Original research article published in Environment and Security, March 2025.
Drawing on extensive data from 2006 to 2020, this pioneering global study provides compelling evidence that armed conflict significantly and persistently deteriorates countries' environmental performance. The research uncovers how both the intensity and duration of conflicts leave long-lasting environmental scars, which often persist for two to three decades after hostilities end.
Visible and Invisible Impacts of Conflict:
The paper outlines two categories of environmental harm. Direct impacts include the destruction of energy infrastructure, chemical contamination, and toxic waste resulting from military activity. Less visible but equally damaging are indirect effects, such as weakened governance, disrupted land use, and increased reliance on environmentally harmful livelihood strategies due to displacement and insecurity. These dynamics undermine state capacity to implement and enforce environmental policies.
Quantifying Environmental Decline:
Using the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) as a benchmark, the article shows that countries experiencing conflict score on average 12% lower in environmental performance compared to peaceful counterparts. A more granular analysis reveals that the severity and frequency of armed conflicts are directly correlated with environmental degradation. Notably, countries with high conflict exposure—defined through duration and casualty metrics—suffer the worst impacts.
Furthermore, even post-conflict states show enduring environmental underperformance. Countries that ended conflicts within the past 20 years lag behind by nearly 15% in EPI relative to long-term peaceful states. Full recovery to pre-conflict environmental standards can take up to 30 years, particularly in cases of protracted and intense conflict, such as in Angola, Colombia, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Post-Conflict Recovery and Emerging Risks:
The research cautions against common post-conflict recovery approaches that prioritize rapid economic growth over environmental sustainability. Relaxing environmental regulations to attract investment or tapping into extractive industries often exacerbates environmental decline and reintroduces the risk of conflict, particularly where natural resources are contested. Case studies from Kosovo, Liberia, and Colombia illustrate how poorly managed resource use post-conflict can reverse ecological and peacebuilding gains.
Importantly, the study emphasizes the compounding risks posed by climate change, which can intensify environmental vulnerabilities in post-conflict societies and heighten the likelihood of conflict relapse. This underlines the need for conflict-sensitive, inclusive environmental governance in both peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts.
Implications for Policy and Peacebuilding:
The article calls for urgent attention to the environmental dimensions of conflict and recovery. Recommendations include restoring damaged ecosystems, managing toxic remnants of war, supporting green economic transitions, and reducing military emissions. Targeted international support for high-conflict-exposure countries is essential, particularly as many are side-lined by mainstream environmental funding mechanisms due to their instability.
Ultimately, this study reinforces that sustainable peace is intrinsically linked to environmental security. Protecting the environment before, during, and after armed conflict should be a core pillar of peacebuilding strategies.
This text is based on extracts from a research article written by Dr Florian Krampe, Joakim Kreutz and Tobias Ide, March 2025. The complete study along with its methodology and results can be found here.
See below for our coverage on similar topics:
- UN Peacebuilding Fund Tip Sheet on Climate, Peace and Security and Environmental Peacebuilding
- The Impact of Climate Change on Conflict
- Climate damage caused by Russian War in Ukraine in three years: The key numbers