The Gaza Strip, already facing environmental challenges prior to the recent conflict, has been plunged into an unprecedented environmental crisis as a direct result of the ongoing war, according to a June 2024 UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report.
Here’s a summary of the situation:
1. Widespread destruction and pollution
Massive Debris: The conflict has generated an estimated 39 million tons of debris, equivalent to over 107 kg of debris per square meter. This debris poses risks to human health and the environment due to dust and contamination from unexploded ordnance, asbestos, industrial and medical waste, and other hazardous substances.
Contaminated Soil and Water: Bombing and military activity have contaminated soil and water sources with munitions, heavy metals, explosive chemicals, and debris from destroyed buildings releasing hazardous materials like asbestos and industrial chemicals.
Agricultural Devastation: A significant portion of agricultural land has been damaged or destroyed, including orchards, olive groves, and greenhouses, severely impacting food security and livelihoods. Some sources estimate that over two-thirds of the permanent crop fields in Gaza showed significant decline in health and density in August 2024.
Air Pollution: Burning of waste, fuelled by electricity shortages, fires caused by explosives, and the use of weapons, has drastically impacted air quality, exposing residents to dangerous pollutants and increasing respiratory problems.
Sewage Contamination: Gaza’s wastewater treatment plants have shut down, leading to sewage contaminating beaches, coastal waters, soil, and freshwater, posing threats to human health, marine life, and arable lands.
Collapsed Waste Management System: The war has crippled Gaza’s waste management system, leading to a proliferation of informal dumping sites and heaps of uncollected waste accumulating in populated areas and around shelters, further exacerbating health risks.
2. Long-term implications
Health Crisis: The environmental degradation, compounded by the destruction of health infrastructure and lack of access to clean water, food, and sanitation, is creating a severe public health crisis with potential long-term consequences, including increased incidence of communicable diseases and potential long-term health effects from exposure to contaminants.
Food Insecurity: The destruction of agricultural land, fishing restrictions, and disruptions to aid delivery have severely impacted food production and access, leading to a deepening food insecurity crisis, with potential for famine.
Climate Change Vulnerability: The conflict’s emissions and the destruction of infrastructure worsen Gaza’s vulnerability to climate change, hindering efforts towards sustainable development and climate resilience.
3. The concept of ecocide
The scale of environmental damage in Gaza has led to accusations of “ecocide” against the Israeli government by international rights groups. While not yet an international crime, the concept of ecocide, referring to widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, is being debated in the context of the conflict.
The current environmental state of Gaza is dire, with widespread destruction and pollution posing serious threats to human health, food security, and long-term environmental sustainability. A comprehensive and long-term recovery effort, incorporating environmental remediation and sustainable rebuilding practices, is crucial to mitigate the lasting impacts of the conflict, but will take decades to accomplish.
Rehabilitating land contaminated with depleted uranium and white phosphorus
“As a licensed environmental engineer, I have never seen the scale of environmental destruction that has occurred in Gaza” Lesley Joseph Research Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of South Carolina
Rehabilitating land contaminated with Depleted Uranium (DU) and White Phosphorus (WP) requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses both the chemical toxicity and potential radiological hazards of these substances.
1. Depleted uranium
Understanding DU’s properties and hazards: DU primarily presents a chemical toxicity risk, although its radiological properties also need consideration.
Site assessment: Initial steps involve characterizing the contaminated area, mapping the location and concentration of DU, and assessing the potential impact on groundwater and the environment.
Remediation strategies:
Containment and removal: In areas with high DU concentrations or localized hot spots, excavation and disposal of contaminated soil as radioactive waste may be necessary. However, this approach can be costly and challenging, according to ScienceDirect.com.
Chemical extraction: Techniques like soil washing using reagents like ammonium bicarbonate and citric acid can extract DU from the soil, potentially reducing the volume requiring disposal and enabling alternative management options.
Bioremediation: Plants or microorganisms can be used to remove or immobilize DU in soil and water bodies, restoring ecological function.
Long-term management and monitoring: For areas where removal is not feasible, monitoring water sources for DU levels and implementing filtration/ion exchange systems if needed can mitigate long-term exposure risks.
2. White phosphorus
Understanding WP’s properties and hazards: WP is highly reactive, spontaneously ignites in air, and can cause fires and release toxic by-products like phosphoric acid, leading to soil acidification, nutrient imbalances, and water pollution.
Site assessment: Determine the extent of contamination and assess the impact on soil, water, and vegetation.
Remediation strategies:
Removal of unexploded ordnance and WP fragments: This is a crucial first step to prevent further fires and releases.
Neutralization of soil acidity: Applying neutralizing agents like lime can address soil acidification caused by phosphoric acid.
Soil washing and flushing: These methods can remove phosphorus compounds from the soil.
Physical remediation techniques: Barriers can be installed to contain contaminated groundwater plumes, and techniques like permeable reactive barriers can remove contaminants.
Bioremediation: Microorganisms and plants can be used to degrade or immobilize phosphorus compounds in soil and water.
Addressing agricultural and water impacts: Restoring soil fertility, implementing sustainable agricultural practices, and treating contaminated water sources are essential for long-term recovery.
3. Integrated approach
Assess Security Risks: Operations in post-conflict zones require careful consideration of security risks, the presence of unexploded ordnance, and the destruction of infrastructure.
Sustainable land management: Incorporate sustainable practices and prioritize environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and economic viability into remediation efforts.
Local community involvement: Engage with affected communities throughout the remediation and redevelopment process to foster trust, tailor projects to specific needs, and ensure long-term success.
International cooperation and funding: Collaborating with international organizations and securing funding are crucial, especially in resource-constrained conflict zones.
In summary, rehabilitating land contaminated with depleted uranium and white phosphorus is a complex undertaking, requiring a thorough understanding of the contamination, the use of appropriate remediation technologies, and a holistic approach that considers environmental, social, and economic factors.
Feasibility of land rehabilitation in the Gaza Strip
Rehabilitating the Gaza Strip after the destruction caused by the conflict, including potential Depleted Uranium (DU) and White Phosphorus (WP) contamination, presents significant challenges, according to research by the UN and various universities.
Here’s an overview of the feasibility:
1. Scale of the challenge
Land Area: The Gaza Strip is a densely populated area of only 365 sq km. The scale of contamination and destruction, particularly to agricultural land and infrastructure, makes remediation a massive undertaking.
Debris: The sheer volume of debris, estimated by the UNEP at 50 million tons in December 2024, is unprecedented for such a small area. This debris likely contains hazardous materials like asbestos, heavy metals, and unexploded ordnance, making its removal and disposal a complex and potentially dangerous task.
Contamination: Studies indicate that munitions have contaminated the soil and groundwater with heavy metals and other toxins, and the use of white phosphorus has further exacerbated soil contamination and disrupted delicate ecosystems.
Water Scarcity: Gaza already faced severe water scarcity issues even before the war, with an over-reliance on a shrinking and increasingly contaminated aquifer. The conflict has worsened this situation by damaging infrastructure and contaminating water sources.
2. Technical feasibility
Remediation technologies exist: The technologies for addressing DU and WP contamination, as well as general soil and water remediation, are available.
WP Removal and Rehabilitation: While some research exists on using plants or bacteria for phosphorus removal, it’s a difficult process, and large-scale, cost-effective solutions for widespread contamination are still under development.
Site-Specific Approach: Given the complexity and heterogeneity of the contamination in Gaza, a tailored, site-specific approach will be necessary, requiring extensive site assessment and potentially combining various remediation techniques.
3. Logistical and political challenges
Security: The ongoing conflict and volatile security situation in the region pose a significant obstacle to carrying out remediation activities safely and effectively.
Funding and Resources: The cost of rehabilitation is estimated to be enormous, and securing the necessary funding and resources, including equipment, personnel, and expertise, will be a major hurdle.
Governance and Coordination: Effective environmental governance and collaboration among various stakeholders, including local authorities, international organizations, and affected communities, are essential for successful and sustainable remediation.
Limited Space and Infrastructure: Gaza’s small size and damaged infrastructure, including roads and disposal sites, create logistical difficulties for managing and transporting large volumes of contaminated debris and materials.
Humanitarian Crisis: The immediate priority in Gaza is to address the humanitarian crisis and provide essential services and aid, which may divert resources and attention from environmental rehabilitation efforts.
4. Long-term perspective
Famine and Food Security: The destruction of agricultural land and resources has severe implications for food security in the region, where a large portion of the population is already reliant on humanitarian aid. Restoring agricultural production will be critical for long-term recovery.
Ecosystem Recovery: The damage to ecosystems, including coastal wetlands, marine life, and biodiversity, will require long-term efforts to restore ecological balance.
Addressing Environmental Justice: The environmental destruction in Gaza, exacerbated by the conflict, highlights the need for international attention to environmental justice issues in conflict zones and accountability for environmental damage.
Conclusion
While rehabilitating the Gaza Strip is technically feasible, the immense scale of destruction, the complex interplay of logistical, political, and economic factors, and the ongoing humanitarian crisis make it an extremely challenging, long-term undertaking. Successful rehabilitation will require significant international cooperation, sustained commitment, and a comprehensive approach that addresses the immediate needs while also prioritizing long-term environmental restoration and sustainable development in the region.
Rehabilitation timelines in Gaza: A best-case vs. ongoing conflict scenario
Under best possible circumstances
Even with optimal conditions, Gaza’s environmental rehabilitation and rebuilding would be a monumental task, requiring decades. Here’s a breakdown of the estimated timelines:
Rubble Clearing: Estimates vary, with the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) suggesting 15 years to clear the 50 million tons of rubble. Other estimates range from 8 to 10 years at a cost of up to $700 million, and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) suggesting up to 21 years. Research from the Universities of Edinburgh and Oxford estimates it could take 40 years.
Housing Reconstruction: Rebuilding Gaza’s homes could take until 2040, or even several decades more, according to the UN Development Programme (UNDP). If reconstruction follows the pattern of previous conflicts, it could take roughly 80 years.
Economic Reconstruction: The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) warned that it would take 350 years to rebuild Gaza’s economy to its 2022 level, unless the economy can grow faster than it could under previous restrictions.
Natural Flora and Fauna Recovery: Natural recovery of flora and fauna in coastal waters, without further pollution, could take 10 to 25 years.
Under conditions of ongoing conflict
The ongoing conflict and associated restrictions make environmental remediation and reconstruction significantly more challenging and time-consuming, if not impossible in some areas.
Security Risks: The volatile security situation hinders safe and effective remediation efforts, delaying or preventing access to contaminated areas.
Limited Resources: Restrictions on the entry of crucial materials like fuel and equipment slow down the rubble clearing and reconstruction process.
Infrastructure Destruction: The continuing destruction of infrastructure, including water, sanitation, and waste management systems, complicates the cleanup and creates new environmental hazards, such as the discharge of raw sewage and the accumulation of solid waste.
Contamination and Hazards: The ongoing use of munitions, including white phosphorus, continues to contaminate the environment, posing additional risks to human health and making remediation a more complex and protracted process.
Lack of Access for Assessments: Detailed environmental assessments, essential for developing remediation strategies, cannot be fully carried out amidst the ongoing conflict.
Key considerations and challenges
Scale of the Damage: The unprecedented levels of destruction, with vast amounts of rubble and widespread contamination, present a massive undertaking.
Water Crisis: Water scarcity, exacerbated by the destruction of water infrastructure and contamination, poses a severe risk to long-term recovery and human health.
Land Instability: The destruction of structures and potential damage to underground tunnels could lead to land instability, further complicating rebuilding efforts.
Psychological Impact: The immense trauma endured by the population may hinder participation and impact the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.
In conclusion, while environmental remediation and rebuilding in Gaza face a long and challenging road even under ideal conditions, the ongoing conflict and associated restrictions make the task considerably more difficult and prolong the timelines significantly. The combination of massive destruction, widespread contamination, security risks, limited resources, and the humanitarian crisis create an incredibly complex situation that will require sustained international commitment, political stability, and a comprehensive, long-term approach to address.
.
