Melissa Márquez
As the tides of history have ebbed and flowed, humanity has been entangled in the complex tapestry of conflict. The 20th century stands as a sombre testament, marred by over 100 million human conflict-related casualties.
Yet warfare, with its profound human toll, also inflicts substantial and lasting damage on the natural world. Whereas the negative impacts of war on human populations are well-documented, the ecological reverberations of military activities have garnered less attention. “The environment is the silent victim of conflicts,” said Doug Weir, the research and policy director at the Conflict and Environment Observatory, a nonprofit organization based in Britain.
There is a significant amount of research documenting the environmental effects of war.
From the preparation stages to violent conflict and post-war aftermaths, the effects on our natural world are both intricate and multifaceted. As military battles unfold, natural ecosystems are often relegated to mere “terrain” or strategic assets, viewed through an anthropogenic lens rather than an eco-centric one.
In some cases, environmental destruction is a deliberate military tactic, as seen in the Vietnam War when the U.S. military sprayed defoliants over jungles to strip enemy forces of cover.
However, the need for proactive efforts to consider the environment in military planning has become apparent; while battlefield supremacy often trumps environmental concerns during active conflict, the post-conflict landscape demands a concerted global effort to mitigate the consequences of war on ecosystems.
The environmental repercussions of wars begin long before they do. Constructing and maintaining military stations involves the extensive consumption of resources, ranging from common metals to rare earth elements, water, and hydrocarbons. Military operations also cover vast expanses of land and sea for bases, facilities, testing, and training.
Military-owned lands, estimated to cover 1-6% of the global land surface, frequently overlap with ecologically crucial areas. While designating these areas as off-limits to public development can be beneficial for biodiversity, but that goes out the window when war is on the line. Once space is ‘allocated,’ then comes making sure each military force is ready for conflict at a moment’s notice, which requires training… and this training further intensifies resource use.
Not only does this all disrupts terrestrial landscapes, it also scars marine habitats and produces chemical and noise pollution through the use of weapons, aircraft, and vehicles. While reporting of military emissions to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is notably poor, research estimates that militaries contribute to 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from some of the largest militaries surpass those of many entire countries combined!
Warfare emissions and the environment
A portion of these greenhouse gases is absorbed by the world’s oceans, leading to ocean acidification and disruptions in marine ecosystems. The delicate balance of marine life, from coral reefs to planktonic organisms, is threatened by rising sea temperatures and altered pH levels.
Inadequate environmental oversight in the past has resulted in numerous countries grappling with significant environmental legacies attributed to military pollution. Environmental issues arise not only from the life cycle of the most perilous nuclear and chemical weapons but also from conventional weapons, especially when disposal involves open burning or detonation. In the past, large quantities of surplus munitions were routinely discarded at sea, contributing to ecological concerns regarding the contamination of marine ecosystems.
These issues not only pose risks to public health but also incur substantial expenses for environmental remediation. “The amount of these weapons dumped in the North European seas since the end of World War I runs into hundreds of thousand of tons at least,” says Jean-Pierre Henriet and Dr. Tine Missiaen at the Renard Centre of Marine Geology, University of Gent, Belgium.
“Most accidents involved fishing crews; in some cases complete lumps of Yperite (mustard gas) were fished up, often resulting in serious burning wounds. Numerous incidents have also been reported related to the washing ashore of shells.”
Henriet
The ecological impact of conflicts.
Ground warfare can unfold in sensitive and remote ecosystems, becoming a pivotal force in altering landscapes and impacting wildlife. Armed conflicts often position soldiers within critical habitats of endemic and endangered species, posing a direct threat. The weaponry employed in ground warfare emerges as a formidable hazard, leaving craters, shrapnel, and contamination in its wake, fuelling poaching and refugee-driven habitat destruction.
Aerial combat increases wildlife mortality and the habitat destruction. The noise pollution caused by planes also impacts reproduction, foraging behavior, and habitat use. Air-to-ground assaults cause spikes in wildlife mortality and the destruction of natural habitats, contributing to localized population declines.
Speaking of sound, naval blasts and sonar operations interfere with the lives of aquatic species, causing ear haemorrhaging and beach stranding. The acoustic frequencies used by dolphins and whales align with naval sonar devices, leading to a lethal symphony beneath the surface. The introduction of foreign species through ballast waters and naval structures becomes an unintended consequence, reshaping ecosystems in unforeseen ways. Yet, beneath the waves, a complex interplay unfolds. Opportunistic species such as oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) have been documented to thrive on the aftermath of naval shipwrecks, which offer abundant food sources during times of warfare. Debris, like sunken naval craft, give rise to novel habitats. Some sunken boats transform into artificial reefs, providing refuge and colonization sites for aquatic life. Fish populations, once overexploited, find respite during naval conflicts as fishing fleets shrink in the face of military engagement. The resulting marine protected areas foster the proliferation of commercial fish populations, altering age-structure dynamics and rejuvenating once-depleted fisheries.
…naval blast and sonar operations interfere with the lives of aquatic species, causing ear hemorrhaging and beach stranding. The acoustic frequencies used by dolphins and whales aligns with naval sonar devices leading to a lethal symphony below the waves…
Marquez
The boon of technological advancements that has come from military research has also revolutionized the way we understand and protect ecosystems. The Cold-War tensions that gripped the world birthed satellites, offering a bird’s-eye view that transcends borders. Originally conceived for military surveillance, they have become indispensable in ecological research, especially when coupled with Global Positioning Systems (GPS), allowing researchers to map and monitor ecosystems with unparalleled accuracy. Today, satellite imagery forms the backbone of Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial analyses, unravelling large-scale spatial patterns and trends. Remote sensing technologies, whether passive or active, harness electromagnetic energy detected by satellites to locate and identify objects. This translates into assessing wildlife spatial distribution and calculating species diversity. For example, RADAR has evolved into one of the most effective methods for monitoring migratory bird species. Advances in telemetry technology have also miniaturized tag components for a myriad of biotelemetry wildlife projects.
And let’s not forget Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs), including aerial drones, marine vehicles, and terrestrial machines. Originally crafted for military operations, they have found a new purpose in conservation. Aerial ROVs capture sweeping vistas of parks, monitor wildlife, and combat illegal activities such as poaching and unauthorized logging. Marine ROVs delve into the depths, unravelling the mysteries of marine life and offering valuable insights into ecosystems. The marriage of military ingenuity and ecological exploration has, quite literally, changed the way we perceive and analyze the Earth’s surface.
The perilous nature of conflict zones, restricted military bases, and the aftermath of warfare-induced hazardous material zones form impenetrable barriers for researchers seeking to assess war’s influence on ecological functioning. The stochastic nature of war further complicates research, with the absence of pre-conflict information hindering before-after impact analysis. With warfare firmly entrenched in our DNA, the biosphere continues to endure the scars of conflict. Thus, in our quest for peace, it becomes imperative to recognize and mitigate the ecological toll of conflict, for the sake of our planet’s intricate web of life.
