnants of land mines, discarded weapons, artillery, chemical and biological pollution, and deforestation, just to name a few. Even nature itself can be used as a weapon. The failure to protect the land-based environment in conflict zones is an abject failure of current agreements and the larger international community.

Let’s begin with deforestation. In 2020, the world experienced a 10% increase in forest loss in conflict-affected areas, which equates to 3.2 million hectares of land. This trend continued into 2022, which saw another 10% increase since 2021 in the loss of forests overall, not just in conflict-zones. This recent increase is not unique — forests have been used as conflict zones for a very long time. Trees can provide cover for opposing armies, and are thus seen as advantageous. However, when used in this way, significant damage can be done to the trees, such as being cut down to damage the enemy side, or used for supplies. This was certainly the case during World War I, where trench warfare conducted in previously forested areas along the Western Front has left the land scarred.Much of the tree cover destroyed back then, over a century ago, has still not been recovered. For example, 100 years ago, forests accounted for 15–35% of Syria, and now that number stands at approximately 3%. The causes of this extreme decrease include industrialization, but also the civil war that has been ongoing since 2011. In the heavily forested mountains, 36% was destroyed as a result of the conflict; similarly, forests near Aleppo saw a 59% decrease, and Palmyra saw a comparable 51% loss.

Similarly, insurgent and criminal groups in Colombia increased rates of deforestation in Colombia from 2016 to 2021 after the peace accords between the government and the FARC insurgency group; in the immediate aftermath of signing the peace agreement, deforestation increased by 44%. The major driver of this deforestation by illicit, armed groups was economic gain. However, in 2022, the Colombian government began a new “war on deforestation,” which caused a 70% decrease in deforestation in 2023, according to government ministers. However, this use of the military to prevent deforestation represents something much more sinister: the use of armed force, which can cause environmental harm, to prevent it. The case of Colombia, this war on deforestation is taking place in the same area that they have previously fought in their war on drugs. Thus, armed conflict is not only a driver of deforestation, but deforestation is now in turn a driver of armed conflict.

This cycle of violence can only have negative consequences for affected communities; it destroys habitats and thus irreparably alters the local ecosystem and can even cause extinction of plant and animal species. This leads to food insecurity in nearby human populations, along with an increase in infectious diseases. This can then lead to global pandemics, as was seen in 2020. Additionally, less forest means more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as trees are the largest consumers of it.

Another major consequence to the environment from conflicts is pollution from vehicles, equipment, and weapons. The most obvious pollutant is the use of chemical weapons, which causes toxins to leak into the soil and render it useless. If the chemical is potent enough, the soil can still be unusable for decades after the conflict is ended. Similarly, explosive weapons can cause damage to the land; if industrial facilities are hit, toxins, chemicals and other pollutants can cause irreparable damage. This happened during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s, where oil fields were deliberately attacked, and caused spills that lead to serious pollution. Debris from the detonation of these explosive weapons can also lead to pollution of the land, air, and water. These explosive weapons can also cause damage to the land if they remain unused; leaving them behind will pollute the soil and air, and affect nearby communities.

The last issue at play here is the damage done to agricultural lands during conflict. Farms, or other agribusinesses within conflict zones are often the target of attacks, which can include the destruction of infrastructure, killing of livestock, and displacement of essential workers. Additionally, the use of explosive weapons and landmines can render fertile land unusable. For example, since the onset of Israel’s war with Hamas on October 7, 21% of arable land in Gaza has been destroyed. On a much wider scale, Ukraine has lost 2.8 million hectares (or 10,800 square miles) of farmland since the Russian invasion in February, 2022. The human cost of damage to agricultural land is incalculable. Food security for nearby communities is severely impacted, which is a violation of current international humanitarian law should food insecurity lead to mass starvation. International markets can also be hit heavily, as was the case in Ukraine. Outside of the human toll, Ukraine alone lost $8.7 billion between 2022 and 2023 just in the destruction of agricultural land.

So what do we do now? Deforestation is discussed in the 2015 Paris Agreement, and more than 100 countries agreed to end deforestation by 2030 at COP26 in Glasgow. That said, the world is currently not on track to do so. Much more is needed in order to ensure the safety and health of our lands and forests.The role conflicts play in their destruction and pollution is largely ignored. It is imperative that an international agreement on deforestation paired with strong, measurable, quantifiable action be negotiated and enforced. To put it simply, the damage to the environment that occurs should be reason enough to ensure that conflict does not occur.

While international humanitarian law has specific provisions against starvation as a weapon in war, it is not very well enforced. Concrete steps to ensure the proper enforcement of the current rules (and unanimous agreement of these rules) is required to ensure that the destruction of agricultural land is punishable on the world stage. Unfortunately, that is unlikely given that action taken during conflict is largely ungovernable. That said, rules against it can still exist, and agreements can be reached so that those who perpetrate these acts can be appropriately punished. Bad or rogue actors will always work around the rules or not agree to them in the first place, but that does not mean that the rules shouldn’t exist at all. Enforcement of the current international humanitarian law is required.

Pollution by weapons is difficult to gauge an appropriate solution for. Chemical and biological weapons already have agreements banning their use, and so proper enforcement regarding their use must be a priority. Demilitarization is the only true way to ensure that civilians and our environment are safe from the devastating consequences of conflict; environmental degradation should be reason enough, outside of the obvious human costs, to prevent wars from beginning in the first place. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily possible in the short term. In lieu of that, the pollution of weapons must at least be minimized through precision uses and enforced clean up after the fact. Dangerous infrastructure such as oil rigs or chemical plants must not be targeted at all, which would go a long way in terms of minimizing pollution. In sum, there is much more that can and must be done in order to ensure the protection of the environment in conflict zones in the short term. In the long-term, demilitarization must be the goal in order to safeguard both people and the planet.