Gaza and Ukraine Wars Causing Massive Pollution, Environmental Damage
THE CONVERSATION
05/27/2024
By Richard Marcantonio, University of Notre Dame and Josefina Echavarria
Alvarez, University of Notre Dame | –
(The Conversation) – As wars grind on in Ukraine and Gaza, another location
ravaged by conflict is taking steps to implement a historic peace agreement.
From the mid-1960s through 2016, Colombia was torn by conflict between
the government, leftist guerrilla movements and right-wing paramilitary
groups. Now the government and rebels are working to carry out a sweeping
accord that addresses many critical sectors, including environmental
damages and restoration.
University of Notre Dame researchers Richard Marcantonio and Josefina
Echavarria Alvarez study peace and conflict issues, including their effects on
the environment. They currently are advising negotiations between the
Colombian government and several rebel factions over wartime damage to
soil, water and other natural resources. They explain that while Colombia’s
transition from war to peace has been difficult, the accord offers a model for
addressing the ravages of war in places such as Gaza and Ukraine.
Is it common for peace settlements to address environmental harm?
Few agreements include environmental provisions, and even fewer see them
carried out, even though research shows that many drivers of conflict can be
directly or indirectly related to the environment.
We work with a research program at the University of Notre Dame called the
Peace Accords Matrix, which monitors the implementation of comprehensive
peace accords in 34 countries worldwide. Only 10 of the accords have
natural resource management provisions agreements, and these typically
have not triggered major steps to protect the environment.
How is the Colombia accord different?
Colombia’s is seen as the most comprehensive peace accord that has been
signed to date. It considers issues ranging from security to social justice and
political participation, in great detail.
The accord acknowledges that a peaceful postwar society requires not only
respect for human rights but also “protection of the environment, respect for
nature and its renewable and nonrenewable resources and biodiversity.”
More than 20% of the commitments in the agreement have an environmental
connection.
They fall into four main categories:
– Adapting and responding to climate change
– Preserving natural resources and habitats
– Protecting environmental health through measures such as access to clean
water
– Process issues, such as ensuring that communities can participate in
decisions about rural programs and resource management
There also are gaps. For example, many protected areas have been
deforested for ranching and coca production in the postaccord period. And
there are no provisions addressing toxic pollution, an issue other agreements
also neglect.
Often there are power vacuums during transitions between war and peace,
when government agencies are working to reestablish their operations.
Natural resources and environmental health need protection during these
phases.
In Sierra Leone, for example, resource extraction by foreign companies
drastically ramped up immediately after the Lome Peace Agreement
eventually ended that nation’s civil war in 2002. Companies exploited a lack
of governance and support in the rural areas and often mined metals illegally
or hazardously without any regulatory oversight. Today these areas still
struggle with mining impacts, including contaminated drinking water and
fish, the primary protein source in the area.
European Commission: “Ukraine green recovery Conference”
What is the environmental toll of war in Ukraine?
The damage is vast: There’s air, water and soil contamination, deforestation
and enormous quantities of waste, including ruined buildings, burned-out
cars and thousands of tons of destroyed military equipment. Russia’s
destruction of the Kakhovka Dam flooded villages, destroyed crops and
wrecked irrigation systems.
Aerial footage shows the scale of damage from the collapse of the Kakhovka
Dam in a Russian-controlled area of Ukraine on June 8, 2023.
The cost estimates are staggering. A joint commission of the World Bank, the
government of Ukraine and other institutions currently estimate direct
damages at roughly US$152 billion.
In addition, cleaning up sites, rebuilding infrastructure and other repairs
could cost more than $486 billion over the next decade, as of late 2023. That
figure rises every day that the war continues.
There’s broad interest in a green and sustainable reconstruction that would
include steps like using sustainable building materials and powering the
electricity grid with renewable energy. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has
been adamant that Russia must pay for the damage it has caused. It’s still
unclear how this would work, although some U.S. and European lawmakers
support seizing frozen Russian assets held in Western banks to help cover
the cost.
There is a legal basis for holding Russia accountable. In 2022, the U.N.
General Assembly adopted a set of principles for protecting the environment
during armed conflicts. Among other existing statutes, they draw on a
protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 that prohibits using “methods or
means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause
widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.”
There has been only modest discussion so far of how to integrate these
principles into a formal peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. But a
working group that included Ukrainian and European Union officials and
former leaders from Sweden, Finland, Ireland and Brazil has recommended a
framework for addressing environmental damage and holding perpetrators
accountable.
What environmental impacts are known or asserted in Gaza?
Environmental damage in Gaza also is devastating. The U.N. estimated in
early 2024 that over 100,000 cubic meters (26 million gallons) of untreated
sewage and wastewater were flowing daily onto land or into the
Mediterranean Sea.
Gaza’s drinking water system was insufficient before the war and has been
further weakened by military strikes. On average, Gazans now have access to
about 3 liters of water per person per day – less than 1 gallon.
Thousands of buildings have been destroyed, spreading hazardous materials
such as asbestos. Every bomb that’s dropped disperses toxic materials that
will persist in the soil unless it’s remediated. Simultaneous environmental and
infrastructure impacts, such as water and power shortages, are contributing
to larger crises, such as the collapse of Gaza’s health care system, that will
have long-lasting human costs.
How can future peace accords address these impacts?
Integrating the environment into peace accords isn’t easy. Resources such as
energy, clean soil and water are vital for life, which is precisely why military
forces may seek to control or destroy them. This is happening in both
Ukraine and Gaza.
Peace negotiators tend to focus on social, political and economic issues,
rather than environmental reparations. But leaving environmental damage
unresolved until after a peace accord is signed keeps people who have been
displaced and marginalized by conflict in precarious positions.
It may even cause fighting to resume. According to the U.N. Environment
Program, at least 40% of all wars within states in the past 60 years have had
a link to natural resources. In those cases, fighting was twice as likely to
resume within five years after conflict ended.
We see some lessons for future negotiations.
First, it’s important for accords to recognize environmental harm as one of
war’s main consequences and to acknowledge that a healthy environment is
essential for sustainable livelihoods and peace.
Second, connecting environmental provisions with other issues, such as rural
reform and political participation, can create better, more sustainable and
equal conditions for reestablishing democracy. The Colombia accords are an
example.
Third, it is important to clearly define goals, such as what infrastructure and
institutions need to be rebuilt, who is in charge of getting those tasks done,
and the timetable for doing it. This can help ensure that environmental
restoration doesn’t become a secondary goal.
Fourth, the international community has an important role to play in
monitoring and verifying environmental restoration and providing financial
and technical support. Foreign donors have already pledged $66 billion for
rebuilding Ukraine and have said that they will require grantees to follow
strict environmental standards in order to receive financing.
Reconstructing nations and simultaneously regenerating communities and
ecosystems after wars is a daunting mission, but it’s also an opportunity to
build something better. We see Ukraine and Gaza as potential test cases for
addressing war’s toll on the environment and creating a more sustainable
future.The Conversation
Richard Marcantonio, Assistant Professor of Environment, Peace, and Global
Affairs at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies in the Keough
School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame, University of Notre
Dame and Josefina Echavarria Alvarez, Professor of the Practice in
International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons
license. Read the original article.
Filed Under: Israel/ Palestine, Pollution, Russia, Ukraine, War
|
|