Dear Rashid,

there are indeed some publications that focus on the issue. The general consensus is that there ae about three major factors:

a) Large scale devastation like the use of huge amounts of bombs and chemicals in Vietnam. Which obviously has a lasting negative impact.

b) The deterioration of state control and the need to finance ongoing conflicts lead to black market trade with everything of value, including wood and animal parts that lead to further endangerment, especially in the absence of governmental conservation efforts during wartime. Also, obviously negative impact.

c) The "positive" impact due to depopulation and natural regeneration of ecosystems. This also has a downside, as usually many people flee or are displaced and are consequently concentrated in refugee camps. The needs of so many people in such a small area leads to ecosystem degradation.

Sometimes industrial disasters are the consequences of war. See for example the oil spills and oil fires in the middle east conflicts.

Some reading material for more Information:

https://books.google.de/books?id=OJKFkSkgTyIC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.de/books?id=du7s13DfKC8C&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1008880113990

Dear Rashid,

there are indeed some publications that focus on the issue. The general consensus is that there ae about three major factors:

a) Large scale devastation like the use of huge amounts of bombs and chemicals in Vietnam. Which obviously has a lasting negative impact.

b) The deterioration of state control and the need to finance ongoing conflicts lead to black market trade with everything of value, including wood and animal parts that lead to further endangerment, especially in the absence of governmental conservation efforts during wartime. Also, obviously negative impact.

c) The "positive" impact due to depopulation and natural regeneration of ecosystems. This also has a downside, as usually many people flee or are displaced and are consequently concentrated in refugee camps. The needs of so many people in such a small area leads to ecosystem degradation.

Sometimes industrial disasters are the consequences of war. See for example the oil spills and oil fires in the middle east conflicts.

Some reading material for more Information:

https://books.google.de/books?id=OJKFkSkgTyIC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.de/books?id=du7s13DfKC8C&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1008880113990

Yes armed conflicts have impact on biological diversity. Please have a look at these links for details.

https://www.academia.edu/1637544/Impacts_of_armed_conflict_on_biodiversity

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/3/299

http://www.unep.org/dewa/Africa/publications/AEO-2/content/203.htm

http://especesmenacees.ca/en/conflicts.php

Hi Rashid

Maybe this will be useful:

T. Hanson, T. M. Brooks, G. A. B. Da Fonseca, M. Hoffmann, J. F. Lamoreux, G. Machlis, C. G. Mittermeier, R. A. Mittermeier, J. D. Pilgrim 2009; War in biodiversity hotspots, "Conservation Biology", 23(3): 578-587.

http://www.grid.unep.ch/FP2011/step1/pdf/036_Hanson_2009.pdf

"Parks", 2004, 14(1)

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/14_1.pdf

Best Regards

Maciej Wawrzczak

Please read this PDF attachment also.

After 18 century, whatever the climate change or extinction or depletion of diversity is due to activities of humans arm conflicts. The first world war and then the  second world war, production of huge radiations in the form of nuclear bombs and production of missiles. Regular bombardments over the world have destroyed diversity. 

Aceh province (East part of Sumatra in Indonesia) was at war until 2004 and could keep most of its wildlive, having therefore positive impact on biodiversity (compared to other parts in Indonesia), especially due to the fact that people had fled the zone. After peace agreement and fast economic recovery, those lands are now at threat with rapide agricultural expansion and road infrastructures

see:

http://www.grida.no/publications/organgutans-sumatra/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266320318_Towards_global_voluntary_standards_Questioning_the_effectiveness_in_attaining_conservation_goals_The_case_of_the_Roundtable_on_Sustainable_Palm_Oil_RSPO

Article Towards global voluntary standards: Questioning the effectiv...

A potential positive effect of conflict on biodiversity comes from demilitarized zones, such as the one between North and South Korea.

The subject has indeed been treated in many articles and books: Google scholar should help. The effect on war can have many diverse consequences on biodiversity, as illustrated by the war in eastern DR Congo - and the ensuing state of anarchy and bad governance. In Virunga NP, while military occupation forces nearly wiped out the elephant and hippo population in the savana sectors, they did not poach mountain gorillas in the forest sectors. When keystone species decrease, both their habitat and many other dependent species are affected. When the hippo population decreased from 23000 (1999) to 800 (2005) the fish population in Lake Edward was badly affected due to a change in the richness of the water. Conversely, the gorilla population in the Virungas evolved from 350 to 480 in the same period...

l agree with other comments before mine. Generallly the positives of war on wildlife conservation are an exception rather than the rule. Usually there are more negatives such as an increase in illegal activities to fund the war/conflict and uncontrolled killing of wild animals for meat, illegal trade, etc. You can search this link: www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/may102003/1182.pdf

www.iisc.ernet.in/~currsci/may102003/1182.pdf

Although I dont have any particular publications on the subject, I would say it depends on the scale of the war and the way of waging war. Collegues have already mentioned  some impacts. Thing is troops need resources, meat for food, wood for fire and construction, etc. Depending on the agregation of troops and methods used impact can go from a relative positive one by driving "human activities" away from an area, to almost full scale habitat loss and extinction of certain species. War has changed the way landscapes look, and Europe is a perfect example. Since pre-roman times, landscape has been deeply changed by simply cutting down forests for forts, ships, barricades, building roads....etc.  War as it has a deep way of changing human dynamics ergo affects environment and species. Only driving a sparce population towards a concentrated refugee camp means a lot.  Its weird but war has driven the human endevour whether we like it or not...and in waging war, environment is just either an asset or an obstacle....nothing more it has strategic value in terms of advantage or disadadvantage depending on the missions goal.

This is one of those "depends on the species" (in this case the species of the armed conflict). Soldiers may end up living on bush meat, which is a biodiversity disaster. Likewise there is  always a breakdown of law and order after a revolution (even a 'change of government"). This allows both the poaching of animals and the cutting of forests. 

The effect on war can have many diverse consequences on biodiversity and humans as part of it. War are the worse consequences for the biodiversity and conservation. During conflict is impossible assess, evaluate, monitoring or think about biodiversity and anything related with the conservation. Huge resources are used in wars that could be used for conservation biodiversity. The people are descepareted for save thier life and thier family, impossible to think in the biodiversity. The people in extreme condition is thinking in survive not in conservation.

Effects direct of the wars with the phisical destruction of animals, habitats an ecosystem. After wars many counties are suffering the radiation and the effect of habitat destruction and modification of enviromental with contamination (water, air and lands), pest like mosquitos, deforestation, etc. Wars changes rutes of migration of birds and mammals

The wars have been historical cause of decrease animal population , including the human.

Dear Colleagues,

the question can be spread into higher level - how military forces are influencing Nature in peace & war time. The reply is not simple. Actually, I'm living now in the country in war, and I feel this influence in everything. We are facing the second army in the world in power, and not so much active military forces but technologies that had been given for the people that cannot use it and shorting everything that is motile - like MH 17 flight. But this is direct influence. As well in the conflict zone no chance to keep any conservation areas in normal state. First from the both conflict sides and population that is trying to feed their families! remind Ruanda where in the civil war period their appeared thous. of poachers and a lot of rangers & animals had been killed in neighboring NNP. 

Indirect and long term influence (but much more dangerous) is on education, decreasing of financial support of programs in Nature Conservation, stuff salary, and total impoverishment of people!

In peasful times Army can has even positive effect like in some American Pacific islands where bats survived only due to the presence of American military bases. In our Uzhansky NNP (West Ukraine) growing amount of all even very rare animals due to much more attention on state border to stop smuggling and illegal migration. So, I can see at my window even the Black Storks hunting on the river!

I attached one book and several articles about consequences that Rashid is asking about…

I hope than in future “positivity” for Nature will come from peaceful sources only!

Andrey

Good point Andrey, thank you for the papers and book

Sometimes war may influence positively the nature - before the 2nd World War there was nearly no wolves in Poland, during war the number of this carnivores quickly raised.

Dear Mateusz, Sorry but the fact that one aspect look like be better is no reason to think that the wars are good for the nature. the increase population of only one sp could be cause for the loss of the equilibrium of the nature.

Does nature itself creates 'war-kind' actions impacting on biodiversity, e.g. tsunamis, fire, earth shakings, violent climate actions?

Dear Marcel, but the fact is that the wars are possible to avoid,

the others we can reduce but not avoid, its are the action of the nature some time modified by the humans

Dear Rafael Borroto-Páez

I agree with you. 

Yes, see a recent example in the Gorongoza National Park in Mozambique. You can find details on the research developed at : http://www.gorongosa.org/

Between 1977-1992 a civil conflict between the Government  and the Mozambique National Resistance decimated the fauna and altered ecosystems. Fighting continued to take place within the park and on Mount Gorongosa until 1992. After the war, in 1993-96, professional hunters added to the carnage already suffered by the animals during the armed conflict, and many of Gorongosa’s large animal populations were reduced by 90% or more. Fortunately Gorongoza is now considered an Africa’s greatest wildlife restoration story. 

Dear Rachid, and everybody,

Together with bush meat taken by soldiers, a war is usually a general national disaster. Both in Mozambique and Angola, for example, most National Parks lost their biodiversity due to hunger, not only suffered by soldiers, but mainly by the civil popultion long after the end of the war. Together with Gorongosa example, Angolan parks lost even more of their original large mammal diversity, loosing many species in most cases. Huge efforts have been made to recover populations and reintroduce species, for example in Kissama NP, however biodiversity is far to be the same it used to be before war. So, even with some positive effects here and there, I think that war has in general disastrous effects on wildlife and biodiversity.

Some links to papers related to colombian armed conflict and its effects on biodiversity:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-013-9667-y

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-34.3.205

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718512002837%3B

Dear all, other direct impact is that sometime the wildlife animal are used as target to practice shot and aim.

(Armed) conflicts are always against biodiversity, if we follow the definition of the Convention on biological diversity (CBD): "Biodiversity is the variability within       species, between species and between ecosystems", so is it really necessary                to differentiate between positive and negative impacts of (armed) conflicts on biodiversity? How can we prevent (armed) conflicts and promote biodiversity                  at the same time on regional, national and international level following our               duties as scientists and citizens? Interesting point, Rashid. Germany has                     had its last armed conflict 1933 - 1945, so we can compare the time before,             during and after the armed conflict in regard to an increase or decrease of       biodiversity. However since than the world population has nearly quadrupled,                so the main research should lie on the prevention of armed conflicts, than on                the impact, or? 

an african fishing ground (Sierra Leon,e i think) was found not to be overfished. The period coincide with the war time,,,,thus fishing was reduced. On the other hand, mangroves in Eastern Philippines was cleared when this was used as rebel refuge,,,

Definitely yes.

Of course, YES in many ways, both directly and indirectly!!!!

I'm wondering if armed conflict is as stressful on biodiversity as natural disasters are. The one difference could be the length of time stressing the area. We (our class) went to Mt. St. Helens this last weekend looking at this question as to what the volcanic stress has done to the ecosystems. We are still analyzing the  observations. Data would be helpful. Thanks for the question Rachid. It kind of fits right in with my studies.

You might got this already, but do research on Sri Lankan civil war. you will see plenty examples 

http://www.esf.edu/efb/lomolino/courses/MammalDiversity/Disc3/GroupC.pdf

http://www.esf.edu/efb/lomolino/courses/MammalDiversity/Disc3/GroupC.pdf

This Lawrence et al. (2015) paper should help - it is a review on "The effects of modern war and military activities on biodiversity and the environment". 

Article The effects of modern war and military activities on biodive...

Dear All, not only the armed conflicts have impact in the biodiversity. Only the militar exercises damage ecosystem and marine fauna as only an example. What about the nuclear test??? Terrible for biodiversity and for us. Army Career and the militar industry is a problem for the human and for the nature.

What about fuel or fire wood at high altitudes of Himalaya at India and China border, almost all the rhododendron, pines, oaks and birch forests  completely vanished. The fire wood and diesel Bukhari ( room heaters) are the causes of rise in temprature is such a pristine places. The daises of livestock and fowl (used for meat and chicken) are transmitting to wildlife; many fungal infections are also noted in wild plants. There are also many other factors .......

Yes, I absolutely agree with B.S. Kholia Kholia. Armed conflicts in many areas caused severe deforestation, soil erosion, and threats to wildlife. In Nepal,during the period of Maoist insurgency, habitat of the wildlife were well disturbed and heavily affected.

Certainly. In addition to all the literature cited above, we know that enforcement is neglected to the point of being non-existent and the environment is left to the mercy of the conflicting sides. Also, in the race to win areas or defeat the enemy all is trampled under the armed machinery. The environment always loses in a human-induced war.

The armed confict has effects with very long term with contamination, radiation, mine, etc., of the enviromental with damages for human and biodiversity.

Many people support the idea here with scientific confirmed arguments that armed conflicts have an negative and longterm impact on biodiversity (including humans         as an own species). Can't we use that for supporting our colleagues, for example,          in syria, nigeria etc. as evidences for a claim for compensation at the international    court of  justice (states) or at the international criminal court of justice (individuals)? What do you think? 

armed conflicts can have a serious negative impact on biodiversity even in neighboring countries that are not directly involved or part of the conflict itself e.g. Jordan, Lebanon...ME:

- large refugee camps leading to degradation of ecosystems, decline of water resources and pollution of water in hosting country, etc.. 

- the enforcement of laws relevant to protection of wildlife and biodiversity decrease even in countries indirectly involved, perhaps because the priorities of such countries with limited resources shift to the pressing situation, i.e. handling the large numbers of refugees and security issues; consequences are  an increase in illegal / uncontrolled hunting and other violations ......

Thanks to you all for your points of view. In Colombia, the "panorama" is quite complex in the sense that the economy that has endured the war during the last decades, comes from the drug trade which in itself generates negative impacts on biodiversity. The war "against the drugs" had failed in strategy with the negative impact on ecosystems and human societies living there. In Colombia, virtually no ecosystem has escaped being the scene of a combat, or being planted with antipersonnel-mines, or being sprinkled with poisons that kill everything they touch without discrimination. It is a very interesting to know how some species and ecosystems have responded to such impacts.

Please find our paper on the following link:

https://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/article/view/4039