International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in
<p>In the first months of 1991, as Iraqi forces retreated from Kuwait, they set fire to more than 600 oil wells. The fires burned for the better part of a year, blackening the sky at noon, smothering the desert in soot and pumping out smoke that drifted across the Gulf and beyond. It was one of the most vivid demonstrations in living memory that the environment is not merely the backdrop to war but one of its casualties, and it lingered in the minds of the lawyers and diplomats who, a decade later, gave the world a date to confront the problem. The International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict, observed every 6 November, is built on the idea that rivers, soils, forests and wildlife deserve protection even when humans are doing their worst to one another.</p>
<h2 id="a-long-title-for-a-long-overdue-idea">A long title for a long-overdue idea</h2><div class="ad-unit ad-in-article" aria-label="Advertisement">
<span class="ad-label">Advertisement</span>
<ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:block;text-align:center"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3726833845844946"
data-ad-slot="3291553914"
data-ad-format="auto"
data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins>
<script>(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});</script>
</div>
<p>The day was created by the United Nations General Assembly, which adopted resolution 56/4 on 5 November 2001 and designated 6 November as the date of observance. The cumbersome name was chosen deliberately: it covers not only the deliberate exploitation of natural resources to fund or wage war, but the broader damage that conflict inflicts on the natural world. The resolution invited states to take measures to prevent and mitigate that damage and to support the restoration of ecosystems harmed by fighting.</p>
<p>The concern itself predates 2001 by decades. The United Nations had been grappling with environmental protection in wartime since the 1970s, in the long shadow of the Vietnam War and the use of defoliants such as Agent Orange. International humanitarian law already contained provisions, notably in the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting methods of warfare intended to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. The 2001 resolution did not invent these rules; it gave them a public face, a single day on which the principle could be argued, taught and reported.</p>
<h2 id="how-war-wounds-the-land">How war wounds the land</h2>
<p>The damage conflict does to the environment falls into three broad kinds, and the day exists to make all three legible. The first is deliberate: crops destroyed to starve a population, oilfields torched, dams blown, forests felled to deny cover, water deliberately poisoned or withheld. The use of the environment itself as a weapon is among the oldest tactics in warfare and among the most enduring in its effects.</p>
<p>The second is incidental, the unintended by-product of bombardment, the churning of land by armoured vehicles, and the collapse of the ordinary systems, sewage treatment, waste collection, industrial safety, that keep pollution in check in peacetime. The third is indirect and often the most insidious: when governance breaks down, protected areas go unguarded, poaching and illegal logging surge, and people stripped of any other means of survival are forced to over-exploit whatever forest, fish or soil remains. Each strand leaves scars that outlast the ceasefire by years or generations, which is why the destruction of an ecosystem in war is closely related in spirit to the lasting horror commemorated on the <a href="/specialdate/day-of-remembrance-for-all-victims-of-chemical-warfare/">Day of Remembrance for All Victims of Chemical Warfare</a>, where a weapon’s effects, too, refuse to respect the end of a battle.</p>
<h2 id="why-the-argument-matters">Why the argument matters</h2><div class="ad-unit ad-in-article" aria-label="Advertisement">
<span class="ad-label">Advertisement</span>
<ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:block;text-align:center"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3726833845844946"
data-ad-slot="3291553914"
data-ad-format="auto"
data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins>
<script>(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});</script>
</div>
<p>The case the day makes is partly moral and partly strategic, and it insists the two cannot be separated. Degraded land and contested resources are not just consequences of conflict; they can be its causes. When wells run dry, soil turns to dust or a forest is stripped, the people who depended on them are pushed into competition, displacement and grievance, the raw material of the next war. Environmental harm and human violence can feed one another in a loop, and breaking that loop is treated here as a matter of security, not sentiment.</p>
<p>There is also the simple question of who pays. The communities living through a war are rarely the ones who started it, and the poisoned aquifer or the ruined fishery they inherit can outlast the politics that produced it by decades. Protecting the environment in wartime is, in this framing, a way of protecting the civilians who will still be there long after the armies have gone.</p>
<p>The link between resources and conflict cuts both ways, and the day exists to make that two-way traffic visible. The United Nations Environment Programme has estimated that over recent decades a large share of internal armed conflicts have been associated in some way with the exploitation of natural resources, whether high-value commodities such as timber, diamonds, gold and oil, or scarce essentials such as land and water. Resources can finance a war, as “blood diamonds” and illegally logged timber have done; they can be its prize, as oilfields and mineral deposits have been; and their scarcity can be its spark, as competition over grazing, farmland and water has repeatedly shown. A day devoted to the environmental cost of war therefore overlaps, necessarily, with the study of why wars begin at all, and with the harder question of how the careful management of shared resources might keep some of them from beginning.</p>
<h2 id="how-the-day-is-observed">How the day is observed</h2>
<p>As a day rooted in law and advocacy rather than festivity, 6 November is marked mostly through words and research. The UN Environment Programme, which has carried out post-conflict environmental assessments in places from the Balkans to Sudan, often releases findings or statements. Universities and think tanks hold seminars on the links between conflict and ecology; the International Law Commission’s work on protecting the environment in relation to armed conflicts gives lawyers a concrete agenda to debate. Some organisations use the occasion to report on restoration projects in former war zones, turning the day’s message from a grievance into a programme of repair.</p>
<p>The day sits in deliberate dialogue with the wider environmental calendar. It shares its concerns, if not its tone, with the much larger <a href="/specialdate/world-environment-day/">World Environment Day</a> on 5 June, which celebrates the natural world in general terms; 6 November is its sombre counterpart, attending to what happens to that same world when it is caught in the crossfire.</p>
<h2 id="variations-across-the-world">Variations across the world</h2>
<p>The day resonates most strongly where conflict and ecology are visibly entangled. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, campaigners use it to highlight the threat war poses to gorilla habitats in places like Virunga National Park, where rangers have been killed protecting wildlife. In the Middle East, it draws attention to the long aftermath of oil fires, depleted-uranium contamination and damaged water systems. In Ukraine, recent fighting has given the day a sharp new relevance, with extensive documentation of damaged reservoirs, mined farmland and polluted rivers. The same date, once again, carries a different wound in every region.</p>
<h2 id="what-the-law-can-and-cannot-do">What the law can and cannot do</h2>
<p>The day quietly exposes a gap between principle and enforcement. International humanitarian law forbids attacks that would cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment, yet the threshold those three words set is famously high, and reaching all of them at once has rarely been established in a courtroom. The International Law Commission, the UN body that develops and codifies international law, spent years drawing up a set of principles on protecting the environment in relation to armed conflicts, addressing not only the fighting itself but the periods before and after, when prevention and restoration are possible. There is also a slow movement, led by environmental lawyers and some campaigning states, to recognise “ecocide” as a crime, on a footing with genocide and crimes against humanity, that an international court could prosecute. The 6 November observance gives this technical, often frustrating work a public hearing once a year, insisting that rules which exist mostly on paper are worth defending and worth strengthening, because the alternative is to treat the ruin of the natural world as a cost no one is ever asked to answer for.</p>
<h2 id="symbols-and-the-act-of-restoration">Symbols and the act of restoration</h2>
<p>The imagery of the day tends to juxtapose: the green of a healthy ecosystem against the black of a burned or blasted one, underlining both what is lost and what might be recovered. Expert panels, leaders’ statements and new research reports are its recurring rituals. But its most powerful symbol is restoration itself, the planting of trees and the rehabilitation of land in former war zones, an act that turns the day’s argument into something visible and hopeful, a green answer to a scorched question.</p>
<h2 id="fun-facts">Fun facts</h2>
<ul>
<li>The Kuwaiti oil fires of 1991 burned for around ten months and consumed millions of barrels of oil, creating soot fallout and smoke plumes visible from space.</li>
<li>Land left off-limits by conflict has sometimes become an accidental wildlife refuge: the heavily fortified Korean Demilitarized Zone, untouched by people for over seventy years, now shelters rare cranes and other species scarce elsewhere on the peninsula.</li>
<li>Shared environmental concerns, over a river, a forest or a fishery, have occasionally brought hostile states to the negotiating table when nothing else could, a practice sometimes called environmental peacebuilding.</li>
<li>The principle that the natural environment deserves legal protection even during war is now embedded in the Geneva Conventions’ Additional Protocols of 1977, a remarkably modern idea to find in a body of law about the conduct of armies.</li>
</ul>
<h2 id="a-closing-reflection">A closing reflection</h2>
<p>War is usually counted in human casualties, and rightly so, but the ledger has always been incomplete. A poisoned river, a torched forest, a minefield where a farm once stood, these are wounds inflicted on people too, just spread thin across time and across the unborn who will inherit the damaged ground. What 6 November quietly proposes is that we widen the definition of a war crime to include the slow, silent harm done to the land, and that we treat the recovery of an ecosystem as part of the recovery of peace itself.</p>
Advertisement
Related Content
Advertisement
