Author: Yasmine Rugarli
A growing body of research has begun to shed light on the intertwined nexus between gender, environmental damage and armed conflicts. Environmental destruction and disputes over natural resources can be both proximate causes or results of conflict – ultimately hindering the survival of civilians protected under IHL. Women, in particular, face intersectional challenges as they navigate compounding layers of oppression and bear the disproportionate burden of environmental destruction. In light of the increasing urgency of efforts to mitigate environmental degradation, the understanding of gender-based challenges faced by women has been widely recognised. Nevertheless, this intersection remains highly underdevelopment in IHL – demonstrating an overly narrow conception of “harm”, therefore, marginalizing and diminishing the significance of both gendered and environmental damage.
Given the unequal impact of military activities causing environmental harm on women and their involvement in fostering environmental solutions for peacebuilding, the questions that arise are: How do the gender-specific effects on women compound and shape the nature of environmental harm, and how can analysing environmental harm through a gendered lens enhance the effectiveness of IHL in protecting both the natural environment and civilian populations during armed conflicts?
Body of Law and Public Discourse
The Geneva Conventions provide limited coverage of the issue of gender and enviromental protection, while the Additional Protocols provide sparse textual provisions, primarily focused on prohibitions against rape, non-discrimination based on sex, and the prevention of “widespread, long-term, and severe” damage to the natural environment. Nevertheless, subsequent legal developments, focusing on interpretative and operational guidance, have demonstrated progress in IHL’s treatment of both the environment and gender.
Rules 43–45 of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Customary Law Study, influenced by State practice and opinion juris had significant expansions in environmental protection, in particular concerning non-international armed conflicts. The ICRC’s Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict (1994), consolidate and document these legal advancements for both State and non-state actors part of the conflicts.
On the other hand, the ICRC’s operational guidance on gender (2004) provided an authoritative interpretation of IHL for its gender-sensitive application, supplemented by a systematic integration of gender inequality considerations into military obligations for civilian protection. Expanding on this foundation, the UN Security Council’s Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda, which draws heavily from the principles of IHL among others, has consistently delved into the complexities of gender inequality and the prevalence of sexual and gender-based violence during armed conflicts.
Despite the notable progress, a clear understanding of the intersection of gender and environmental harm in wartime remains problematically unexplored in IHL. The WPS agenda has left for long untacked on how climate change and energy resources affect women’s lives in conflict and post-conflict situations and how their participatory rights are paramount in the peace-building process and mitigation of conflict. However, within the international public discourse, increasing concern has arisen for the untacked gender, environmental and conflict nexus as a paramount threat to human security. While the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) jurisprudence has considerably recognized gender-based crimes in armed conflict, the rise of Ecofeminism has added a gender-sensitive approach to environmental damage – highlighting the link between sexual violence and environmental destruction as a tactic of domination, especially during times of conflict. Despite, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has begun addressing environmental drivers of conflict and ensuring sustainable recovery post-conflict, scholar Silja Halle recognised there’s been a lack of focus on the gender aspects of this issue. Importantly, this view matches the scientific approach of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approach, expressly linking climate change to increasing gender inequality and acknowledging that higher global warming levels “by increasing vulnerability will increasingly affect violent intrastate conflict”.
A Gendered Analysis of Enviromental Harm
Most recent empirical and legal studies address two forms of environmental harm: (i) the destruction and exploitation of natural resources, and (ii) military actions which magnify climate change. Empirical research is increasingly demonstrating the linkage between gender and environmental harm in warfare whereby having an intersectional lens is fundamental to understanding the gendered distribution of conflict’s effects.
Several IHL instruments prohibit the use of specific weapons, such as chemical weapons, that may cause long-term damage to the environment (Rule 19-25 ICRC). Women, in particular, are often more physically susceptible to these effects over the long term. As seen in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the use of Agent Orange led to severe pollution of the agricultural landscape, disproportionably impacting women’s health in the long term. This pollution had profound impacts on women’s reproductive health as they experienced a high number of miscarriages and premature births.
Attacks on chemical, oil, and pharmaceutical facilities release pollutants that devastate ecosystems and contaminate groundwater, profoundly hindering agriculture and food production. Despite IHL prohibitions against starving civilian populations as a method of warfare (Rule 53 ICRC), deliberate actions like setting fire to Kuwaiti oil wells during the Gulf War have had catastrophic effects on drinking water and agriculture. The destruction of agricultural systems leaves women unable to use their land, resulting in indirect impacts on food production and agriculture, notably acute malnutrition.
The exploitation and destruction of natural resources amid military operations lead to socio-economic hardship for marginalized communities dependent on these natural resources. For instance, indigenous women bear a disproportionate burden due to the compounding challenges stemming from societal roles and entrenched gender expectations. Traditionally, indigenous women serve as primary guardians of the lands, vital for maintaining ecosystem balance and sustaining community livelihood. Consequently, the exploitation of natural resources results in the disruption of their traditional role – exposing them to heightened risks, including domestic and sexual abuse perpetrated by their intimate partners.
Military actions that exacerbate the effects of climate change, such as the systematic deforestation witnessed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or West Papua, significantly disrupt civilian livelihoods and resilience against climate-induced displacement. Climate change acts as a threat multiplier which exacerbates existing burdens for women and girls due to entrenched gender roles and systemic inequalities. Their limited decision-making power and economic opportunities render them less capable of adapting to these challenges. As a result, women face myriads of obstacles, including reduced access to agricultural land and water for essential daily tasks, and longer travel distances – leading to higher risks of sexual violence, abandonment of education and early forced marriages.
Recommendations
It is now clear that to enhance the effectiveness of IHL in safeguarding both the natural environment and the civilian population, a gender analysis of environmental harm is imperative.
The ICRC has significant leverage in addressing gender inequalities in its operational areas, upholding and ensuring impartial humanitarian action that does not perpetuate discrimination. While upholding the principle of neutrality, the ICRC should prioritize humanity and impartiality, yet adapt its action to context-specific tensions. The interpretations of IHL must be free from discrimination against women, and ongoing efforts are shall be made to correct any such biases. Furthermore, incorporating other international legal frameworks like International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and the WPS agenda would foster the protection of the environment and safeguard against gender-based harm in both conflict and post-conflict scenarios. Therefore, strengthening the complementary principle across these frameworks is fundamental to ensure effective and comprehensive normative protection.
In light of IHL’s obligation to reduce military harm, enhanced research, guidance and enforcement of practical tools would help to identify patterns of gender harm in military operation and planning. As part of the precautionary test, a thorough ex-ante assessment of the armed conflict would help to minimise incidental harm to the environment and only initiate an attack if the foreseeable collateral damage on civilians is not disproportionate compared to the tangible and immediate military benefit. Here, the proportionality test could enjoy a gendered analysis to embrace a preventive approach that could holistically internalize the distributing effect of environmental harms. Additionally, ex-post humanitarian aid would benefit from a gender analysis of environmental harm, aligning with IHL principles of humanity and impartiality. This analysis would help understand the intersectional challenges within each community and the diverse needs across genders – enhancing the effectiveness of aid efforts. Ultimately, integrating this analysis into military doctrine and civilian-military interactions will foster sustainable strategic policymaking for lasting peace.