View previous stories
	International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict by UN Environment   Nearly 1.5 billion people, over 20 per cent of the world’s population, live in conflict-affected areas and fragile states.   War and armed conflict present a risk for humanity and other forms of life on our planet. Too many lives, and species, are at stake.   Decades of ugly wars in countries such as Afghanistan, Colombia or Iraq have led to the immense loss of natural resources. In Afghanistan alone, we have witnessed astounding deforestation rates which have reached 95 per cent in some areas.   In 2017, the Islamic State triggered vast toxic clouds by setting ablaze oil wells and a sulfur factory near the Iraqi city of Mosul, poisoning the landscape and people.   Critical biodiversity hotspots in Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan have offered cover and refuge for rebel groups.   This has been disastrous for wildlife and forest conservation as these habitats have opened the doors to illegal logging, unregulated mining, massive poaching and breeding grounds for invasive species.   Elephant populations have been decimated in DR Congo and Central African Republic, while in Ukraine the Siverskyi Donets River has been further damaged by pollution from the conflict.   In Gaza, Yemen, and elsewhere, water infrastructure, from groundwater wells to wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations to desalination plants have been damaged, posing environmental and public health risks.   It would be a dangerous mistake to ignore these environmental consequences of conflict, and the international community needs to act with greater urgency.   This International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict I urge you all to speak up boldly and renew your commitment to protecting our imperiled planet, even in the face of hostile armed aggression.   Through resolutions passed at the Second and Third UN Environment Assemblies in 2016 and 2017, Member States demonstrated their recognition of the need to improve protection of the environment in times of armed conflict.   As part of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development we also need to integrate natural resource and environmental issues into conflict assessments and planning.   We must place transparency and better mechanisms for monitoring, collecting, sharing and assessing information on potential environmental impacts at the centre of our oversight and protection of natural resources in armed conflict.   I urge everyone to protect our planet from the debilitating effects of war and especially at a time our warming planet is already threatened by the impacts of runaway climate change.   Why we need to protect biodiversity from harmful effects of war and armed conflict   Times of war can result in rapid environmental degradation as people struggle to survive and environmental management systems break down resulting in damage to critical ecosystems.   For over six decades, armed conflicts have occurred in more than two-thirds of the world’s biodiversity hotspots thus posing critical threats to conservation efforts.   Here are some historical and contemporary reminders of why we need to protect biodiversity from the direct and indirect effects of wars and armed conflicts.   1. Agent Orange: For nearly a decade between 1961 and 1971, during the Vietnam war, the US military sprayed millions of litres of a range of herbicides and defoliants across vast swathes of southern Vietnam. The most widespread of the chemicals was Agent Orange and it was part of a deliberate destruction of forests to deprive Viet Cong guerillas the cover that enabled them to launch attacks against US forces.   2. Congolese civil wars: Since the mid-1990s, a series of bloody armed conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo have had a devastating effect on wildlife populations which have been a source of bushmeat for combatants, civilians struggling for survival and commercial traders. Consequently, small species such as antelopes, monkeys and rodents as well as larger ones such as apes and forest elephants have borne the brunt of the war. While there are many root causes of these conflicts—historical, ethnic and political—fighting over control, access to, and use of natural resources and their associated revenues, has been a key driver of the violence. The conflicts, and the resultant lawlessness, have also emboldened syndicates to carry out deforestation and promote harmful mining processes.   3. Iraq marshes and burning oil wells: In the early 1990s, Saddam Hussein’s troops drained the Mesopotamian marshes, the largest wetland ecosystem in the Middle East, situated at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in response to a Shia uprising in southern Iraq. A series of dikes and channels reduced the marshes to less than 10 per cent of their original extent and transformed the landscape into a desert with salt crusts. More recently, in 2017, Islamic State militants set ablaze oil wells in the southern city of Mosul thus releasing a toxic cocktail of chemicals into the air, water and land.   4. Afghanistan’s forests: Decades of conflict in the country have destroyed more than half the country’s forests. Afghanistan has been deforested up to 95 per cent in some areas, partially because of people’s coping strategies and the breakdown of environmental governance during decades of war. The extensive deforestation has had multiple social, environmental and economic implications for millions of Afghans including increasing vulnerability to various natural disasters such as floods, avalanches and landslides.   5. Nepal’s ecosystems: During the armed conflict between 1996 – 2006, the army, previously responsible for the protection of forests, was mobilized for counter-insurgency operations. This resulted in the irresponsible exploitation of wildlife and plant resources such as medicinal herbs including Yarsagumba (Cordyceps sinensis) and Chiraito (Swertia Chiraita) among others by insurgents and civilians in areas such as the Khaptad National Park, in the Makalu Barun Conservation area.   6. Colombia mining and logging: Decades of unregulated gold mining in the country took its environmental toll in areas controlled by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels. Mining, coupled with illegal extraction of other natural resources such as logging, was a major source of funding for rebels. It resulted in the pollution of rivers and land with mercury, especially in the Quito river basin.   http://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/disasters-conflicts Visit the related web page
	Arms control and a to-do list for people and the planet by Control Arms Coalition, ICRC, Oxfam, agencies   Aug. 2018   ICRC concerned at gap between commitments and practice of Arms Trade Treaty - International Committee of the Red Cross   Speaking at a meeting of parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in Tokyo, Japan, Dr Helen Durham, Head of Law and Policy for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), highlighted ICRC''s concerns with the growing gap between words and actions in the global trade of arms.   "The very purpose of the Treaty is to prioritize humanitarian interests and, in doing so, to reduce human suffering," said Dr Durham, "Yet we are concerned by the growing gap between States'' absolute commitments to human rights and international humanitarian law – in the Treaty and elsewhere – and how arms are transferred in practice."   According to figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI):   The volume of international transfers of major weapons in 2013-17 was 10 per cent higher than in 2008-12. In the period 2013 – 2017, the Middle East received 32% of global arms imports and experienced the highest rise in arms imports (103% increase on the five preceding years).   Today''s conflicts are fuelled by a steady supply of arms and ammunition. The poor regulation and wide availability of conventional arms cause devastating and irreparable harm to the civilian population. This conclusion is not new – it was confirmed by research undertaken by the ICRC nearly two decades ago. ICRC data shows that:   The Middle East witnessed the highest numbers of weapon-related wound admissions in hospitals reinforced with or monitored by ICRC staff. The Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions have the highest numbers of patients receiving services related to physical rehabilitation.   Dr Durham reminded states that "arms suppliers have a duty to consider the risk of the weapons they provide being used to commit, or facilitate, serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law." Of the largest exporters of major weapons, 60% are parties to the ATT, meaning that a great deal can be done by parties to the Treaty to reduce the harm caused by these weapons.   "Aid alone cannot solve the problems we face," said Dr Durham. "You, the States gathered here today, also have a vital role to play – by upholding international humanitarian law and by acting responsibly at every step along the arms transfer chain. That way, you can prevent the devastating and irreparable harm that comes when weapons fall into the wrong hands."   http://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-concerned-gap-between-commitments-and-practice-arms-trade-treaty   April 2017   Hospitals bombed. Schools used as military bases. Livelihoods in tatters and economies in ruins. Vital resources that could be spent on life-saving services wasted on an endless cycle of armed violence. The proliferation of arms and ammunition drastically undermines and hinders sustainable development efforts.   The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the two landmark international agreements of recent years, and last week governments agreed to gather in Geneva later this year to discuss how to link the two to achieve the greatest possible success.   In September 2017, more than 90 members of the ATT will gather in Geneva at an annual conference, where they will assess the impact of the Treaty around the world. This year, this conference will include a special thematic focus on how practical efforts to implement the ATT can help states to achieve progress towards the overarching Sustainable Development Goals (otherwise known as ‘the Global Goals’.)   Just looking at recent warnings of famine in South Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and Yemen is an illustration of how deeply interlinked armed violence is with sustainable development. Yemen for example, already one of the world’s poorest countries, has suffered a devastating conflict in the last two year.   This conflict has been fuelled by the supply of arms and ammunition, mainly to members of the Saudi Arabia-led military coalition, but also through smuggling sources to Houthi rebel forces. All parties to the conflict have committed violations of international law and human rights, and Yemen now faces a desperate humanitarian crisis.   More than 80 per cent of the population is facing starvation, and more than 450,000 children under the age of five are suffering from severe acute malnutrition. With hundreds of health facilities damaged by the bombing and fighting, almost 15 million people lack access to basic healthcare.   “There can be no peace without development, no development without peace,” the Ambassador of Sierra Leone to the UN in Geneva told governments this week. “We say that, but we do not translate it into action as seriously as we should. This would be a noble cause [to bring the ATT and the SDGs together].”   The ATT’s goal is to reduce human suffering, like the terrible hunger and pain of the people of Yemen, through setting up the highest possible standards of international arms control. Under the ATT, weapons should not be sold where there is a risk that they could contribute to a range of negative consequences, including gender-based violence.   This links directly to one of the 69 separate targets set to achieve the SDGs. (Target 5.2, which seeks to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls).   The ATT also requires governments to set up strong, transparent national arms control systems, and undertake measures to prevent weapons and ammunition from ending up being lost, seized or stolen.   If governments were to fully implement the provisions laid out in the ATT, it would go a long way to realising Goal 16, which calls for peaceful and inclusive societies. Within Goal 16, there are several key targets that the ATT will directly affect:   Goal 16.1 (Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere)   Goal 16.4 (Significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows)   Goal 16.5 (Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms)   Control Arms has produced a short briefing paper that outlines some of the areas where the ATT and SDGs are interlinked.   During discussions last week governments stated their commitment to identify a range of practical actions that they can undertake to help to realise the Global Goals through better ATT implementation. As Sweden told the meeting, “the impact of armed conflict and violence is so broad that hardly any aspect of the SDGs are left untouched.”   “We have reached a defining moment in human history,” said then-UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the summit to adopt the SDGs in 2015. “We need action from everyone, everywhere The Goals are a to-do list for people and planet, and a blueprint for success.”   The ATT can be an effective and critical tool to help governments to achieve this ambitious to-do list.   March 2017   The human cost of uncontrolled arms in Africa. (Oxfam)   Prolonged conflict, proxy wars, and inter-communal strife characterize many regions in Africa. This violence has caused untold atrocities, deaths, sexual violence, and displacement, as well as accelerating poverty and shattering lives and communities across the continent. Uncontrolled arms in Africa fuel this violence and are increasingly putting lives at immense risk.   This report provides evidence about the human costs of uncontrolled arms: injuries and fatalities, internally displaced people and refugees, gender-based violence, and erosion of social cohesion and communal trust.   Covering Mali, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and Libya, it provides arms control recommendations to African states, the African Union and Regional Economic Communities, donor communities, and the private sector.   * External link: http://www.oxfam.org/en/research/human-cost-uncontrolled-arms-africa   August 2016   Speech given by Ms Christine Beerli, Vice-President of the ICRC, at the Second Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty in Geneva.   On behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross, I am honored to address this second Conference of States Parties of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).   As we know, the ATT seeks to address the human suffering caused by insufficient controls over transfers of conventional weapons. The severity of these consequences cannot be overestimated. The proliferation of arms and ammunition facilitates violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and of human rights law, including acts of terrorism and sexual and gender-based violence. It fuels a never-ending spiral of violence that leads to protracted armed conflicts.   In most of the countries where the ICRC works – be it Central African Republic or Iraq, Libya or Yemen, to name but a few – we continuously witness first-hand the terrible consequences of weapons being used against the very people whom the law is designed to protect – civilian men, women and children.   In Syria, for example, five years after the outbreak of violence, the humanitarian needs are greater than ever. In many areas within the country, civilians are struggling to survive day to day, enduring fierce fighting and a steady deterioration of living conditions, with no end in sight to their suffering. Many tens of thousands of people have been uprooted multiple times as fighting has shifted.   Another example is South Sudan, where an ever-expanding circle of armed violence continues to have traumatic humanitarian and economic consequences for the population. Since early July alone, when violent clashes erupted in Juba, hundreds of people have been killed or injured, and tens of thousands displaced.   Moving to Latin America, the last two decades there have seen the emergence of other forms of armed violence with alarming humanitarian consequences for the populations of numerous countries. Preventing the diversion of small arms and light weapons and combatting their illicit trade is a major challenge for the continent and more generally for every State.   Back in the Middle East, recent reports attest to how arms are being transferred to States in that region, from which they are then diverted to parties that use them in the brutal armed conflicts ravaging Syria and Yemen. Without the vigorous preventive action that ATT States Parties have committed to, the unregulated flow of arms will only continue to cause devastation.   With the ATT, States have a renewed opportunity to act and make a difference on the ground by ceasing arms flows to armed conflict zones where serious violations of IHL are manifestly occurring. At the heart of the treaty are its humanitarian objectives – the moral and legal imperatives to prevent human suffering and to respect and ensure respect for IHL and human rights through the strict control of arms transfers. This in turn will create an environment conducive to building peace and security, at regional and global levels.   Although the ATT has been in force for less than two years, the number of States that have committed to the treaty is impressive, with 87 States party and a further 46 signatory States. But if the treaty''s promise of reducing human suffering is to be fully realized, more States must adhere to the treaty and it must be implemented in good faith, with the highest possible standards of implementation.   In order to build confidence among States Parties and the public that the treaty is being faithfully implemented, openness and transparency are essential. Indeed, they are essential to the treaty''s credibility. The ICRC therefore welcomes that most States Parties that have submitted their initial and annual reports have made them publicly available, and we call on all other States Parties to do the same. Likewise, the meetings of the subsidiary bodies established by the Conference to consider the treaty''s implementation should as a rule be public. This is crucial to developing a culture of responsibility and accountability in the international arms trade, which is a key purpose of the ATT.   Transparency of reports and meetings is also important to facilitate cooperation and assistance efforts, by helping to identify areas where States Parties may be in need of support. The ICRC encourages States Parties to share their practical experiences of national implementation, including how export assessment authorities ensure respect for IHL and human rights law in arms transfer decisions. Sharing good practices would be an effective means for States Parties to help each other in complying with their obligations.   This week, the conference will consider establishing the Voluntary Trust Fund, as required by the ATT. The Trust Fund is an important means to mobilize resources to help those States Parties in need of assistance to effectively implement the treaty. For example, support from the Trust Fund could help to build the capacity needed to effectively manage stockpiles of weapons and control borders, essential measures to prevent the diversion of arms to the illicit market. The ICRC urges all States in a position to do so to contribute to the Voluntary Trust Fund once it is established.   http://www.icrc.org/en/document/conference-states-parties-arms-trade-treaty   Aug. 2016   States accused of paying lip service to Global Arms Treaty. (IPS)   The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which was aimed at curbing the flow of small arms and light weapons to war zones and politically-repressive regimes, is being openly violated by some of the world’s arms suppliers, according to military analysts and human rights organizations.   The ongoing conflicts and civil wars in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, South Sudan and Ukraine are being fueled by millions of dollars in arms supplies – mostly from countries that have either signed or ratified the ATT, which came into force in December 2014.   Dr. Natalie Goldring, UN Consultant for the Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy and a Senior Fellow with the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, told IPS: “The Arms Trade Treaty is incredibly important. Put simply, if fully implemented, it has the potential to save lives.”   But if implementation is not robust, the risk is that “business as usual” will continue, resulting in continued violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, she warned.   “Recent and proposed arms sales by States Parties and signatories to the ATT risk undermining the treaty,” said Dr Goldring, who has closely monitored the 20 year long negotiations for the ATT, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in April 2013.   The reported violations of the international treaty have coincided with a weeklong meeting in Geneva, beginning August 22 through August 26, of ATT’s second Conference of States Parties (CSP).   Recent reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Control Arms, Forum on Arms Trade and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) document the continued transfer of conventional weapons that may be used to violate international humanitarian and human rights law.   Brian Wood, Head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International, said the ATT has the potential to save millions of lives, which makes it especially alarming when states who have signed or even ratified the treaty seem to think they can continue to supply arms to forces known to commit and facilitate war crimes, and issue export licenses even where there is an overriding risk the weapons will contribute to serious human rights violations.   “There must be zero tolerance for states who think they can just pay lip service to the ATT.”   He said the need for more effective implementation is painfully obvious: “from Yemen to Syria to South Sudan, every day children are being killed and horribly maimed by bombs, civilians are threatened and detained at gunpoint, and armed groups are committing abuses with weapons produced by countries who are bound by the treaty,” he noted.   Arms procured from ATT signatories have also continued to fuel bloody civil wars, the London-based human rights organization said.   For example, in 2014, Amnesty International said, Ukraine approved the export of 830 light machine guns and 62 heavy machine guns to South Sudan.   Six months after signing the ATT, Ukrainian authorities issued an export licence on 19 March 2015 to supply South Sudan with an undisclosed number of operational Mi-24 attack helicopters. Three of those attack helicopters are currently in service with South Sudan government forces.   Jeff Abramson of the Forum on the Arms Trade said the Geneva meeting takes place during a time of ongoing conflict and controversy over the responsible transfer and use of conventional weapons.   He said key topics that may be addressed, either formally or informally, include better promoting transparency in the arms trade, in light of the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.   “The US government’s response to apparent Saudi bombings of civilian targets is to sell them more weapons? This makes no sense. This is part of a pattern of continued arms transfers taking place despite a high risk that they will be used to violate international human rights and humanitarian law,” declared Dr Goldring.   She said States parties to the ATT are required to address the risks of diversion or misuse of the weapons they provide. But if this criteria are taken seriously.   Countries without strong export control systems have argued that it will take time to fully implement the ATT, while other countries such as the United States have domestic impediments to ratifying the treaty.   But one of the treaty’s strengths, Dr Goldring, argued is its specification of conditions under which arms transfers should be blocked. States do not have to wait for ratification or accession to the treaty to begin implementing such standards.   “The ATT is a new treaty, but we can’t afford to ‘ease into’ it. While we discuss the treaty, lives are being lost around the world. We need to aggressively implement the ATT from the start,” Dr Goldring said.   Another important issue in full implementation of the ATT, she noted, is making the global weapons trade transparent, so that citizens can understand the commitments their governments are making in their names.   “Governments should not be transferring weapons unless they are willing to take responsibility for them. Their opposition to openness and transparency raises questions about what they’re trying to hide,” she added.   But in the end, although it’s important to bring transparency to the discussion of these issues, the real issue is whether the transfers are being controlled. Recent sales raise significant concerns in this regard, Dr Goldring said.   “The Conference of States Parties that is being held this week in Geneva presents a critical opportunity to face these issues. To strengthen the Arms Trade Treaty, the conference must focus on this key substantive concern of the risks entailed in continuing business as usual. States should not allow their attention to be diverted to process issues,” said Dr Goldring who is currently participating in the Geneva meeting.   http://controlarms.org/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/08/un-zero-tolerance-for-states-who-flout-arms-trade-treaty-obligations/   * The ATT Monitor Annual Report 2016: http://armstreatymonitor.org/en/the-2016-report/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories