Linda Lorenzon (Junior Researcher G.E.O Environment)
Abstract
The environment of the Gaza Strip, already strained by decades of conflict and poor infrastructure, faces worsening degradation due to recent escalation, which have devastated essential services and increased ecological and health risks. International environmental efforts have been cancelled, underlining the need for a rapid and sustainable resolution of the conflict.
1. Introduction
Gaza is a small, densely populated, coastal strip of land with poorly planned urbanisation, poor accessibility to modern technology and clean energy sources, and has been affected by decades of conflict. The preconditions for a vulnerable environment prone to climate degradation were thus evident long before the conflict escalation on 7 October 2023. Due to the enforced Israeli military occupation and the reluctance of Hamas, which has controlled the Palestinian authorities since 2007, efforts to protect the environment and rehabilitate degraded ecosystems have been strictly constrained. In the period preceding the recent intensification of hostilities last October, life in the Gaza Strip, although complicated, was more sustainable for both Palestinians and the surrounding environment. UN investment tried to improve the environmental management, including the construction of desalination infrastructure, the development of wastewater treatment facilities, and the implementation of renewable energy projects. However, the intensified bombardment has resulted in unprecedented levels of destruction, with over 39 million tons of debris created and significant damage inflicted upon essential infrastructure, including hospitals, water treatment facilities, and electricity systems. Furthermore, the environmental impact of ongoing conflicts globally also gives rise to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Military emissions, in particular, have been identified as a significant but poorly monitored contributor to this phenomenon.
2. The environmental situation in the Gaza Strip before the current conflict
The entire occupied Palestinian territory - from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem - even before the recent attacks, was affected by significant environmental change and degradation. Undoubtedly, high population growth, accompanied by rapid and poorly planned urbanisation and military conflicts, greatly contributed to this situation. Indeed, in a report published in 2020, UNEP had already described some powerful factors of environmental degradation in the Palestinian Territories occupied by Israeli forces (UNEP, 2024). The main ones were: freshwater crisis, pollution of the marine environment, contamination of soil caused by discharge of raw, untreated wastewater, polluted soil, water and air by unregulated industries. Particularly, a freshwater crisis in Gaza was caused by overdrawingfrom the coastal aquifer and poor water quality caused by agricultural pesticide use and sewage runoff. One thing of concern is the quality and type of contaminants found in the groundwater, “nitrate concentrations in the aquifer were six times higher than World Health Organization recommendations, and chloride concentrations were also high” (UNEP, 2024).
Another important cause of environmental degradation is soil contamination also caused by the discharge of raw, untreated sewage into farmland and the widespread disposal of solid waste in informal and illegal dumps, many of them located near urban areas of farmland. In addition, both soil, water and air have been contaminated as a result of pollution from unregulated industries, including electronic and vehicle waste processing industries. In fact, “in Gaza, unregulated industries have been found to contribute to the high incidence of childhood lead poisoning” (UNEP, 2024).
Moreover, not to be underestimated is Gaza's location in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, where the climate crisis is already contributing to changes in the water cycle and temperatures. The entire Mediterranean region has been identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a “climate change hotspot with a large number of vulnerable natural ecosystems and socio-economic sectors” (Ali, 2022).
Despite these obstacles, also thanks to UN intervention, investments have been made in environmental management over the past five years, especially in the fields of: Infrastructure for water desalination and wastewater treatment, plans to recharge the coastal aquifer, shift to renewable energy, solid waste management and terrestrial ecosystems.
3. Environmental degradation and disruption of essential facilities after the conflict's escalation
However, the new escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has clearly had a major impact on people and the environment in Gaza. The conflict itself has indeed interrupted almost all environmental management systems and services, including ecosystems services, while creating new environmental hazards.
Israel's intense bombardment led to an unprecedented intensity of destruction in terms of infrastructure - such as schools and hospitals -, productive assets and service provision. Sewage and solid waste management systems and facilities collapsed. The destruction of buildings, roads and other infrastructure has generated over 39 million tonnes of debris, some of it contaminated with unexploded ordnance, asbestos and other dangerous substances, which forced more than 85% of Gaza's population to leave their homes (UNEP, 2024).
This is a major problem, indeed, the recent conflict in the area has produced a volume of debris 14 times greater than the combined total from all conflicts since 2008, thus over the past 16 years. 63% of structures in the Gaza Strip are damaged, of whom 30% are completely destroyed, to such an extent, that this latest analysis estimates that 114 kilograms of debris were generated for each square metre (UNITAR, 2024). A report by the Netherlands-based organisation PAX for Peace, entitled ‘War and Garbage in Gaza’, paints a desolate picture of the waste management crisis in the territory. In fact, as they point, whilst the effects of the war on Gaza's health infrastructure have been widely broadcast on television, the focus has not been on the situation unfolding in the remaining hospitals in the region: “with no proper disposal mechanisms, medical products are dumped in the open. […] such waste can release chemicals and radioactive substances into the earth or underground water, leading to the spread of diseases like hepatitis B and C" (Zwijnenburg & Zigka, 2024).
In addition, the lack of electricity blocked water treatment plants, causing environmental degradation due to untreated wastewater and drinking water shortages. In fact, all water sources for Palestinians in Gaza have been disrupted. The provisional damage assessment by the UN, EU and WB records that 57% of the water infrastructure and assets have been destroyed or partially damaged, including desalination plants in the northern and central areas (WB, 2024). Due to the damage to infrastructure and the lack of electricity, the water, sanitation and hygiene systems have collapsed, even more so due to the displacement of over one million people in southern Gaza, which has put immense pressure on the precarious water and sanitation services. To such an extent that water availability in April 2024 was estimated at 2-8 litres per capita per day (l/c/d), compared to 85 l/c/d before October 2023 (WB, 2024). Considering the above data, it is arguable that the occupation, the bombing, the destruction of infrastructure, and the degraded environment are making Gaza truly unliveable.
4. Soil, water and air contamination: other conflicts related impacts
The conflict has been characterised by aerial bombardment of buildings, accompanied by bombardment from the sea and land and the locations most affected by bombardment from the sea include Gaza City, Rafah City, Beit Hanoun. It is clear from Israel's statements that an exceptionally large amount of munitions was used in a densely populated area. The Mines Advisory Group (MAG), a partner of the UN Mine Action Service, estimated in February 2024 that more than 25,000 tonnes of explosives, ‘equivalent to two nuclear bombs’, had been used in the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023 (MAG 2024).
In addition to buildings, green spaces and agricultural land were also heavily damaged. To get the full picture, one must consider that the conflict did not begin on October 7 but decades earlier, and in all these years the Palestinian territory and its inhabitants have suffered immeasurable damage and losses. Since 1967, the Israeli government's military actions have prompted the uprooting of more than 2.5 million trees in the occupied territories of Palestine, including more than one million olive trees, which were also a vital source of income in the region. The destruction of native trees and crops has exacerbated habitat fragmentation of local species and accelerated biodiversity loss and desertification in Gaza (Abdelraouf, 2023).
Furthermore, rockets and missiles not only cause immediate humanitarian crises and property damage, but also have dangerous long-term impacts. Given that modern armed conflicts use large quantities of ammunition, heavy metal contamination has been recorded as a result of intensive bombardment containing heavy metals and explosive chemicals, all of which are toxic even in small quantities (UNEP, 2024).
Making the situation even more difficult is the issue of the reconstruction of the Palestinian territories. The director of the Regional Bureau for Arab States at the U.N Abdallah Al Dardari said 40 years of development gains in Gaza have been lost, amounting to an investment for the overall reconstruction of nearly $50 billion. Moreover, according to the UNDP, even in the best-case scenario it would take until 2024 - 16 years - to rebuild destroyed houses, without repairing damaged ones “That means that the levels of education and literacy will be affected dramatically at the end of this conflict” (Besheer, 2024).
5. What can be done to mitigate the military's carbon footprint?
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the significant environmental impact of armed conflicts, which contribute to the emission of vast quantities of greenhouse gases and the spread of environmental degradation on a global scale. This raises a crucial question: what measures can be taken to reduce the carbon footprint of the military in order to promote a more sustainable future?
According to a recent report by the Observatory on Conflict and the Environment on a global level, “the armed forces are responsible for 5.5% of greenhouse gas emissions, a percentage so large that it can no longer be ignored” (Parkinson, 2022). To give a more precise idea, the Observatory compared the military to a State: if the world's armed forces were a single nation, they would have the fourth highest carbon footprint, behind only China, the United States and India.
These military GHG emissions reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change fall into five key categories: energy; industrial processes and product use; agriculture; land use change and forestry; and waste. However, it should be kept in mind that some of the military emissions are currently classified in the civil aviation and shipping sectors. Therefore, a major problem is that data for military GHG emission are frequently scarce and of low quality, hidden within civilian categories or not collected at all (Parkinson, 2022). Greenhouse gas emissions cannot be effectively managed without measuring them, and the international norms that are supposed to regulate them are chaotic and contradictory. Hence, although the defence sector is essential for national security, it consumes large quantities of fossil fuels. Despite efforts to reduce emissions, this sector's contribution to GHG emissions is expected to increase due to rising global military spending.
The most efficient and fastest way to reduce or rather eliminate the military's carbon footprint? Not to make war. However, in the context of an ongoing prevalence of armed conflict, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a challenging yet attainable goal, particularly through the implementation of strategies that mitigate their impact. The key to reducing dependence on fossil fuels is to consider and utilise renewable energy and emerging technologies. According to researchers at Queen Mary University of London, who compiled a report analysing in depth military greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce the army's carbon footprint, it is needed to adopt alternative fuels, then develop alternative propulsion systems that could radically change the operation of military systems and platforms (Neimark, 2022).
Nowadays, thanks to the research that has been done and the urgency to fight climate change, some countries and organisations are mobilising to tackle this issue. In fact, the European Defence Agency (EDA), emphasised the urgency of the issue stating that the EU and NATO have recognised the need to prepare the defence systems for the post-2030 landscape (Vincorion , 2024). As far as Green Defence is starting to become a reality, the path will require close collaboration between industry, the armed forces and policy makers. Not forgetting that collaboration will have to involve not just a few but most countries around the globe, first and foremost, the most polluting and reticent.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, the worsening environmental, infrastructural and humanitarian challenges in the Gaza Strip reflect the pressing necessity for sustainable rehabilitation interventions and strategies to mitigate ongoing degradation and support long-term reconstruction. The destructive impacts of the conflict, including unprecedented levels of debris, water and soil contamination and infrastructure collapse, have exacerbated existing environmental vulnerabilities, posing serious risks to public health, biodiversity and local livelihoods. Despite the efforts of international agencies, first and foremost the UN, to implement systems for water treatment, waste management and renewable energy, the escalation of the conflict has effectively reversed much of this progress, pushing Gaza's environment and population to a critical point.
From a broader perspective, the environmental consequences of military conflicts, particularly in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and ecological damage, highlight the need to address the role of armed forces in contributing to the global carbon footprint. It is imperative to integrate environmental considerations into conflict resolution and peacebuilding processes. Without significant and unified efforts Gaza and similarly affected regions will continue to suffer severe and unsustainable impacts on human and ecological health. However, by cooperating and using the right means, it is still possible to embark on the path to a sustainable future.
Bibliography
Abdelraouf M., Ruizi Y., “Environmental Impacts of the Current War in Gaza”, Gulf Research centre, GRC Commentary & Analysis, Nov 2023. https://www.grc.net/documents/654a0ad259ea7EnvironmentalImpactsoftheCurrentWarinGaza2.pdf (B-2)
Ali, E. W. “Mediterranean Region in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cross Chapter Paper 4, 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/ccp4/ (B-1)
Besheer M., “UN: Reconstructing Gaza could cost $50 billion”, Voice of America English news, May 2024. https://www.voanews.com/a/un-reconstructing-gaza-could-cost-50-billion/7595519.html (B-2)
Neimark, B. et al. “Confronting Military Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, Addressing challenges in decarbonising militaries, Interactive Policy Brief, London, UK, 2024. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sbm/media/sbm/documents/Confronting-military-greenhouse-gas-emissions,-Neimark-et-el,-Interactive-policy-brief-(2024)-%5bDigital%5d.pdf (B-1)
Parkinson S., Cottrell L., “Estimating the military’s global greenhouse gas emissions”, Conflict and environment observatory (CEOBS), Nov. 2022. https://ceobs.org/estimating-the-militarys-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ (B-1)
UNEP, “Environmental impact of the conflict in Gaza. Preliminary assessment of environmental impacts”, Jun. 2024. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-impact-conflict-gaza-preliminary-assessment-environmental-impacts (A-1)
UNITAR “Gaza: debris generated by the current conflict is 14 times more than the combined sum of all debris generated by other conflicts since 2008”, Aug. 2024. https://unitar.org/about/news-stories/news/gaza-debris-generated-current-conflict-14-times-more-combined-sum-all-debris-generated-other (A-1)
Vincorion, “Green Defence at Eurosatory 2024: A Paradigm Shift in Security Policy”, Press, Jun 2024. https://www.vincorion.com/en/discussion-green-defense-eurosatory-2024/ ( B-1)
World Bank, Gaza Strip Bi-Weekly Damage Summary: 28 December 2023 to 10 January 2024”, World Bank Gaza Strip Interim Damage Assessment, 3 April 2024. https://palestine.un.org/en/265025-gaza-strip-interim-damage-assessmentMarch (A-1)
Zwijnenburg W., Zigka M., “War and Garbage in Gaza. The public health and environmental crisis from widespread solid waste pollution”, Paxforpeace, Jul 2024. https://paxforpeace.nl/wp content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/PAX_War_and_Garbage_in_Gaza.pdf (B-1)
Information Content | ||
1 | Confirmed | Confirmed by other independent sources; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
2 | Presumably true | Not confirmed; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
3 | Maybe true | Not confirmed; reasonably logical in itself; coherent with some other information on the topic |
4 | Uncertain | Not confirmed; possible but not logical in itself; no other information on the topic |
5 | Improbable | Not confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicts with other information on the topic |
6 | Not able to be evaluated | No basis to evaluate the validity of the information |
Trustworthiness of the source | ||
A | Trustworthy | No doubt about authenticity, reliability or competence; has a history of total trustworthiness |
B | Normally trustworthy | Small doubts about authenticity, reliability or competence, nevertheless has a history of valid information in a majority of cases |
C | Sufficiently trustworthy | Doubts about authenticity, reliability or competence; however, has supplied valid information in the past |
D | Normally not trustworthy | Significant doubt about authenticity, reliability or competence, however has supplied valid information in the past |
E | Not trustworthy | Lack of authenticity, reliability or competence; history of invalid information |
F | Not able to be evaluated | No basis to evaluate the validity of the information |
Riproduzione Riservata ®