Necessary Cookies

This cookie is used to distinguish between humans and bots. This is beneficial for the web site, in order to make valid reports on the use of their web site.

Functional Cookies

Remembers the user’s selected language version of a website.

Performance/Analytical Cookies

Registers a unique ID that is used to generate statistical data on how the visitor uses the website.Used by Google Analytics to throttle request rate.

Accept Reject

Advertising/Marketing Cookies

This cookie is used to collect information on consumer behavior, which is sent to Alexa Analytics. (Alexa Analytics is an Amazon company.)

The war in Gaza has taken a heavy toll on the environment, with water supplies contaminated, raw sewage pouring into the Mediterranean, once-fertile soils ruined, and the land stripped of trees. Experts say the extent of the damage needs to be tallied to help plan for a recovery.

The natural environment took an unprecedented pounding during the war in Gaza. And as the territory’s inhabitants have returned home since the ceasefire, the extent of the environmental devastation is becoming clear, raising crucial questions about how to reconstruct Gaza in the face of severe and potentially irreversible damage to the environment. The war has knocked out water supplies and disabled sewage treatment facilities, causing raw effluent to flow across the land, polluting the Mediterranean and underground water reserves essential for irrigating crops. More than two-thirds of Gaza’s farmland, including wells and greenhouses, has been damaged or destroyed by bombardment and military earthworks. Detailed satellite images taken since the ceasefire began on January 19 show 80 percent of Gaza’s trees lost. In addition, vital wetlands, sand dunes, coastal waters, and the only significant river, the Wadi Gaza, have all suffered extensively. The UN Environment Programme warns that the stripping of trees, shrubs, and crops has so badly damaged the soils of the once-fertile, biodiverse, and well-watered territory that it faces long-term desertification. Nature is the “silent victim of Israel’s war on Gaza,” says Saeed Bagheri, a lecturer in international law at the University of Reading in the U.K.

With water facilities knocked out, Palestinian families are taking water from potentially contaminated wells or unregulated tankers.

Scientist Ahmed Hilles, head of the National Institute for Environment and Development, a leading Palestinian think tank, last week called for an international fact-finding committee “to assess the damage and lay the basis for environmental restoration and long-term recovery.” He said it should “prioritize the rehabilitation of water sources, soil remediation, and the restoration of agricultural lands.” The Palestinian territory of Gaza extends for 24 miles along the shore of the eastern Mediterranean. Though small, it is a biodiversity hotspot where wildlife from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa meet. It has boasted more than 250 bird species and 100 mammal species, from wild cats and wolves to mongooses and mole rats, according to research conducted over the past two decades by the foremost expert on the territory’s fauna and flora, Abdel Fattah Abd Rabou of the Islamic University of Gaza in Gaza City. Both wildlife and the human population have been sustained by its abundant underground water reserves. “The shallow sand wells provided an ample supply of the sweet life-giving water,” says Mark Zeitoun, director general of the Geneva Water Hub, which advocates for peace through diplomacy on water. This water, overlain by fertile soils, was why so many Palestinians fled to Gaza after being expelled from their homes by militias following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

A woman stands amid rubble in al-Zahra after an Israeli airstrike on October 19, 2023. Mustafa Hassona / Anadolu via Getty Images

But Gaza’s population has since soared to more than 2 million inhabitants, making it one of the most densely populated places on Earth — it vies with Singapore, but without the high-rises. That has put immense pressure on the underground water. Extraction prior to the war was more than three times greater than recharge from rainfall and seepage from the Wadi Gaza, which had dwindled due to dams upstream in Israel.

As water tables fall, salty seawater has infiltrated the aquifer. By 2023, more than 97 percent of Gaza’s once-sweet underground water was unfit for drinking, according to the World Health Organization. Increasingly, well water has been restricted to irrigating crops. Public water supplies have come largely from seawater desalination plants built with international aid, augmented by water delivered from Israel through three cross-border pipelines. But since the start of the war on October 7, 2023, public supplies have dramatically diminished. Last October, the Palestine Water Authority reported that 85 percent of water facilities were at least partially out of action. Output from water-supply wells had fallen by more than a half, and desalination plants lacked power, while Israel had reduced deliveries down the pipelines. A survey found that only 14 percent of households still relied on public supplies. Most were taking water from potentially contaminated open wells or unregulated private tankers. In September, Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, charged that limiting access to clean water “is clearly employed as a weapon in Gaza against [the] Palestinian civil population.”

After the war began, sewage treatment plants were out of action, and satellite images showed plumes of sewage spewing into the sea.

Israel denies this. “The IDF does not aim to inflict excessive damage to civilian infrastructure,” an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson said, “and strikes exclusively on the grounds of military necessity and in strict accordance with international law.” It cites cases where it says Hamas has stored weapons and launched attacks from such water infrastructure. Meanwhile, the fate of the once-abundant underground water — the lifeline for both human and natural life — hangs by a thread. With most wells currently out of use for irrigated agriculture, withdrawals from the aquifer may have been reduced. But the war has increased contamination of what water remains. The threats are various. UNEP warns that Israeli efforts to use seawater to flood the estimated 300 miles of underground tunnels Hamas has dug beneath Gaza could be contaminating the groundwaters beneath. (The IDF has said on social media that it “takes into consideration the soil and water systems in the area” before flooding tunnels.) Meanwhile, sewage treatment has all but ceased, with facilities either destroyed by military action or disabled by lack of power. Even the solar panels installed at some treatment works have reportedly been destroyed.

Raw sewage floods streets in Deir al Balah last July after treatment plants went out of service. Ashraf Amra / Anadolu via Getty Images

Raw sewage and wastewater spills across the land and into water courses or the Mediterranean — up to 3.5 million cubic feet every day, according to UNEP. The porous soils in most of Gaza mean sewage discharged onto the land readily seeps into underground water reserves. “The crisis threatens long-term environmental damage as contaminants seep into groundwater,” says the UN Development Programme (UNDP).

The marine environment is also choking in sewage. In 2022 Israeli environmentalist Gidon Bromberg, who heads EcoPeace Middle East, a transnational NGO, persuaded Israeli security authorities to allow Gaza to import cement to build new three sewage treatment plants along the shoreline. The work was completed, and the following summer both Palestinians and Israelis could, for the first time in many years, swim safely from their respective Mediterranean beaches without encountering Gaza’s raw sewage. Fish returned and a Mediterranean monk seal was recorded for the first time ever off Gaza. But by the start of 2024, a few months after the war began, the plants were all out of action and satellite images showed plumes of sewage spewing into the sea. The destruction of the built environment in Gaza is also a threat to the natural environment. U.N. agencies estimate the war has created more than 40 million tons of rubble, containing human remains, asbestos and other hazardous materials, and unexploded ordnance. Meanwhile, the collapse of waste collection services has resulted in a proliferation of makeshift dumps — 141, according to a UNDP count in October — while open-air waste burning regularly sends black smoke and hazardous pollutants through densely populated areas.

UNEP says the uprooting of trees by military equipment has impacted topsoil and will “make the land vulnerable to desertification.”

Some international lawyers argue that Israel is guilty of war crimes against the natural environment in Gaza as much as against its people. The Geneva Convention prohibits warfare that may cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” All three terms provoke debate about their precise meaning. The IDF said its actions are proportionate and are justified by military needs and within international law. But Bagheri said, “The destruction of the natural environment in Gaza is now very well documented. It is not collateral or incidental, but deliberate.” Before the conflict, cultivation covered more than a third of Gaza. But by September, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organizaton assessed that two-thirds of farmland had been badly damaged. Analyses of satellite imagery by Forensic Architecture, an interdisciplinary group of researchers at Goldsmiths’ College, part of the University of London, dedicated to exposing “state and corporate violence,” found that more than 2,000 farms, greenhouses, and other agricultural sites had been destroyed, “often to be replaced with Israeli military earthworks.” The IDF said it “does not intentionally harm agricultural land and seeks to mitigate environmental impact,” but that “Hamas often operates from within orchards, fields, and agricultural land”. Yet there are growing concerns that the damage — in particular from the removal of trees — could prove permanent.

Vegetation in Gaza in June 2021 and June 2024. Forensic Architecture

Tree loss has been examined in detail by He Yin, a geographer who heads the remote sensing and land science laboratory at Kent State University. He shared with Yale Environment 360 his latest assessment of satellite images. Before the war, trees covered around a third of the cultivated area, he says. By late September, 67 percent of them had been damaged. But by January 21, two days after the ceasefire came into effect, that figure had risen to 80 percent, with losses exceeding 90 percent in northern Gaza. Prior to the conflict there were some natural trees, says Yin. “But I would say they are pretty much all gone now.” There are two likely causes of tree loss: displaced residents cutting down trees for firewood, and the Israeli military bombarding and uprooting trees to eliminate cover for Hamas fighters and clear security buffer zones around the edge of Gaza. With most farms covering less than two acres, “the loss of a single tree can be devastating” for farmers’ future fruit harvests, says Yin. But the environmental implications of tree loss could also prove permanent and devastating for future generations. UNEP says that uprooting by military equipment “has moved, mixed and thinned the topsoil cover over large areas.” This, it says, “will impact future cultivation [and] make the land vulnerable to desertification.”

In the wildlife-rich area of Al-Mawasi, satellite images reveal an almost total loss of trees, sometimes replaced by bomb craters.

All this is bad news not just for people, but for wildlife. The space for nature to flourish in Gaza is very limited. Still, long-term research by Abd Rabou found that, despite human population pressures, some species have revived in recent years. After the abandonment of a series of Israeli settlements in the territory in 2005, “dozens of Arabian wolf [sic] and other carnivores crept intermittently through gaps in the border to the east of the Gaza Strip.”

Animals dug burrows beneath Israel’s security fences to reach domestic livestock and poultry, as well as small prey living in waste dumps and sewage treatment plants. But there are natural attractions for wildlife too. The Wadi Gaza, which bisects the territory, is an important stopover for migrating water birds, including herons, storks, flamingos, and raptors, as well as home to the Palestine sunbird, the territory’s national bird. The wadi’s attraction continues even though it has suffered badly in recent decades from both upstream water diversions and sewage discharged from refugee camps. Still, in 2000, the Palestinian Authority made the wadi the territory’s only nature reserve, and in 2022, work began on a $50-million U.N. project to reduce pollution and restore its ecology.

Sheep grazing along the Wadi Gaza before the war. Majdi Fathi / NurPhoto via Alamy Stock Photo

Severe pollution incidents can be caused when industrial, oil or energy facilities are deliberately attacked, inadvertently damaged or disrupted. In some cases, deliberate attacks on oil or industrial facilities are used as a weapon of war, to pollute large areas and spread terror. The war in Ukraine highlighted the risks of warfare in countries with extensive nuclear infrastructure. Other scorched earth techniques include the destruction of agricultural infrastructure like canals, wells and pumps and the burning of crops. Tactics like these threaten food security and livelihoods, increasing the vulnerability of rural communities. Whether unintended or deliberate, these large-scale pollution incidents can lead to transboundary impacts from air pollution or through the contamination of rivers, aquifers or the sea. In some instances, these even have the potential to affect weather or the global climate.

Weapons and military materiel used during conflicts also leave environmental legacies. Land mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war can restrict access to agricultural land and pollute soils and water sources with metals and toxic energetic materials. In major conflicts, large volumes of military scrap may be produced or abandoned, this can contain a range of polluting materials, contaminating soils and groundwater, whilst exposing those who work on it to acute and chronic health risks. Wrecked or damaged ships, submarines and offshore oil infrastructure can cause marine pollution.

Many conventional weapons have toxic constituents, others such as depleted uranium are also radioactive. Incendiary weapons such as white phosphorous are not only toxic but can also damage habitats through fire. While now restricted, the widespread use of chemical defoliants damaged public and ecological health across large areas of Vietnam.

Easy access to small arms and light weapons can harm wildlife through facilitating increased hunting and poaching, and the ungoverned spaces created by conflict create the ideal conditions for wildlife crime. Weapons used in wildlife crime have been found to have been sourced from countries affected by conflict. Scientists and researchers may be unable to access areas due to security problems, harming conservation programmes. While national parks and protected areas may lose what protection they had as governance is weakened, or protecting them may be made more difficult when poachers are armed. These situations can encourage more militarised conservation, which can have negative effects on relationships with local communities.

The war caused significant damage to Lebanon’s environment, affecting 13 percent of forests, 16 percent of pastures, and 17 percent of river ecosystems in the assessed areas. IThe degradation of ecosystems is expected to disrupt water purification, air quality, and soil fertility.

Lebanon stands on the brink of a severe environmental crisis threatening its environmental and economic future, as well as the health of its residents, due to the catastrophic consequences of the recent Israeli aggression. This ranges from the environmental destruction of agricultural lands and forests caused by phosphorus and incendiary bombs, to the spread of toxic chemical pollutants in the air and soil due to more than 12,600 airstrikes, which claimed the lives of at least 4,000 people and injured another 16,000.

The greatest danger lies in the potential leakage of these toxic substances into groundwater. Challenges continue to mount for Lebanese authorities, threatening the future of the environment and public health. While devising a sound environmental plan to manage this issue could help avert disaster in the long term, past experiences in handling similar environmental issues and current proposals—such as dumping rubble into the sea in the Ouzai area—indicate that authorities may not comply with the Ministry of Environment’s directives or experts’ recommendations to address the crisis in a scientifically sound way that safeguards public health.

Within just two months of Israel expanding its bombing beyond southern Lebanon, and until the ceasefire on November 28, Israel conducted approximately 12,600 airstrikes, according to its military data. These targeted areas included Beirut’s southern suburbs, the Bekaa (eastern Lebanon), and the south, along with other areas. These strikes resulted in the partial or complete destruction of over 100,000 residential units, according to an initial World Bank assessment of the war’s impact on Lebanon, recorded as of November 7.

In this context, in an interview with Daraj, Lebanese MP and chemistry professor at the American University of Beirut, Najat Aoun Saliba, classified the rubble from these destroyed residential units as “the first environmental impact of the aggression that needs to be addressed.” She stressed that it is even more critical than other environmental impacts such as air, soil, and water pollution, which also require sustainable scientific solutions.

The rubble resulting from the bombing and destruction of buildings, particularly in urban areas, causes severe environmental damage. This waste often contains hazardous materials such as asbestos, heavy metals (like mercury, lead, and cadmium), industrial chemicals, and unexploded ordnance residues. These substances can seep into soil and groundwater, causing long-term contamination. For instance, a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report indicated that rubble from Israeli bombing in Gaza contained dangerous pollutants that posed a risk of persistent groundwater contamination.

Studies also show that random disposal or improper handling of rubble exacerbates environmental and health risks, such as air pollution caused by burning chemical and plastic materials. In other cases, burying rubble in unsuitable sites threatens biodiversity and destroys surrounding ecosystems.

Saliba warns of the potential misuse of rubble for sea reclamation, as occurred in previous crises, such as the Normandy landfill, which has now become Beirut’s waterfront “Biel.” This raises concerns about creating a new waterfront in the Ouzai area, as some politicians are reportedly planning, according to Saliba. This approach could lead to the random disposal of rubble in the sea, posing a significant environmental threat.

The hazardous materials present in the rubble, as mentioned earlier, cause severe marine pollution, leading to the death of marine life, destruction of coral reefs, disruption of photosynthesis in marine plants, and changes to the seabed’s terrain, which affects marine currents and biodiversity.

Additionally, such pollution introduces toxic substances into the food chain, endangering consumers with risks of poisoning. The decomposition of some organic and chemical materials in the rubble can also release gases like methane, further exacerbating the climate crisis.

International reports, such as those from UNEP and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), have emphasized the need to address rubble in sustainable ways to avoid long-term environmental and health consequences.

MP Saliba, along with lawyer Chucri Haddad, submitted a letter to the Prime Minister, highlighting all relevant laws and international agreements on environmental issues such as rubble management, quarries, and crushers. The letter urged caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati to take the necessary measures to prevent the disposal of demolition waste by reclaiming public maritime properties or dumping it randomly in mountains and valleys. It also called for a mechanism to sort and recycle demolition waste to convert it into reusable materials for reconstruction. Saliba also advocated reducing reliance on extracting raw materials locally by granting the government customs exemptions on importing cement, clinker, and other related materials for one year.

Saliba emphasized that “adopting a sustainable environmental approach to address the damage caused by the Israeli aggression will save Lebanon from an environmental disaster in the medium and long term.”

Similarly, Dr. Mohammad Abiad, advisor to the Minister of Environment and director of the Environment, Agriculture, and Food Laboratories at the American University of Beirut, agreed that rubble management should be a priority. He noted, “The rubble amounts to thousands of tons and must be dealt with scientifically to preserve the environment and citizens’ health,” adding that the ministry is preparing detailed plans to be submitted to the Cabinet soon.

Previously, Environment Minister Nasser Yassin issued a circular specifying temporary rubble collection sites, transportation methods, and final disposal protocols, designating active quarries on public properties as disposal sites. If unavailable, private properties could be used with owner consent. In the absence of either, public properties would be allocated as temporary collection sites. The ministry requested notification from local authorities and governors about the approved sites, emphasizing adherence to environmental safeguards and existing legal frameworks, and avoiding random disposal of this waste, including in unauthorized dumpsites.

Regarding transportation, processing, and final disposal, the ministry emphasized prioritizing sorting for reuse and recycling, with a focus on separating contaminated and hazardous materials for proper treatment. For waste that cannot be reused or recycled, it recommended using it to rehabilitate quarries, while adhering to environmental safeguards.

By granting the government customs exemptions on the import of cement, clinker, and other related materials for one year.

Saliba emphasized that “adopting a sustainable environmental approach to address the damage caused by the Israeli aggression will spare Lebanon an environmental disaster in the medium and long term.”

In the same context, Dr. Mohammad Abiad, advisor to the Minister of Environment and director of the Environment, Agriculture, and Food Laboratories at the American University of Beirut, agreed that the rubble issue is a priority. He noted that “rubble amounts to thousands of tons and must be scientifically addressed to preserve the environment and citizens’ health.” He also pointed out that the ministry is working on detailed plans to be submitted to the Cabinet soon.

Previously, Environment Minister Nasser Yassin issued a circular specifying temporary rubble collection sites, transportation methods, and final disposal locations, such as active quarries on public lands. If such sites are unavailable, private properties may be used with the owners’ consent. In cases where no suitable sites exist, rubble will be moved to designated public lands as temporary collection areas. The ministry requested local authorities and governors to inform it of approved sites, adhere to environmental safeguards, and avoid random disposal of this waste, including dumping it in unauthorized locations.

Regarding transportation, processing, and final disposal, the ministry emphasized prioritizing sorting for reuse and recycling, particularly separating contaminated and hazardous materials for proper treatment. For waste that cannot be reused or recycled, the plan involves utilizing it for quarry rehabilitation while adhering to environmental guidelines.

Union of Southern Suburb Municipalities Rejects the Circular

Municipalities in Beirut’s southern suburbs have started removing rubble that obstructs public roads, currently depositing it on top of destroyed building debris. The president of the Union of Southern Suburb Municipalities, Mohammad Dargham, stated that “the municipalities will adhere only to decisions made collectively by the Cabinet on this matter.”

Dargham justified his stance by claiming the circular was “unclear,” yet he declined to specify which aspects of the Environment Ministry’s directive he found ambiguous. The circular, however, explicitly calls for adherence to environmental standards and designates “clear” locations for temporarily storing rubble until it can be processed. Dargham’s refusal, along with that of the political entities he represents—namely, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement—heightens concerns about plans to dump the rubble into the Ouzai Sea.

It is worth noting that these environmental solutions do not entail additional financial costs. On the contrary, recycling operations reduce reconstruction expenses by encouraging the use of recycled materials in rebuilding projects, as confirmed by environmental experts and specialized organizations. A joint statement from Greenpeace and the Waste Management Coalition highlighted these benefits, further supporting sustainable approaches to handling rubble.

Carcinogenic Materials in the Air and Soil

Dr. Mohammad Abiad points out that the Ministry of Environment will soon begin taking samples from areas affected by the bombing and conducting laboratory tests in collaboration with the Environment, Agriculture, and Food Laboratory at the American University of Beirut. The goal is to precisely identify the toxic chemicals present in these samples. In his preliminary estimates, Abiad notes that “the violent explosions caused by Israeli airstrikes have released large quantities of toxic substances, including fine particles dispersed in the air, which may remain in the soil and water for extended periods, such as lead, arsenic, nickel, and barium. These substances, which could persist in the environment for years, might have even been present since the 2006 war.”

The explosions from the airstrikes can release significant amounts of toxic heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, nickel, and barium, into the environment. These metals can remain in the soil and water for prolonged periods, posing substantial risks to local populations through inhaling contaminated dust or consuming polluted water. Lead, for instance, can accumulate in the body and cause severe health issues, including cancer, particularly in the lungs and liver, as confirmed by studies like those published in the Journal of Environmental Health.

Arsenic is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), increasing the risk of lung and bladder cancer, according to studies published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Nickel is also considered carcinogenic, with chronic exposure linked to a higher risk of lung cancer, as confirmed by the National Cancer Institute. While barium is less toxic than some other metals, prolonged exposure can still elevate cancer risks. As such, pollution caused by the airstrikes presents a significant environmental and public health threat that must be addressed through sustainable solutions to ensure the well-being of the population.

Abiad highlights that individuals directly exposed to toxic substances, such as residents near targeted areas or those approaching destroyed buildings for photography, face a heightened risk of developing carcinogenic diseases. In addition to airborne fine particles from the dust, fires caused by the explosions release plastic and cardboard particles, further spreading carcinogens like dioxins and significantly degrading air quality. Populations living near explosion sites are particularly vulnerable.

While some of these substances disperse in the air and dissipate, others seep into agricultural lands, where they can be absorbed by plants, especially leafy greens. This poses a threat to food safety, turning it into carcinogenic produce.

The Ministry of Environment previously submitted a report on agricultural land burning in southern Lebanon to the Climate and Environment Conference held in Dubai at the end of last year, prior to the expansion of Israeli aggression across Lebanon. Between November 8 and January 2023, more than 500 hectares of green land in southern Lebanon were burned within three months, a tactic referred to as the scorched-earth policy employed by the Israeli military. Environment Minister Nasser Yassin explained that these operations used incendiary and phosphorus bombs to burn vast areas of green land, including forests, agricultural fields, and centuries-old olive trees. The “National Council for Scientific Research” published maps detailing the targeted sites.

An initial assessment of the environmental impact of these fires revealed that the environmental toll includes the destruction of agricultural land, chemical contamination, and pollution from explosive remnants, leading to soil infertility. The use of phosphorus bombs also polluted crops, surface water, and groundwater. This pollution not only affects agricultural lands but also extends to natural ecosystems, causing the death of mammals, birds, and fish. Additionally, water systems sustained significant damage, raising concerns about the spread of waterborne diseases, posing further threats to environmental and public health.

With the expansion of Israeli aggression and continued airstrikes and land burning across southern Lebanon, reaching Beirut’s southern suburbs and the Bekaa region in eastern Lebanon—known for its vast plains and agricultural lands—the devastating environmental dimensions of this aggression have become increasingly evident. While approximately 500 hectares of green land burned in the initial months of the aggression, the environmental damage has since escalated significantly, impacting much larger areas. This indicates unprecedented environmental destruction extending beyond southern Lebanon to other parts of the country.

A World Bank report on the impact of the war indicates that areas near the southern border bore the brunt of damage and losses related to crops and livestock. Direct damage to crops was valued at approximately $25 million, while income losses reached $601 million over 12 months. Banana farms sustained losses estimated at $353 million due to continued damage and limited access to farms along the coast between Tyre and Sidon. Olive groves suffered losses of approximately $58 million, with 12 percent of groves in the evaluated areas destroyed due to bombing and displacement. Citrus production also suffered, with losses estimated at $16 million.

Other crops, such as potatoes and vegetables, were heavily affected, with 23 percent of fields in the assessed areas damaged, resulting in losses of approximately $111 million. Mixed orchards and tobacco fields also sustained damage, along with 16 percent of vineyards. Livestock losses totaled about $99 million, while the total losses reached $533 million, particularly impacting cattle, poultry, sheep, and goats. Poultry suffered the greatest losses at $297 million, followed by cattle at $154 million. Additionally, disruptions in feed supplies and the abandonment of herds due to evacuations have made recovery more challenging. It is estimated that full recovery of the agricultural sector could take up to three years.

On the environmental front, the war caused significant damage to Lebanon’s environment, affecting 13 percent of forests, 16 percent of pastures, and 17 percent of river ecosystems in the assessed areas. In southern Lebanon alone, 14 percent of the coastline was damaged. Solid waste management infrastructure, including waste bins and trucks, sustained damages estimated at $3.1 million, with waste management facilities suffering damages exceeding $0.4 million. The degradation of ecosystems is expected to disrupt water purification, air quality, and soil fertility.

Estimated losses amount to $214 million, with $198 million attributed to ecosystem services dependent on natural resources and $16 million to solid waste management services. Annual losses from ecosystem service disruptions are estimated at $198 million, including $163 million in river ecosystems, $28 million in coastal ecosystems, and $4 million in forest and pasture ecosystems. Solid waste management losses stem from lost recycling revenue (approximately $3 million annually) and additional waste management costs due to displacement (about $13 million annually).

The “Postponed” Environmental Disaster: Water Source Contamination

The advisor to the Minister of Health and the director of the Environment, Agriculture, and Food Laboratories at the American University of Beirut stated that “toxic chemicals remain present in water bodies and soil.” He noted that “the effects of water source contamination will only become clear after the rainy season and the melting of snow in the coming spring.” He expressed hope that “the government will successfully address this environmental issue in a sound manner to minimize damage as much as possible in the next phase.”

Daraj, in collaboration with the Gherbal Initiative, obtained laboratory reports conducted by the National Authority for the Litani River on water samples from the areas of Khardali, Ghandooriyeh, Tayrfalsayeh, and Qasmiyeh in southern Lebanon. These reports showed that phosphorus and phosphates in all sampling points in the lower Litani basin were approximately 20 times higher than their average levels over the past five years, according to the results. This alarming rise in phosphate levels has rendered the lower Litani River basin’s water unusable. The authority warned of a new threat to the river, chemical pollution, adding to the microbial pollution caused by the discharge of untreated wastewater into the river.

The emerging environmental crisis, clearly observed in the Litani River, requires immediate action, according to the Litani Authority. Comprehensive analysis of all water sources in southern Lebanon is urgently needed. The pollution affects not only rivers and surface water but also groundwater and springs due to chemical interactions, posing a significant health risk to residents of southern Lebanon and all areas impacted by Israeli bombing.

It is important to note that 90 percent of wells, rivers, and springs in areas ranging from 1,800 meters above sea level to the coastline are contaminated, according to a study conducted by the Agricultural Research Institute of Lebanon in late 2022. This contaminated water caused a cholera outbreak last summer, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to classify Lebanon as being in a “highly severe danger zone.” Contaminated water also contributed to the spread of Hepatitis A and is used to irrigate crops, further exacerbating the situation.

Water contamination figures in Lebanon are extremely concerning. The problem is compounded across many areas due to untreated sewage. In some coastal areas, groundwater supplies directly mix with sewage, worsening both environmental and public health crises.

Wastewater Treatment Failures

Out of over 80 wastewater treatment plants distributed across Lebanon, only a small number operate effectively. This reflects a failure in implementing sewage treatment projects, despite Lebanon spending nearly $1.5 billion between 2001 and 2020 on these projects—a substantial amount for a small country like Lebanon.

Even functional plants are not connected to all surrounding villages and towns. This means that, despite being operational, these plants fail to process sewage from many nearby areas. Today, the risk of carcinogenic and hazardous chemicals reaching groundwater is added to the existing threat of sewage mixing with groundwater. This is due to the inability of water treatment plants to adequately handle these contaminants, either because of their absence in some areas or their frequent breakdowns.

Additionally, water institutions in Lebanon suffer from a water loss rate of up to 43 percent, caused by leaks due to the lack of ongoing maintenance and outdated infrastructure. These combined issues exacerbate Lebanon’s water crisis, with significant negative impacts on public health and the environment.

This investigation was conducted as part of the project “The Right to Access Information and Environmental Issues in the Middle East and North Africa,” supported by Article 19.

The mining giant faces a potential $47bn lawsuit filed by at least 600,000 people over the 2015 mining disaster that killed 19.

Global mining giant BHP faces billions of dollars in potential damages payouts over Brazil’s worst environmental disaster nine years ago, as the first hearing in the much-delayed lawsuit opened in a London court on Monday.

On November 5, 2015, a tailings dam collapsed releasing iron ore sludge into the Rio Doce (Sweet River) in southeastern Brazil. The toxic waste contaminated the river water and damaged its ecosystem. The mining waste washed away the nearby Bento Rodrigues village, killing at least 19 people.

The class action lawsuit first filed in November 2018 seeks about $47bn in damages, making it the largest environmental payout ever, according to law firm Pogust Goodhead, which is representing the plaintiffs.

Here is what we know about the incident and the lawsuit.

What happened to the Mariana dam?

The Mariana dam, also known as the Fundao dam, which stored nearly 50 million cubic metres of iron ore sludge, collapsed on November 5, 2015, washing away the Bento Rodrigues village, which now resembles a ghost town.

The dam was operated by Brazilian mining firm Samarco, in which BHP is a shareholder.

The toxic sludge devastated and contaminated fisheries and forests. Hundreds of Indigenous people living near the Doce River were left without clean drinking water. The toxic waste travelled as far as the Atlantic Ocean.

The Doce River, which is sacred to the Indigenous Krenak community, has still not fully recovered from the damage.

According to a study by the University of Ulster, the toxic waste damaged 660km (410 miles) of the river, and killed 14 tonnes of freshwater fish. Moreover, fishermen lost years of their catch.

What is the lawsuit against BHP?

The lawsuit filed by more than 600,000 people, according to official court documents, demands that Anglo-Australian mining company BHP pay adequate damages to the victims affected by the disaster.

Advertisement

In 2018, it was reported that internal documents from Samarco, dated six months before the dam collapse, showed that the company knew about the risks associated with a potential dam collapse in the Minas Gerais state.

BHP owns 50 percent of Samarco, which operated the iron ore mine where the dam ruptured. Brazilian iron producer Vale is also a shareholder in Samarco.

“BHP is a polluter and must therefore pay,” lawyer Alain Choo Choy said in written submissions.

A class-action lawsuit refers to a lawsuit brought by an individual or a group on behalf of a larger group. In the case of the dam collapse, there were multiple victims and the people bringing the lawsuit represent these victims.

Class-action lawsuits are relatively common in cases of environmental damage. A recent example of this was in late June this year when a group of children in Hawaii won a case against the Hawaii Department of Transportation, where they had alleged that the body violated their constitutional right to a clean environment by implementing policies that create emissions. The children were speaking on behalf of the overall youth in Hawaii. The department agreed to enforce decarbonisation policies in Hawaii’s transport sector.

Why was the case filed in a London court?

BHP and Vale have negotiated a settlement with authorities in Brazil along with Samarco, according to media reports.

As a result of these negotiations, in 2016, BHP alongside Vale and Samarco established the Renova Foundation for the reparation of damages caused by the dam collapse.

According to a news release published by BHP on October 19, $7.9bn has already been paid between 2016 and September 2024, about $18bn is to be paid in instalments over 20 years and about $5.8bn will be paid in “additional performance obligations” by Samarco.

The Guardian reported in 2018 that a civil case was filed by those affected in a Brazilian court. However, since Brazil courts take a long time to reach a decision and there was a chance that compensation would be inadequate, the victims instead went to a London court.

Besides this, the lawsuit was filed in the UK because two of BHP’s legal entities were based in the UK at the time.

In written submissions, BHP lawyer Shaheed Fatima said that the plaintiff’s claim has “no basis”, saying BHP did not own or operate the dam and “had limited knowledge of the dam and no knowledge that its stability was compromised”.

A brief timeline of the legal case

Here is a brief timeline of how this lawsuit has progressed, and why the hearings are happening nine years later:

Advertisement