“WAR must and should always be a last resort, and if armed conflict occurs, warring factions have a duty to minimize the casualties and the suffering of those caught in the cross-fire. Another duty must also be considered — to minimize the damage and pollution to air, water and soil supplies,” writes Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in the article Preventing Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict.

In 5BC, the retreating Scythians scorched the earth and polluted drinking water supplies, to slow the advancing Persians.

At the end of the final Punic War, in the 2BC, the conquering Romans, salted the soils around Carthage to make them infertile and the area uninhabitable. A damaged and degraded land was seen as a way to permanently end the Phoenicians’ might.

During the Vietnam War, the US used defoliants to expose enemy positions in heavily forested areas. Tests were also carried out on ‘rain seeding’ in an attempt to trigger downpours to impede and bog down enemy movements on the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

More recently, during the first Gulf War, Iraqi troops sabotaged oil installations with smoke turning day into night and oil spills severely polluting the desert and the waters of the Gulf.

The environment can also be a casualty as a result of a military machine deliberately over exploiting natural resources. During World War I Turkey severely depleted the forests in the Lebanon for fuel for its railways.

More recently, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and the Sudan, rhinos, gorillas and other wildlife have been killed to raise money for armies.

While human-kind’s ability to wage war continues apace with new and even more potentially devastating weapons, international rules and laws designed to minimise the impact on the Earth’s life support systems have lagged far behind.

The environment is an “innocent bystander” damaged not deliberately but as a result of a hit on a target such as a chemical plant or hydro-electric dam.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 have environmental implications as well. However, their primary aims are the protection of civilians, prisoners of war, the sick and wounded and cultural objects such as internationally important monuments.

There have also been a myriad of treaties attempting to outlaw specific targets such as dams, or military acts such as torching crops that are seen by many as targeting and attempting to demoralize the civilian population rather than an enemy army.

However, this does not mean that there have not been attempts to specifically address the environmental aspects of war. One, article 35 of what is known as the Geneva Protocol I, prohibits combatants from “methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long term and severe damage to the natural environment”.

The other, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), aims to tackle new technologies that might, for example, alter weather systems as a way of waging war.

But most legal experts have concluded that these and others fall far short of what is ideal and what is needed.

The Protocol also appears silent on the issue of long term risk. It is possible that, 20 or so years down the road, some of the pollution arising from recent wars may prove to be a long term environmental and public health hazard. The environment, which has a key role in ensuring the stability of a country and its citizens, cannot be ignored. There are many ways in which the world can improve the security of natural resources and nature’s life support systems during conflict. Some are legal, others are codes of conduct or improved guidelines for military commanders on what constitute legitimate targets.

Should striking an oil tanker sailing near a coral reef be deemed unacceptable or a legitimate act of war? Does the crippling of an enemy’s oil supplies justify the killing of an ecosystem upon which hundreds, maybe thousands, of the poor rely for food in the form of fish? — Samina Iqbal