Youth Essay: Environment & Armed Conflict
Climate Migration as a Result of Wartime Environmental Destruction
by: Cara Elzie, Yakima, WA (Arizona State University)
One of the casualties of war that is often overlooked is the environment. During armed conflicts, the environment is habitually destroyed. Armed conflict creates extreme amounts of pollution, which impacts the environment and especially harms both biodiversity & geodiversity in a given region (Lawrence et al., 2015). For example, deforestation and other forms of environmental destruction often increase during times of armed conflict because resource extraction is one of the main ways conflicts are financed. The problem of deforestation is also fueled by the need for firewood, which is an essential resource (Vince, 2022). Like deforestation, explosions and “scorched earth” policies also destroy soil, making it impossible to use for agriculture; additionally, both of these things can lead to air pollution as well, which has transnational impacts on the environment. When this destruction is significant enough to impact large swaths of agricultural land, it leads to food insecurity. Since most armed conflicts happen in areas where tensions are already high, food insecurity is often a pre-existing issue in these areas, and the destruction of farmland through pollution, explosions, burning, and other destructive actions increases tensions and food insecurity, as well as draining other material resources.
These forms of environmental destruction have a wide range of long and short-term effects, including climate-induced migration. Climate migration occurs when destruction of a natural area and/or resources causes widespread human displacement. Individuals who are living within war-torn countries and become forced to migrate are often forced to move closer to, or directly into, conflict zones. This migration magnifies pre-existing tensions between groups and increases the strain on an area’s natural resources, which, again, magnifies tensions, creating a cyclical pattern of environmental destruction.
By looking at history, we see the price humans have paid by not seriously considering the cost of environmental destruction when making military and political decisions. For example, during World War II, many dams were destroyed, which led to thousands of acres of farmland being ruined (The Dambusters Raid: How effective was it? 2013). Thankfully, some types of environmental destruction have been limited due to bans on certain kinds of warfare, most notably the ban against chemical and biological weapons of war as outlined in the 1925 Geneva Convention (1925 Geneva Protocol – UNODA), which was created after World War I (Chemical and biological weapons 2013). Despite this, these kinds of weapons are sometimes still used in international armed conflict. For example, during the Vietnam War a chemical defoliant called Agent Orange was used in Vietnam; after the Vietnam War and the resulting ecological destruction and negative public health consequences, the defoliant was banned (How does war damage the environment? 2022). Today, the Red Cross “estimates that three million Vietnamese have been affected by dioxin, including at least 150,000 children born with serious birth defects. Millions of Americans and Vietnamese are still affected, directly and indirectly, by the wartime U.S. spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides over southern and central Vietnam” (What is agent orange? - The Aspen Institute).
Today, rising temperatures, especially in the Global South, are forcing high rates of human displacement (Vince, 2022), which is exacerbated by international armed conflict. This issue is only continuing to grow. The United Nations International Organization for Migration has come forward with new evidence which estimates “there could be as many as 1.5 billion environmental migrants in the next thirty years alone. After 2050, that number is expected to soar as the world heats further and the global population rises to its predicted peak in mid 2060” (Vince, 2022). The issue of climate migration is becoming more prevalent as the climate continues to change, with “the number of migrants [having] doubled globally over the past decade, and the issue of what to do about rapidly increasing populations of displaced people [becoming] greater and more urgent” (Vince, 2022). In America, this increased migration is already occurring as a growing number of climate refugees are seeking safety at America’s southern border (Miller, 2017). Additionally, this movement is also clearly being observed in “South-South” migrations, where migrants travel between neighboring countries in the Southern Hemisphere searching for economic prosperity and safety from both natural disasters and war-time destruction (Marquardt, 2021).
When climate migrants travel between countries, this creates a transboundary issue as neighboring countries try to accommodate this influx of migrants. As climate issues continue, mass migration will increase, creating areas where soil is no longer able to sustain crops. This migration causes an environmental strain on areas where displaced people are migrating to when the land is not able to handle this unexpected swell of people (How does war damage the environment? 2022). For example, in Alta Verapaz, Guatemala, it is estimated that crop yield will decrease by 32% by the year 2070 (Lustgarten, 2020). Furthermore, international armed conflict endangers land that is already vulnerable due to these ballooning populations. In particular, herbicides used in conflicts can damage the environment, especially soil, causing severe, widespread destruction. In an attempt to curb this, the 1976 ENMOD Convention was adopted, which prohibits “method of warfare if such use upsets the ecological balance of a region, thus causing widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury (Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict, 2020).
Due to the inherent value of the environment, it is not
surprising that it continues to be weaponized during armed conflicts, with global impact. Currently, this issue is playing out in real-time in Ukraine. In the days before Russia fully invaded Ukraine in February 2022, various water facilities in eastern Ukraine were reportedly damaged, which left over 90,000 Ukrainians with insecure water access; this is a clear example of using the environment to create leverage within a conflict (Ukraine invasion: Rapid overview of environmental issues 2022). In Iraq, nature was similarly weaponized when a river was pumped full of heavy crude oil, corrupting the drinking supply and forcing those dependent on the river to turn to another source (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2019).
Climate migration is a clear example of the symbiotic
relationship between humans and the environment. When the environment suffers, humans also suffer. Emily Anthes touches on this in her article A ‘Silent Victim’: How Nature Becomes a Casualty of War, “Human well-being & environmental well-being are really closely connected and … the damage that’s happening in Ukraine right now to the environment is making life worse for Ukrainians and could continue to make their lives worse in the years and decades after the war” (2022). Therefore, it is incumbent that the world leaders address mass destruction of the environment and environmental resources. The impact of environmental destruction, especially during armed conflict, is not just limited to the environment; we as humans are impacted too.
Work Cited:
Support all the urgent humanitarian needs of the American Red Cross.
Find a drive and schedule a blood donation appointment today.
Your time and talent can make a real difference in people’s lives. Discover the role that's right for you and join us today!
