Richard J. Wenning – Wenning Environmental LLC, Yarmouth, Maine US
Theodore D. Tomasi – Integral Consulting Inc., Moorestown, New Jersey US
Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2022. 19(2):366-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4716
Screenshot
ABSTRACT:
Military conflict has led to large‐scale environmental changes throughout recorded human history. Pollution from war contaminates surface water and soil, releases large volumes of greenhouse gases into the air, and directly harms wildlife and biodiversity. Although much is understood about the human toll of war, numerous examples of postwar reconstruction suggest that underestimating the severity of wartime damage to ecosystems and natural resources leads to prolonged or incomplete environmental recovery. A data‐driven scientific approach, closely aligned with the evidentiary rules standard in Western legal systems, is needed to quantify the injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources and to inform the estimation of the reparations necessary to fully restore the environment. The US Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process and the European Union environmental liability directive (ELD) are well‐suited for a systematic and science‐based analysis of the ecological injuries incurred during armed conflicts. Both approaches include a preliminary damage assessment process that could be initiated during wartime to document and predict the likely severity of injuries and to prioritize rehabilitation activities in advance of the cessation of hostilities. In this article, we refer to news reporting of Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine as an example of how a preliminary damage assessment could be conducted remotely and later modified by in‐country inspections and analysis to verify and refine the scale of injuries and to develop reparation proposals.
