This time, our five questions go to Doug Weir, Director of the NGO Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS). We spoke to the expert on the ecological and humanitarian consequences of conflicts about the war in Gaza.
Mr. Weir, agricultural areas were also targeted in the course of the war. How have they been affected by the shelling and what could be the long-term impact on the agricultural sector in the Gaza Strip?
Researchers documented the destruction of agricultural infrastructure, such as greenhouses and agricultural land, by the Israeli armed forces. This not only has a huge impact on people’s current food supply, but also undermines food security in the long term. food security of the Gaza Strip. Of particular concern is the destruction of those elements of the agricultural system that can only be replaced slowly or not at all, such as orchards and soils. These have been affected by physical and chemical damage. Bulldozers and heavy military vehicles have destroyed walls and irrigation systems, churned up topsoil and exposed it to erosion. Pollutants such as combustion products, metals and plastics have found their way into the soil.
The water situation in Gaza was already bad before the war. After more than a year and a half of war, the situation has worsened. The WHO warns of so-called “superbugs” in the water. How have these multi-resistant organisms developed and what does this mean for the people in Gaza?
The relationship between armed conflict and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is not yet fully understood. But it appears that the conditions associated with contemporary conflict may promote drug resistance. These factors include the breakdown of healthcare systems, the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, and the nature of wounds and the medical environment. However, environmental factors are also thought to play a role and there is a link between conflict pollution – weapons residues, combustion products, solid and liquid waste – and drug resistance. High rates of AMR are leading to more people dying from infected wounds in Gaza and it is very likely that drug-resistant bacteria will spread beyond Gaza, as has been seen in other recent conflicts.
“The impact of the war on the environment does not end at Gaza’s borders.”
According to experts, before the war there were more than 250 bird species and 100 mammal species. In addition, the Gaza Strip an important stopover for Migratory birds. What does the war mean for these species?
If the habitats and ecosystems are degraded or destroyed, it means that the resident species will become extinct or migrate. Importantly, the habitats that emerge during any future restoration may be very different from those that were lost – and may also harbor more invasive species, which can also reduce the value of these habitats for species. But the impact of the war on the environment does not end at Gaza’s borders: there are greenhouse gas emissions caused by the war that will arise during reconstruction, or the pollution of the Red Sea where oil tankers were attacked by the Houthis.
According to the UN, the war has so far left behind more than 50 million tons of rubble, mixed with unexploded ordnance and biological waste. Is it realistic to assume that the inhabitants of Gaza will be able to return to their homes in the near future in view of this destruction?
As long as there is no clarity about the fate of the Gaza Strip, it is impossible to answer this question. In any case, the amount of rubble created by Israel’s military action is overwhelming. How long it will take to remove it depends on how Israel will control Gaza in the future and the associated restrictions on access, technical equipment and disposal sites. While some of the rubble will be recycled as part of a future reconstruction process recycled process, the majority will have to be disposed of. However, this is only feasible to a limited extent due to the small size of the area within the Gaza Strip.
“The only possible victory is one in which both sides end up living in peace and security.”
Numerous experts say that the massive bombing of the Gaza Strip is not a military necessity, but is aimed at deliberately destroying the livelihoods of the population. How do you see this?
The use of explosive devices in populated areas must be rejected as a matter of principle because it causes unacceptable suffering for the civilian population and damage to critical civilian infrastructure and the environment. The only possible victory is one in which both sides end up living in peace and security. But the Israeli government’s actions since October 7 have a very different endpoint in mind – as the UN and many others have warned, Israel’s goal for this war appears to be the forced expulsion of the civilian population from Gaza.
Here for the other articles in our series “5 questions to” and here for another article on the topic: Western Balkans: Between EU accession and escalating conflict.
