November 6 is celebrated annually as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict .
War is not only about human grief and suffering. Nature has always been a silent victim of conflict. Trees were cut down to build ships and siege weapons, animals were exterminated to feed large armies, streams and wells were filled up, fields and forests were burned to the ground. In the 20th century, conflicts reached such a scale that they became global. New weapons became capable of not just damaging nature, but of completely destroying life in entire regions, countries, and ultimately the entire planet.
The issue of environmental damage first came to the forefront of public attention during the Vietnam War. The use of Agent Orange herbicides (defoliants) resulted in irreparable damage to ecosystems and long-term chemical contamination of the soil. The international community spoke out against such weapons. This resulted in the adoption of the ENMOD Convention, which prohibits the modification of the environment for military purposes, and amendments to the Geneva Convention.
Environmental damage during war can be deliberate, even if aimed solely at the enemy. Since ancient times, scorched earth tactics have been used to destroy crops, natural resources, and strategically important objects. With the development of aviation, it became possible to bomb industrial facilities and fuel storage facilities behind enemy lines. Finally, the use of now-prohibited weapons—chemical and biological—has become possible.
During the 1991 Gulf War, retreating Iraqi forces spilled 8 million barrels of oil into the sea and set oil rigs ablaze. The damage was so extensive that the aftermath is considered the greatest environmental disaster of the 20th century. During the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, chemical plants in Pančevo were destroyed. Harmful substances leaked into the air, land, and rivers, deteriorating the environmental situation throughout the Balkans. In 2006, over 30,000 tons of petroleum products leaked into the Mediterranean Sea from the Lebanese power plant, which was bombed by Israeli forces.
All these incidents have exposed the imperfections of international agreements and conventions, raising difficulties with the definition itself. The Geneva Convention defines unacceptable damage as “extensive, long-term, and severe.” Proving these three characteristics simultaneously is extremely difficult, and the vagueness of these terms doesn’t help matters. The methodology for calculating damages, who should compensate for it, and, most importantly, how to achieve this compensation in practice also raise questions.
Environmental pollution also occurs unintentionally. Lead from ordinary bullets leaches into the soil, poisoning it and groundwater. More exotic materials—ammunition cores made of tungsten, cobalt, or depleted uranium—can cause even more serious harm. Some researchers link the increased cancer rates in Kuwait and Serbia to the use of such bullets there. Beyond direct military action, industry also causes harm. War requires large quantities of weapons, equipment, and fuel. This leads to intensive mining and the development of heavy industry. During World War II, zinc and iron mining and smelting in Canada increased exponentially, leading to severe pollution throughout North America.
Natural resources are crucial to all aspects of armed conflict. They can be the cause of war, they are essential for achieving victory in war, and without them, peaceful recovery after conflict is impossible.
Since 1990, at least 80 military conflicts have been triggered by resource scarcity or the desire to control their extraction. Forty percent of all internal armed conflicts over the past 70 years have been linked to natural resources. Civil wars in Liberia, Angola, and Congo were fueled by the desire to possess valuable minerals—diamonds, gold, and oil. Conflicts in Sudan and the Middle East are often driven by a lack of vital resources: fertile land and water.
During war, control over resources is essential for its financing. Smuggling diamonds and other valuable minerals is the main source of income for the various factions fighting among themselves in Africa. This situation also complicates peace negotiations. Since the conflict resolution process inevitably involves the control of valuable resources, the side threatened with losing its source of income will drag it out and even sabotage it. Even when a shaky ceasefire is reached, it doesn’t last long. Statistically, such civil wars are twice as likely as other types to recur within just five years of the peace agreement.
Without natural resources, restoring peaceful life is impossible. Extraction and processing of minerals create jobs and replenish national budgets. Vital resources such as soil and water must be used rationally and sustainably to prevent outbreaks of famine or disease. Unfortunately, intensified resource extraction for the purpose of economic recovery often leads to new conflicts, harms depleted ecosystems, and leads to yet another war, devastating both humans and nature.
There is no single approach to solving this problem. Some countries are calling for international restrictions and controls on the extraction of rare resources, while others fear that, under the pretext of environmental protection, their legal right to manage their mineral wealth will be taken away. Certainly, the only true and radical solution would be to end all wars on the planet. But while this goal is still a long way off, we can at least try to mitigate the damage caused by monitoring compliance with international obligations and improving legislation.
Start Date: 06.11.2026
End Date: 06.11.2026