1. How should the Security Council more systematically reflect
in mandates, reporting and political guidance? How can missions and United Nations country teams better integrate
for agricultural recovery and nature-based stabilization into planning and resourcing? 2. What measures should parties adopt during hostilities to minimize
? 3. What are the steps needed to advance implementation of
in relation to armed conflicts, including training, reporting and cooperation on investigations, remediation and accountability, including for the proposed crime of ecocide? 4. What are the minimum standards and support needed for safe debris management,
and resilient urban reconstruction? 5. Which financing options can expand predictable support for
and climate adaptation in conflict-affected. Follow the conversations with the hashtags:
Madam President, Excellencies,
I thank the Government of Sierra Leone for convening this timely meeting.
In 2001, the United Nations General Assembly invited the United Nations system, and international and regional organizations, to mark 6 November each year as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict – an enduring reminder that protecting nature is inseparable from protecting people in times of crisis.
In doing so, Member States recognized that environmental harm during armed conflict can degrade ecosystems and natural resources long after hostilities end, often across national borders and beyond the present generation.
My first point is that environmental damage caused by conflicts continues to push people into hunger, disease and displacement – and therefore increasing insecurity.
Conflicts lead to pollution, waste and the destruction of critical ecosystems, with long-term implications for food security, for water security, for economies and for human health.
Since 2023, in the Gaza Strip, for example, we have seen the loss of 97 per cent of its tree crops, 95 per cent of its shrubland and 82 per cent of its annual crops. Freshwater and marine ecosystems are polluted by munitions, untreated sewage and other contaminants. Over 61 million tonnes of debris must now be cleared, with sensitivity, to avoid further contamination.
Conflicts elsewhere lead to pollution and damage to water infrastructure, either accidental or deliberate. For example, in Libya, Syria and Yemen, 180 instances of deliberate targeting of water infrastructure were recorded
during the 2010s. In Haiti, the conflict has worsened soil and water contamination in lowland slum areas, dramatically increasing the risks of disasters, such as flash floods and infectious diseases.
In many conflicts, internally displaced persons have sought refuge in ecologically fragile areas because this is one of the few options for refuge available. But clearance of forests, for fuel and shelter, only accelerates challenges like desertification and soil erosion, further intensifying environmental damage.
Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine, as an example, led to the flooding of more than 600 km² of land, resulting in severe loss of natural habitats, plant communities and species through prolonged inundation of ecosystems.
The production and use of weapons and munitions increases the release of greenhouse gases and a variety of other pollutants, leaving an unacceptable legacy for future generations. The environmental recovery from conflict-related damage can therefore take decades and why, as the International Law Commission has made clear, preventing damage to the environment during conflict is critical.
My second point is that climate change exacerbates tensions, and – under some conditions – contributes to conflicts.
While conflicts rarely have a single cause, and while climate-conflict pathways are complex, climate change is not infrequently one of the peels of the onion – with other peels often reflecting conflicts over resources, such as water and land, ethnic conflict, religious conflicts and so on.
But somewhere in the mix, there is often also the added driver of climate change. Climate change, therefore, accompanied by other challenges, can contribute to a dangerous downward spiral. As the Secretary-General has noted in a previous address
to this Council, “Both climate disasters and conflict inflame inequalities, imperil livelihoods and force people from their homes.”
Climate change has an especially disruptive impact in regions in which people are already vulnerable and depend heavily on agriculture or natural resources.
In this context, it is important to note the powerful influence climate change has on the water
cycle, making it more erratic and extreme. In the past six years, only about one-third of the global river catchment area had normal discharge conditions compared to the 1991-2020 average, according to the latest data from the World Meteorological Organization.
People are suffering cascading impacts of either too much or too little water. Dry areas have also been devastated by these disruptions to the water cycle. Across a broad region between Mauritania and Afghanistan, with the Mediterranean at its centre, temperatures have been increasing
faster than the global average, and rainfall has become much more erratic.
Exposure to climate-related hazards has increased because of population growth and expansion of irrigated agriculture. Vulnerability has also increased, especially where conflicts have undermined communities’ and countries’ ability to cope with drought.
In Syria, we are now witnessing the consequences where – following an exceptionally dry winter and high summer temperatures – much of the wheat harvest has failed. Earlier this year, Syria also suffered devastating forest fires, further diminishing the economic safety net provided by critical ecosystems.
Syria’s Minister of Emergency and Disaster Management has issued an urgent call
for government, international partners and local stakeholders to work together “to protect livelihoods and strengthen our preparedness for the future”.
There is also growing evidence
that droughts and high temperatures increase the risks of various forms of conflict. World Bank research found that that most contexts affected by fragility and conflict also experience consistently drier, more severe drought periods.
The countries that were chronically unstable during the first two decades of this century also experienced more severe droughts on average during the same period. But there is no simple causal chain: increased rainfall can also make violent conflict more likely in certain settings, for example through the targeting of rich agricultural areas by armed groups or states.
My third point is that conflict-affected countries and communities must be supported with tools to protect natural resources and the environment.
Conflict events have doubled
in the past five years. Environmental challenges are escalating, whether countries are in conflict or not.
I wish to highlight three priorities that would enhance environmental support to conflict-affected countries.
Priority one: Rebuild national capacity for environmental management, supported by science-based assessments and tools.
Local and national governance institutions are often weakened during periods of conflict. Rebuilding national environmental governance capacities enables governments to manage natural resources for sustainable development, economic recovery and climate adaptation – work that can help reduce poverty, hunger and aid dependency.
Here, the United Nations system can help rebuild national capacity by acting as a trusted knowledge partner, providing high-level and technical advice, supporting peer exchange, and helping governments navigate complex policy trade-offs in ways that are independent, technically sound and normatively grounded.
Conflict-related environmental assessments are key in supporting stakeholders to understand both immediate and longer-term risks, providing an essential knowledge basis for priority-setting during the recovery.
Remote sensing can – when used correctly – show changes in environmental status to facilitate remediation action. Modelling can help decision-makers understand different environmental policy options and trade-offs. Frameworks for managing conflict-related debris can lower contamination risks and reduce the financial and environmental costs of reconstruction.
On top of this, there is substantial evidence that empowering women to manage natural resources in conflict-affected settings can also contribute to enhanced environmental management, conflict resolution and community stability.
Priority two: Facilitate and enable work across sectors and actors.
At an international and national level, management of natural resources – including water, rangelands and forests – requires cooperation between ministries and sectors, including the private sector and, in some cases, security actors.
The UN system must also ensure seamless coordination among environmental, humanitarian, peace and security, human rights and development entities. Deploying expert advisors to engage with all relevant stakeholders helps us to identify viable environmental solutions, enabling prompt recovery.
At the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), we deployed our first advisor to a UN integrated peacebuilding mission in 2010, to support Sierra Leone’s transition and ensure environmental dimensions were incorporated fully into the country’s recovery process.
The integration of environmental and climate security advisors into UN peace operations has now been scaled up following the establishment of the
Climate Security Mechanism, a joint United Nations effort that addresses the links between climate, peace and security. Environmental advisors, working at national and regional levels, provide a light footprint, flexible contribution to building peace and support to help accelerate recovery.
Priority three: Increase investments in climate adaptation in conflict-affected countries.
UNEP’s latest
Adaptation Gap Report, issued last month, highlights a significant gap in adaptation finance for developing countries. This adaptation gap is putting lives, livelihoods and entire economies at risk.
For conflict-affected countries, the adaptation gap is even greater. Between 2014 and 2021, people living in severely conflict-affected countries received an estimated US$2 per capita in climate finance, compared to US$162 per capita in more stable countries. So, it is clear that action on adaptation helps to address compounding risks faced by vulnerable populations in regions experiencing both climate shocks and ongoing conflict.
Excellencies,
As we head to COP30 in Belém, Brazil, high ambition is needed both on adaptation and on mitigation. Every fraction of a degree avoided means lower losses for people and ecosystems – and greater opportunities for peace and prosperity.
Thank you.
