International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict
Working to Protect the Environment in Armed Conflict
(Measuring depleted uranium contamination with gamma meter. Djakovica, Kosovo.)
Protecting the environment in times of armed conflict is not a new idea. Even in ancient times, rules existed to ensure that natural resources essential for people’s survival, such as clean water, were protected. Unfortunately, the need to protect the environment in the context of armed conflict is more urgent today than ever before. Observing the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict — which falls on this Sunday, November 6 — is a way of recognizing and striving to address the impacts of war on the environment.
During the 1900s, technological developments in weaponry carried with them unprecedented threats to and effects on the environment. In addition to the risks presented by conventional means and methods of warfare, environmental damage in connection with the testing or use of nuclear weapons loomed. The long-lasting effects of such testing became particularly visible to me when I visited the Marshall Islands earlier this year, as did the effects of remnants of war at sea for the small island states in the Pacific.
From the Vietnam War in the 1970s to the Iraq-Kuwait war in the 1990s, awareness of the environmental risks and damage grew slowly but surely. Many of us remember the shocking images of environmental destruction, such as “Agent Orange” in Vietnam or the burning oil wells in in Kuwait. In Kuwait, approximately 600 oil wells were set on fire, with some wells burning for more than eight months and causing severe damage to the environment in their wake. Iraqi areas and lands were also affected by the warfare. The efforts of Dr Mishkat Al-Moumin, Iraq’s first Minister of Environment, were critical in establishing governance structures for environmental protection in Iraq during her tenure in 2004–2005.
The burning of oil wells and other environmentally disastrous effects of the war once again awoke the international community to the effects of modern warfare on the environment. Similarly, more recent conflicts in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Lebanon and Liberia all demonstrated the high environmental costs for war-torn societies.
(Spilled mercury in Pancevo, Serbia.)
In stride with the advances in warfare technology, the 1970s saw the birth of modern international environmental law, in particular through the Stockholm Declaration on the Protection of the Environment, concluded in 1972 at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. This conference also led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment).
The environmental concerns raised in the wake of the Vietnam War and subsequent to the 1972 Stockholm Declaration were reflected in two important legal documents, namely the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD, 1976) and the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1977). Attempts to further codify and strengthen the protection of the environment during armed conflict were made in the aftermath of the Iraq-Kuwait war in the 1990s. The United Nations General Assembly discussed the matter, resolutions were adopted but in the end these attempts failed to arrive at any new legally binding protection measures.
However, one important and lasting result was the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC) Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict. Without formally approving these guidelines, the United Nations General Assembly invited all States to “give due consideration to the possibility of incorporating them into their military manuals and other instructions addressed to their military personnel” at its 49th session in 1994. The Guidelines were a recognition of the need to address the protection of the environment in operational terms.
(Remnants of war in Sudan.)
In 2009, UN Environment, the ICRC and the Environmental Law Institute made one of the first comprehensive analyses of how the many different areas of international law could protect the environment during armed conflict. This analysis examined not only international humanitarian law, but also environmental law, human rights law and international criminal law. It presented twelve recommendations available in the publication: “Protecting the environment during armed conflict: An Inventory and Analysis of International Law”.
Among the recommendations in the 2009 UN Environment report, the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) was recommended to “examine the existing international law for protecting the environment during armed conflict and recommend how it can be clarified, codified and expanded”. Partly due to the fact that the recommendation came from another United Nations entity, the ILC examined it and as a result considered it apt for being placed on its long-term program of work in 2011. In 2013 the topic “Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts” was placed on the current program of work and I was honoured to be appointed Special Rapporteur for the topic.
The International Law Commission, set up in 1947, consists of 34 legal experts representing the principal legal systems of the world, that report to the General Assembly on topics where it identifies a need to codify or progressively develop international law. Over the years, the Commission has addressed topics such as the law of the sea, treaty law, international criminal law, and protecting persons in the event of disasters.
After having placed the topic Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts on the agenda our first challenge was how to deal with such a complex topic. The Commission decided to structure the topic into three temporal phases in order to examine the legal rules applicable before, during, and after the armed conflict. In my capacity as Special Rapporteur, I have presented the Commission with three reports that address the three temporal phases. The Commission has considered all three reports and as a result a set of draft ‘principles’ have been outlined. These principles gather existing obligations under international law, addressing gaps and allowing the Commission to provide a holistic set of draft principles to be considered by the General Assembly. The principles do not aim at re-writing the present law of armed conflict, but rather focus on preventive and post-conflict measures.
The principles include the need for post-conflict environmental assessments and remedial measures, the sharing and granting of access to information, to name just a few. They also address the environmental impact of peace operations, as well as the need to address matters relating to the restoration and protection of the environment damaged by an armed conflict in peace processes. The need to remove or render harmless toxic and hazardous remnants of war on land and in the sea is recognized, as is the important role of relevant international organizations.
In addition, the principles also encourage the establishment of protecting zones of major environmental and cultural interest. As we know, these areas can have a critical importance, both for protecting fragile ecosystems, and for ensuring the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples.
The work in the Commission is on-going and it is encouraging to note that our efforts come at a critical time, when concurrent efforts from other organizations are emerging. For instance, the ICRC guidelines are currently being revised to better reflect the developments since 1994. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the 2009 UN Environment report addressed the need to update the ICRC Guidelines, for instance to define key terms and examine protection of the environment during non-international armed conflicts. This suggestion and other recommendations were given further momentum by the fact that the 2011 ICRC report on Report on strengthening legal protection of victims of armed conflicts recognized environmental protection as one of the four areas of international humanitarian law that needed to be reinforced. That same year, Nordic countries issued a pledge on protection of the natural environment in times of armed conflicts at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
In addition, the resolution on the protection of the environment in areas affected by armed conflicts agreed by consensus at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-2) in May this year was a major signal of the commitment of United Nations Member States to confront the issue.
Not only is this resolution a positive signal in itself, but it will also establish synergies for the future between the on-going work of UN Environment, the ILC, as well as the important work undertaken by the ICRC on this topic. In addition, the engagement by civil society organisations contributes to develop these issues further. One example of such contributions comes from a partnership between UN Environment, academia and civil society to share best practices on environmental protection and peacebuilding through a knowledge platform.
In parallel, an important development for protection of the environment is happening in international criminal law. In September of this year, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) published a policy paper on case selection and prioritisation, which clearly signals that environmental crimes are to be regarded as priority areas for the court in terms of determining the gravity of the crimes.
In summary, this year is set to be a milestone in our global efforts to protect the environment in connection with armed conflict. As the path for increased protection of environment in relation to armed conflicts continues, it is my hope that the momentum established by these concurrent tracks within the United Nations, the ICRC, the ICC and the ILC might serve to provide a holistic and integrated protection, for existing and future generations.
Source : 7/11/2016 UN Environment ,https://medium.com/@UNEP/working-to-protect-the-environment-in-armed-conflict-ce9aff1aa479#.v4kecldq3
Development At A Cost To The Environment
Environmentalists have opposed moves by the government to encroach 99 acres of land from the Sripada (Adam’s peak) sanctuary to build cable wire cars and luxury hotels under an Urban Development Authority (UDA) project.
Out of 12, 329 acres, the project proposes to construct cable wire cars and hotels in 99 acres in the holy grounds of Sripada but environmentalists and the environmental protection organisations raised concerns ever since the plan was proposed in 2013 by the previous government.
The Center for Environment and Nature Studies (CENS) stated that the project has taken a fresh start under a new name in the claim of boosting the tourism industry in Sri Lanka. The initial construction work for the tourist hotel being built in Marewattha, Sripada began in 2013.
A cabinet paper was brought to parliament by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2014 to allocate 99 acres from the Adam’s peak sanctuary for cable car and tourist hotel projects.
The proposed projects were approved without clearance from the Central Environment Authority (CEA), Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), Agrological Department and the Ministry of Environment, most importantly without any Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).
The construction was put on hold by the previous government following objections and protests staged by politicians, environmentalists and conservationists. According to gazette notice 8675/1940/Oct/25 Adam’s peak has been declared as a sanctuary under the Flora and Fauna Act.
The surrounding areas and the road leading from Sripada to Nallathanni were declared as a world heritage site of UNESCO in 2010 which means no construction or renovation can take place here without a valid reason and appropriate approvals from the authorities concerned, especially from the UNESCO committee.
It was declared as one of the UNESCO world heritage sites in Sri Lanka for the ecological and biological diversities which need to be protected and reserved without any harm being done to the site.
“A place that already has alot of tourist attraction and was supposed to be protected by the government, being damaged and threatened in the expectation of boosting the tourism industry in the country is not an appropriate plan by the government. It is crystal clear the projects aren’t sustainable nor will they be a contributing factor to the tourism industry. The government needs to understand the reality before allowing such projects in such a holy place where all people of all religions worship ,” the Director for CENS Ravindra Kariyawasam told The Sunday Leader.
No private and domestic buildings were allowed in close proximity of Sripada for over several years and the government that needs to protect the place is trying to build up unnecessary constructions in false claims by the developers should be seriously looked into, the environmentalists said. The project however claims to provide facilities for the devotees who visit the place from various places all around the country and also to foreigners.
“According to the Flora and Fauna Act they cannot even cut down a single tree in the site how can they clear an area of 99 acres for the construction? Who has the authority to allow such projects in a UNESCO protected site,” protested the environmentalists.
“A visit to the place by the CENS had revealed that the construction had been done secretly under the new government even after it was put on hold. The construction and the development in the area undoubtedly will endanger the natural bio diversities and the species which live in the area. Most importantly the value of the land will be destroyed ,” lamented Kariyawasam.
Adam’s Peak is worshipped by all people of the country, the Sinhalese Tamils and Muslims by giving various names for the mountain and the sacred footprint. “Adam’s Peak is important also as a watershed. The districts to the south and the east of Adam’s Peak yield precious stones, emeralds, rubies and sapphires, one thing the island has been famous for. The development projects and the luxury hotels will endanger the sanctuary which is filled with natural ecological provisions. We are not against building luxury hotels and cable wire cars to boost tourism in Sri Lanka but Sripada is a place for worship and a UNESCO world heritage site, the government should put in place immediate measures to stop the ongoing project and to conserve the reservation,” Kariyawasam added.
Source : 7/11/2016 Sunday Observer http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2016/11/06/development-at-a-cost-to-the-environment/
