In response to mounting evidence of the harmful effects of armed conflicts on biodiversity, there have been efforts to strengthen international legal frameworks for wartime environmental protection. While collaboration between international law experts and conservation science experts has been successful elsewhere, dialogue between these disciplines in the context of armed conflicts remains limited. Without such an exchange, however, legal strategies to protect the environment during wars may be ineffective. This article focuses on two specific issues to illustrate how increased exchange between legal and conservation experts could lead to better environmental protection: (a) designation of areas of environmental importance as “protected zones” and (b) monitoring and management of these areas during armed conflicts. We use these case studies to argue that the frameworks of multilateral environmental agreements could bridge gaps between legal and ecological understandings by providing fora that combine legal and scientific expertise with support for local actors, such as conservation managers. Despite the traditional reluctance of these frameworks to engage with issues of international peace and security, we argue that, given the increase in armed conflicts over recent years, these issues can no longer be ignored and should be mainstreamed into international biodiversity conservation policy and practice.
BaumannM.KuemmerleT. (2016). The impacts of warfare and armed conflict on land systems. Journal of Land Use Science, 11(6), 672–688.
2.
BeattieM.FaJ. E.LeiperI.Fernández-LlamazaresÁ.ZanderK. K.GarnettS. T. (2023). Even after armed conflict, the environmental quality of indigenous peoples’ lands in biodiversity hotspots surpasses that of non-Indigenous lands. Biological Conservation, 286, Article 110288.
BozzutoC.BiebachI.MuffS.IvesA. R.KellerL. F. (2019). Inbreeding reduces long-term growth of Alpine ibex populations. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(9), 1359–1364.
5.
BruchC.BatraG.AnandA.ChowdhuryS.KillianS. (2024). Conflict-sensitive conservation: Lessons from the global environment facility (p. 249). Taylor & Francis.
6.
ClericiN.ArmenterasD.KareivaP.BoteroR.Ramírez-DelgadoJ. P.Forero-MedinaG.OchoaJ.PedrazaC.SchneiderL.LoraC.GómezC. (2020). Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-conflict periods. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 4971.
De HemptinneJ. (2023). Increasing the safeguarding of protected areas threatened by warfare through international environmental law. International Review of the Red Cross, 105(924), 1392–1411. https://doi.org/10.1017/S181638312300036X
9.
DieneltA. (2017). ‘After the war is before the war’: The environment, preventive measures under international humanitarian law, and their post-conflict impact. In StahnC.IversonJ.EasterdayJ. S. (Eds.), Environmental protection and transitions from conflict to peace: Clarifying norms, principles, and practices (pp. 420–437). Springer International Publishing.
10.
DieneltA. (Ed.). (2022). The environment and international environmental law. In Armed conflicts and the environment: Complementing the laws of armed conflict with human rights law and international environmental law (pp. 199–256). Springer International Publishing.
11.
DroegeC.TougasM.-L. (2013). The protection of the natural environment in armed conflict—Existing rules and need for further legal protection. Nordic Journal of International Law, 82(1), 21–52. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08201003
12.
DudleyN. (Ed.). (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories (p. vii). IUCN.
13.
DuffyR.MasséF.SmidtE.MarijnenE.BüscherB.VerweijenJ.RamutsindelaM.SimlaiT.JoannyJ.LunstrumE. (2019). Why we must question the militarisation of conservation. Biological conservation, 232, 66–73.
14.
EU Commission, Directorate-General for Environment (2022). Criteria and guidance for protected areas designations—Staff Working Document.
15.
GalliersC.ColeR.SinghR.OhlfsJ.AishaH.KoutouaA. B.RoodtC.MalvidoM. Á. (2022). Conservation casualties: An analysis of on-duty ranger fatalities (2006–2021). Parks, 28(1), 39–50.
16.
GaynorK. M.FiorellaK. J.GregoryG. H.KurzD. J.SetoK. L.WitheyL. S.BrasharesJ. S. (2016). War and wildlife: Linking armed conflict to conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(10), 533–542.
17.
GillespieA. (2007). Protected areas and international environmental law (1st ed.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
18.
GillettM. (2017). Eco-struggles: Using international criminal law to protect the environment during and after non-international armed conflict. In StahnC.IversonJ.EasterdayJ. S. (Eds.), Environmental protection and transitions from conflict to peace: Clarifying norms, principles, and practices (pp. 220–256). Oxford University Press.
19.
GillettM. (2022). Animals in protected zones. In PetersA.de HemptinneJ.KolbR. (Eds.), Animals in the international law of armed conflict (pp. 234–263). Cambridge University Press.
20.
HansonT. (2018). Biodiversity conservation and armed conflict: A warfare ecology perspective. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1429(1), 50–65.
21.
HansonT.BrooksT. M.Da FonsecaG. A.HoffmannM.LamoreuxJ. F.MachlisG.MittermeierC. G.MittermeierR. A.PilgrimJ. D. (2009). Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology, 23(3), 578–587.
22.
HarmonD. (2004). Intangible values of protected areas: What are they? Why do they matter?The George Wright Forum, 21(2), 9–24.
23.
HsiaoE. (2020). Protecting protected areas in Bello: Learning from institutional design and conflict resilience in the greater Virunga and Kidepo landscapes. Goettingen Journal of International Law, 10(1), 67–110.
24.
HsiaoE.GarsideA.WeirD.PlumptreA. (2023). Protected zones in context: Exploring the complexity of armed conflicts and their impacts on the protection of biodiversity. International Review of the Red Cross, 105(924), 1412–1140.
25.
HulmeK. (2016). Armed conflict and biodiversity. In BowmanM.DaviesP.GoodwinE. (Eds.), Research handbook on biodiversity and the law (pp. 245–269). Edward Elgar Publishing.
26.
HulmeK. (2022). Using international environmental law for biodiversity and nature conservation during armed conflict. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 20, 1155–1190.
27.
IdeT.BrzoskaM.DongesJ. F.SchleussnerC. F. (2020). Multi-method evidence for when and how climate-related disasters contribute to armed conflict risk. Global Environmental Change, 62, Article 102063.
28.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2020). guidelines on the protection of the natural environment in armed conflict: Rules and recommendations relating to the protection of the natural environment under international humanitarian law, with commentary (ICRC Guidelines).
29.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2023). State expert meeting on International Humanitarian Law: Protecting the environment in armed conflicts: Chair’s summary.
30.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2024). International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts. Building a culture of compliance for IHL to protect humanity in today’s and future conflicts.
International Law Commission (ILC). (2022). Draft principles on protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts, in report of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/77/10, 2022, Chap. V (ILC PERAC Principles). https://legal.un.org/docs/?symbol=A/77/10
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2012). IUCN red list categories and criteria: Version 3.1 (2nd ed.).
35.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2016). A global standard for the identification of key biodiversity areas, version 1.0 (1st ed.).
36.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2021). Conflict and conservation (Nature in a Globalised World Report No.1). https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49472
37.
KeithD. A.RodríguezJ. P.Rodríguez-ClarkK. M.NicholsonE.AapalaK.AlonsoA.AsmussenM.BachmanS.BassetA.BarrowE. G.BensonJ. S.BishopM. J.BonifacioR.BrooksT. M.BurgmanM. A.ComerP.ComínF. A.EsslF.Faber-LangendoenD.. . .Zambrano-MartínezS. (2013). Scientific foundations for an IUCN red list of ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 8, e62111. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062111
38.
KimK. C. (1997). Preserving biodiversity in Korea’s demilitarized zone. Science, 278(5336), 242–243.
39.
KongL.ZhaoY. (2023). Remedying the environmental impacts of war: Challenges and perspectives for full reparation. International Review of the Red Cross, 105(924), 1441–1462.
KujalaH.Lahoz-MonfortJ. J.ElithJ.MoilanenA. (2018). Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(11), 2249–2261.
42.
LaRueE. A.KnottJ. A.DomkeG. M.ChenH. Y.GuoQ.HisanoM.OswaltC.OswaltS.KongN.PotterK. M.FeiS. (2023). Structural diversity as a reliable and novel predictor for ecosystem productivity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 21(1), 33–39.
43.
Liévano-LatorreL. F.BrumF. T.LoyolaR. (2021). How effective have been guerrilla occupation and protected areas in avoiding deforestation in Colombia?Biological Conservation, 253, Article 108916.
44.
MackeyB.DellaSalaD. A.KormosC.LindenmayerD.KumpelN.ZimmermanB.HughS.YoungV.FoleyS.ArsenisK.WatsonJ. E. (2015). Policy options for the world’s primary forests in multilateral environmental agreements. Conservation Letters, 8(2), 139–147.
Martínez de AnguitaP.MartínM. Á.ClareA. (2014). Environmental subsidiarity as a guiding principle for forestry governance: Application to payment for ecosystem services and REDD + Architecture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27, 617–631 (2014). https://doi-org.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl/10.1007/s10806-013-9481-8
47.
MaxwellS. L.CazalisV.DudleyN.HoffmannM.RodriguesA. S.StoltonS.ViscontiP.WoodleyS.KingstonN.LewisE.MaronM. (2020). Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature, 586(7828), 217–227.
48.
MooreJ. W.NowlanL.OlszynskiM.JacobA. L.FavaroB.CollinsL.Williams-DavidsonG. L. T.WeitzJ. (2018). Towards linking environmental law and science. Facets, 3(1), 375–391.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. (2023, September24). WHC.23/01.
53.
ParvaizA. (2023). Science and battlefields. BioScience, 73(12), 837–840.
54.
PimmS. L.AyresM.BalmfordA.BranchG.BrandonK.BrooksT.BustamanteR.CostanzaR.CowlingR.CurranL. M.DobsonA.FarberS.da FonsecaG. A. B.GasconC.KitchingR.McNeelyJ.LovejoyT.MittermeierR. A.MyersN.. . .WilcoveD. (2001). Can we defy nature’s end?Science, 293(5538), 2207–2208.
55.
PlumptreA. J. (2003). Lessons learned from on-the-ground conservation in Rwanda and the democratic Republic of the Congo. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 16(3–4), 71–91.
56.
PooleA. K. (2018). The UN sustainable development goals and the biocultural heritage lacuna: Where is goal number 18? In RozziRMayR. H.ChapinF. S.MassardoF.GavinM. C.KlaverI. J.PauchardA.NuñezM. A.SimberloffD. (Eds.), From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation (pp. 315–331). Springer.
57.
QuinnC. J. P.EvansC. R. T.BoockL. C. M. J. (2000). United States navy development of operational-environmental doctrine. In AustinJ. E.BruchC. E. (Eds.), The environmental consequences of war: Legal, economic, and scientific perspectives (pp. 156–170). Cambridge University Press.
58.
ReidC.HornigoldK.McHenryE.NicholsC.TownsendM.LewthwaiteK.ElliotM.PullingerR.HotchkissA.GilmartinE.WhiteI.ChesshireH.WhittleL.GarforthJ.GoslingR.ReedT.HugiM. (2021). State of the UK’s woods and trees. Woodland Trust.
59.
ManualSan Remo. (1994, June12). San Remo Manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea.
60.
SandozY.SwinarskiC.ZimmermannB. (Eds.). (1987). Commentary on the additional protocols. ICRC.
61.
Schulte to BuhneH.DarbyshireE.WeldemichelT. G.NyssenJ.WeirD. (2024). Conflict-related environmental degradation threatens the success of landscape recovery in some areas in Tigray (Ethiopia). Ecology and Society, 29(3), Article 20.
62.
Schulte to BühneH.PettorelliN. (2023). Perspectives: Predicting the effects of climate change on ancient woodlands when it interacts with pressures from surrounding land use/land cover. Forest Ecology and Management, 544, Article 121236.
63.
SchusterR.BuxtonR.HansonJ. O.BinleyA. D.PittmanJ.TullochV.La SorteF. A.RoehrdanzP. R.VerburgP. H.RodewaldA. D.WilsonS.PossinghamH. P.BennettJ. R. (2023). Protected area planning to conserve biodiversity in an uncertain future. Conservation Biology, 37(3), e14048.
64.
SinghR.GalliersC.AppletonM.HoffmannM.LongB.Cary-ElwesJ.FritzeC.McCallumJ.JonesR. P. (2021, January). The vital role of rangers in conservation. Parks Stewardship Forum, 37(1), 128–136.
65.
SjöstedtB. (2013). The role of multilateral environmental agreements in armed conflict: “Green-keeping” in Virunga Park. Applying the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in the Armed Conflict of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Nordic Journal of International Law = Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentium, 82(1), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08201007
66.
SjöstedtB. (2017). The ability of environmental treaties to address environmental problems in post-conflict. In EasterdayJ. S.StahnC.IversonJ.EasterdayJ. S.StahnC.IversonJ. (Eds.), Environmental protection and transitions from conflict to peace (pp. 73–92). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198784630.003.0004
67.
SjöstedtB. (2020). The role of multilateral environmental agreements: A reconciliatory approach to environmental protection in armed conflict. Hart.
68.
SjöstedtB. (2025). Protecting war’s unseen environmental damage. Nordic Journal of International Law, 94(1), 24–44.
69.
SjöstedtB.HulmeK. (2023). Re-evaluating international humanitarian law in a triple planetary crisis: New challenges, new tools. International Review of the Red Cross (2005), 105(924), 1238–1266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383123000449
70.
SjöstedtB., (2023). Contribution of multilateral environmental agreements and their institutional mechanisms to environmental peacebuilding. In Dam-de JongD.SjöstedtB. (Eds.), Research handbook on international law and environmental peacebuilding. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906929.00018
71.
StamatopouluE. (2017). Indigenous peoples’ rights and unreported struggles: Conflict and peace. Institute for the Study of Human Rights, Colombia University.
TurnerJ. R. (2004). Explaining the global biodiversity gradient: Energy, area, history and natural selection. Basic and Applied Ecology, 5(5), 435–448.
74.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) & International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2024). Protected planet report 2024.
75.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2009). Protecting the environment during armed conflict: An inventory and analysis of international law.
Van SteenbergheR. (2023). International environmental law as a means for enhancing the protection of the environment in warfare: A critical assessment of scholarly theoretical frameworks. International Review of the Red Cross (2005), 105(924), 1568–1599. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383123000358
78.
van UhmD. P.TjoonkM. M.BakoleE. Y. (2022). Organized forest crimes: Charcoal and timber trade in the democratic Republic of the Congo. In ZabyelinaY.ThachukK. L. (Eds.), The private sector and organized crime (pp. 149–162). Routledge.
WangM. (2023). The unprecedented Ramsar resolution: Ukrainian Wetlands protection in armed conflict. Netherlands International Law Review, 70(3), 323–357.
81.
WatsonJ. E.GranthamH. S.WilsonK. A.PossinghamH. P. (2011). Chapter 6: Systematic conservation planning: Past, present and future. In LadleR. J.WhittakerR. J. (Eds.), Conservation biogeography (pp. 136–160). Blackwell Publishing.
82.
WauchopeH. S.Zu ErmgassenS. O.JonesJ. P.CarterH.SchultetoBühneH.Milner-GullandE. J. (2024). What is a unit of nature? Measurement challenges in the emerging biodiversity credit market. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 291(2036), Article 20242353.
83.
WeirD.DurantS. M.SchultetoBühneH.HoffmannM.PetrovychO.Sua CarvajalB.Fernandes ElizaldeS. (2024). Conservation policies must address an overlooked issue: How war affects the environment. Nature, 634(8034), 538–541.
84.
WestingA. (1992). Protecting natural areas and the military. Environmental Conservation, 19, 343–348.
85.
WilliY.KristensenT. N.SgròC. M.WeeksA. R.ØrstedM.HoffmannA. A. (2022). Conservation genetics as a management tool: The five best-supported paradigms to assist the management of threatened species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1), e2105076119.
86.
ZubkovaM.GiglioL.HumberM. L.HallJ. V.EllicottE. (2021). Conflict and climate: Drivers of fire activity in Syria in the twenty-first century. Earth Interactions, 25(1), 119–135.
