The ecological fallout of Israel’s war in Gaza

1. At a Glance

• Topic: The environmental damage from the Israel–Gaza conflict since October 2023, and the international law that could make a state answer for wartime harm to the environment [1][2].
• Core evidence: UNEP's second assessment of Gaza, released on 23 September 2025, found contaminated freshwater, no working sewage treatment, about 61 million tonnes of debris and the loss of about 97% of tree crops [3][4].
• Legal hook: In 2022 the International Law Commission (ILC) adopted 27 draft principles on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts (PERAC). The UNGA formally noted them on 7 December 2022 [1].
• UPSC value: Links GS-II (international institutions, humanitarian law) with GS-III (environmental degradation, disaster and conflict). The 6 November observance is a recurring Prelims fact [1].

2. Why in the News

• 6 November 2026: The Hindu op-ed "The ecological fallout of Israel's war in Gaza" by Abdullah Nasir (Centre for International Legal Studies, JNU) was published to mark the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict [1].
• 23 September 2025: UNEP released Environmental Impact of the Escalation of Conflict in the Gaza Strip. It is UNEP's second assessment of Gaza since October 2023, and the State of Palestine asked for it [2][3].
• The op-ed argues that Israel is responsible for internationally wrongful acts causing environmental harm. It bases this on the conduct of the war (which the author calls genocide) and on Israel's continuing role as an occupying power [1]. Note: "genocide" is the author's characterisation, not a settled legal finding.

3. Background & Evolution

• 5 November 2001: The UNGA designated 6 November each year as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict [1].
• Rationale: Wartime environmental damage, such as degraded ecosystems and depleted resources, lasts long after the fighting ends. It often crosses national borders and affects future generations [1].
• 2022: The ILC adopted the 27 PERAC draft principles [1].
• 7 December 2022: The UNGA formally noted the PERAC principles [1].
• October 2023 onwards: The conflict escalated in Gaza. UNEP first published a preliminary assessment, Environmental Impact of the Conflict in Gaza: Preliminary Assessment of Environmental Impacts [5].
• 23 September 2025: UNEP published its second assessment, which included recommendations for recovery and reconstruction planning [2][6].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
International Day	6 November, designated by the UNGA on 5 Nov 2001 [1]
PERAC	ILC report "Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts" [1]
Number of principles	27 draft principles, adopted in 2022 [1]
UNGA action	"Noted" them on 7 Dec 2022. This is not adoption as a treaty [1]
Principle 1 (scope)	Covers the environment before, during and after armed conflict, including occupation [1]
UNEP report title	Environmental Impact of the Escalation of Conflict in the Gaza Strip [2]
Release date	23 Sep 2025 [3]
Requested by	State of Palestine [3]
Method	Satellite imagery plus field observations by other UN agencies. UNEP staff could not enter Gaza [3]
Debris	About 61 million tonnes, some possibly contaminated with asbestos and industrial waste [3]
Sewage treatment	Zero remaining capacity; none of Gaza's wastewater plants were working [3]
Vegetation loss (since 2023)	About 97% of tree crops, 95% of shrubland and 82% of annual crops [4]
Health	36-fold rise in acute watery diarrhoea [4]
Recommendations	30 [4]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Environmental

• Most of Gaza's freshwater is contaminated and no wastewater plant works, so sewage goes into the environment untreated [3].
• Soil compaction and vegetation loss could take decades to recover [3].
• Coastal waters and marine life are likely contaminated by munitions, sewage and waste, but UNEP could not test them [3].

Social / Health

• Environmental collapse is linked to more infectious disease, including the 36-fold rise in acute watery diarrhoea [4].
• UNEP warns that the damage threatens long-term food and water security [4].

Economic / Reconstruction

• Clearing about 61 million tonnes of debris is a major reconstruction task. Asbestos and industrial waste make it a health hazard as well [3].
• The loss of 97% of tree crops and 82% of annual crops removes Gaza's agricultural base [4].
• UNEP's recommendations include debris recycling, rapid rebuilding of water and sewage systems, and systematic soil testing [4].

Legal / International Law

• Because PERAC covers the environment before, during and after conflict, a state's obligations do not end when fighting stops [1].
• Principle 1 explicitly covers occupation. The author uses this to argue that Israel, as occupying power, bears continuing responsibility [1].
• PERAC principles are draft principles that the UNGA noted. They are not a binding treaty, and how far they can be enforced is contested.

Scientific / Technological

• The assessment relied on remote sensing and satellite imagery because UNEP staff had no access. UNEP says its picture of the damage is therefore incomplete [3].
• Recommended technical steps include safe disposal of munitions and systematic soil testing [4].

Ethical / Governance

• Accountability and access: environmental harm cannot be properly documented when monitors are kept out, and that weakens accountability [1][3].
• Harm to future generations raises a question of intergenerational equity [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 23 Sep 2025: UNEP published its second Gaza assessment with 30 recommendations [3][4].
• March 2026: The UN's Question of Palestine portal (UNISPAL) published an annual compilation of 2025 UN reports on Palestine [7].
• 6 Nov 2026: The Hindu op-ed linked the International Day to state accountability under PERAC [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict is observed on 6 November [1].
• The UNGA designated it on 5 November 2001 [1].
• PERAC stands for Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts [1].
• PERAC was drafted by the International Law Commission, not UNEP [1].
• PERAC has 27 draft principles, adopted in 2022 [1].
• The UNGA formally noted the PERAC principles on 7 December 2022 [1].
• PERAC Principle 1 covers before, during and after conflict, including occupation [1].
• UNEP's Environmental Impact of the Escalation of Conflict in the Gaza Strip was released on 23 September 2025 [3].
• That report is UNEP's second Gaza assessment since October 2023 and was requested by the State of Palestine [3].
• Gaza has about 61 million tonnes of debris, some of it possibly asbestos-contaminated [3].
• About 97% of Gaza's tree crops have been lost since 2023 [4].
• Gaza's remaining sewage treatment capacity is zero [3].
• The report makes 30 recommendations [4].

8. Why the Law Has Rules but No One to Enforce Them

• The main treaty rule is very hard to break on paper
• Articles 35(3) and 55 of Additional Protocol I (an extra treaty added to the Geneva Conventions) ban methods of war that cause damage which is "widespread, long-term and severe" [11].
• All three conditions must be met together. Damage that is severe but not "long-term" does not meet the rule.

• UNEP's own legal review says these three words have never been clearly defined, and asks for definitions [11].

• Even when the rule is broken, it is not a "grave breach"

• Grave breaches are the most serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. States must search for and prosecute the people who commit them.

• Environmental damage is not on that list [11]. No state is required to prosecute anyone for it.

• Criminal law sets the bar even higher

• The Rome Statute of the ICC (International Criminal Court) treats attacks that cause widespread, long-term and severe environmental harm as a war crime [13].

• So the same three-part test applies, and it has to be proved against one named person, not a state.

• PERAC fills gaps but cannot force anyone

• PERAC is soft law (guidance that states are not legally bound to follow). The UNGA only "noted" it [1].

• It is useful because it covers occupation and the time after a war [1]. But it does not set up any court, fine or compensation fund.

• The law has been tested before and found weak

• In the 1990–91 Gulf War, Iraqi forces set fire to more than 600 Kuwaiti oil wells. This made experts doubt whether the existing treaties were enough [11].
• Gaza raises the same question again, more than 30 years later.

9. The Strongest Objection: Who Is Really Responsible?

• The objection, stated fairly
• Israel says that Hamas fought from inside homes, hospitals and tunnels in crowded areas. On this view, much of the destruction comes from the way the enemy chose to fight.
• Israel has also argued that it no longer occupies Gaza, because it withdrew its soldiers and settlers. If that is right, the duties of an occupying power (the state that controls territory it took in war) would not apply.

• And Gaza's environment was already under heavy stress before October 2023. UNEP's preliminary assessment records serious water and waste problems from before the war [5].

• What is right about it

• Blame for environmental damage can be shared. Armed groups that fight from civilian areas also break the laws of war.

• Some of the damage was there before the war. A fair account should separate old damage from new damage.

• Why it does not settle the matter

• Under the laws of war, the other side's wrongdoing does not cancel your own duties. Each attack must still be proportionate (the expected harm must not be excessive compared to the military gain).
• The scale of new damage is far beyond the old baseline. All wastewater treatment has stopped, and about 97% of tree crops are gone [3][4].

• PERAC Principle 1 covers occupation, and the author argues that Israel's control of Gaza's borders and supplies amounts to occupation [1]. This is the legal point the whole case depends on, and it is contested.

• How to use this in an answer

• Present both positions. Then say that responsibility can be shared without disappearing, and that the occupation question decides who owes repair.

10. What the Clean-Up Will Cost and Why It Keeps Getting Harder

• The debris pile has more than doubled while the war went on
• In March 2024, the World Bank's interim assessment estimated about 26 million tonnes of debris [9].

• UNEP's 2025 figure is about 61 million tonnes [3]. Every month of fighting adds to the bill.

• The money needed is very large

• In 2024, the World Bank put the cost of removing rubble alone at about US$327 million [9].

• The 2025 joint needs assessment estimated about US$53 billion for all of Gaza's recovery and reconstruction [10].

• The time needed depends on permission, not machines

• UNDP says most of the rubble could be cleared in about seven years [8].
• But only "under the right conditions": free access, permits to bring in heavy machinery, and a stable situation on the ground [8].

• If heavy machinery is not allowed in, the clean-up cannot start properly, however much money is pledged.

• The debris is dangerous, not just heavy

• It can contain unexploded weapons, asbestos, industrial waste and medical waste [8].
• Asbestos is found mainly in older buildings in Gaza's eight refugee camps, often in asbestos cement roof sheets [8]. Workers who clear it without protection can get lung disease years later.

11. What Kuwait After 1991 Shows About Paying for War Damage

• There is a real precedent for making a state pay
• After the Gulf War, the UN Compensation Commission (UNCC), working under the Security Council, ordered Iraq to pay for damage, including environmental damage [12].

• Environmental awards to four governments (Kuwait, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) came to about US$4.3 billion [12].

• It also checked how the money was spent

• In 2005, under decision 258, the UNCC set up a Follow-up Programme for Environmental Awards [12].
• Its job was to make sure the money was spent openly and on technically sound clean-up work [12].

• Kuwait's largest award, more than US$2 billion, paid to clean up and replant about 114 km² of oil-soaked desert [12].

• Why the same model is hard to use for Gaza

• The UNCC worked because the Security Council agreed after Iraq lost the war.
• In Gaza, the permanent members of the Council are divided, so a body set up by the Council is unlikely.
• The lesson to take is how the UNCC was designed: a body that handles claims, plus monitoring of the money. That design could be copied by other means.

12. What Should Happen Next, and Who Should Do It

• UN agencies need to get into Gaza and take samples
• UNEP could not enter Gaza. It could not test coastal waters, and it calls its own picture incomplete [3].

• Without soil, water and sea samples, no court or claims body has the evidence it needs. Access for monitors should be part of any ceasefire deal.

• States should define the treaty's key words

• UNEP has asked for clear definitions of "widespread", "long-term" and "severe" [11].

• States that are parties to Protocol I could agree on these at a review meeting. That would make the rule usable in a courtroom.

• The UNGA could move PERAC towards a treaty

• Right now the UNGA has only "noted" PERAC [1].

• Moving it towards a convention would turn its rules on occupation and the time after a war into binding duties.

• Donors should pay for recycling debris, not dumping it

• UNEP recommends recycling debris [4]. A UNEP scenario puts the cost of recycling at about US$778 million [8].

• Crushed rubble can be reused to rebuild roads and buildings. That cuts both the waste and the need for new material.

• Any reconstruction fund should copy the Kuwait checks

• Money for Gaza's clean-up should be tracked by an independent monitor, as the UNCC follow-up programme did for Kuwait [12].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: About 61 million tonnes of debris (UNEP 2025), up from about 26 million tonnes (World Bank, March 2024) [3][9]
• Data: About US$53 billion needed for Gaza's recovery and reconstruction (2025 needs assessment) [10]
• Data: Zero wastewater treatment capacity; about 97% of tree crops lost; 36-fold rise in acute watery diarrhoea [3][4]
• Report/Committee: UNEP, Environmental Impact of the Escalation of Conflict in the Gaza Strip, 2025 (30 recommendations) [3][4]; UNDP, most rubble clearable in about seven years under the right conditions [8]
• Law/Case: Additional Protocol I, Articles 35(3) and 55 ("widespread, long-term and severe") [11]; ILC PERAC principles, noted by the UNGA in 2022 [1]; the Rome Statute treats such harm as a war crime [13]
• Comparison: UNCC (Iraq–Kuwait): about US$4.3 billion in environmental awards, spending monitored under decision 258 (2005); Kuwait oil-lake clean-up of about 114 km² [12]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Important international institutions (UNGA, ILC, UNEP); effect of developed countries' policies and politics on India's interests (West Asia).
• GS-III: Environmental pollution and degradation; disaster management; links between security and environment.
• GS-IV: Intergenerational justice; ethics in international relations.
• Question stems: 1. Environmental destruction during armed conflict is a 'silent casualty' of war. Examine the adequacy of international legal frameworks, including the ILC's PERAC principles, in ensuring accountability. (GS-II, 15 marks) 2. Discuss the long-term ecological and public-health consequences of conflict-driven environmental degradation, with reference to recent assessments of Gaza. (GS-III, 10 marks) 3. Should environmental harm in war be treated as an independent ground of state responsibility? Critically analyse. (GS-II/IV, 15 marks)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

These topics are not sourced in this note. Verify the details on your own.

• ENMOD Convention: the treaty that bans hostile use of environmental modification techniques. It is the earliest treaty dealing specifically with war and the environment.
• Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: its environmental clauses use the "widespread, long-term and severe" threshold.
• Rome Statute / ICC and the "ecocide" debate: whether environmental destruction should be a crime under international criminal law.
• ILC Articles on State Responsibility (2001): the basis for "internationally wrongful acts", the term used in the op-ed [1].
• Law of occupation (Fourth Geneva Convention / Hague Regulations): relevant because PERAC explicitly covers occupation [1].
• UNEP's conflict and disaster assessments (e.g., Ukraine, Iraq): useful comparisons for the remote-sensing method [3].
• Right to a healthy environment: connects with the public-health findings [4].

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• United Nations General Assembly (Polity): UNGA designated the 6 November day and only 'noted' the PERAC principles; its resolutions are recommendations, not binding.
• Geneva Conventions (Polity): The Fourth Convention governs occupying powers, which is the basis for arguing Israel's continuing responsibility for Gaza's environment.
• International Criminal Court (Polity): It is the forum for the ecocide debate and for war crimes, which are linked to wartime environmental destruction.
• Intergenerational equity (Economy): Lasting wartime damage to land and water harms future generations, which is the ethical argument for protecting the environment.
• Remote sensing (Geography): UNEP staff could not enter Gaza, so the assessment relied on satellite imagery, which limits how complete it is.
• Environmental degradation (Economy): Contaminated water, soil damage and lost crops in Gaza are examples of degradation that raise health and resource costs.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Date confusion: The UNGA resolution was passed on 5 Nov 2001, but the Day is observed on 6 Nov [1].
• Wrong body: The PERAC principles came from the ILC, not UNEP or UNGA. UNEP wrote the Gaza assessment [1][3].
• Wrong legal status: The UNGA noted PERAC in Dec 2022. It is not a treaty and was not "adopted" as a convention [1].
• Wrong scope: PERAC covers more than active hostilities. It applies before, during and after conflict, and to occupation [1].
• Mixing up the reports: Do not confuse UNEP's preliminary Gaza assessment with the second assessment of 23 Sep 2025 [3][5].