Policy Implications There are several policy implications of the ecology of warfare. These include: 1.

Enforcement of international conventions, strengthening of existing conventions, and new conventions, 2. Increased mitigation of preparation effects, such as environmental impacts of training or weapons manufacturing, 3. Preservation of protected areas as neutral zones and protection of natural resources during warfare, 4. Increased swords-to-plowshares conservation, including consideration of restoration potential of natural resources in war planning, 5. R&D investment in ecology of warfare research to reduce degradation of war-dominated ecosystems and encourage peace and security, and 6. Support of scientific organizations to advance the ecology of warfare and the development of this emerging field.

The Ecology of War1

Gary E. Machlis University of Idaho
Introduction The scientific evidence that Homo sapiens is having unprecedented ecological consequences at local, regional, and global scales is now compelling. Among human activities, war and its broader phenomena of warfare are common, almost constant, and far-reaching in their impact on the environment. This presentation: 1) introduces the ecology of warfare, 2) provides a set of historical and contemporary examples, and 3) outlines a series of research needs and policy implications that emerge from the ecological study of warfare. Ecology in this context includes both biophysical and socioeconomic systems; ecosystems are human ecosystems due to the significant influence of human activities.
Battle of Belleau Wood, WWI
2

Aerial photograph of bombing range, Vieques, Puerto Rico

In addition, the scientific community must continually evaluate its ethical obligations toward warfare and warfare science. Conclusion The development and advance of an ecology of warfare is both a moral and scientific necessity. Moral reasons include sciences contributions to war-making technologies and the value to counterbalance the excesses of this activity. Scientific reasons include the widespread consequences of warfare upon local, regional and global ecosystems, and the complexity of warfares interactions within human ecosystems. Sadly there is time, for as Plato has said, Only the dead have seen the end of war. Selected References
Austin, J.E. and C.E. Bruch, eds. 2000. The Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Ferguson, N. 2006. The War of The World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Press. Force, J.E., and G.E. Machlis. 1997. The human ecosystem part II: Social indicators in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 10:369-382. Freeman, A.D. and G.E. Machlis. 2005. Swords-to-plowshares restoration: an annotated bibliography. Human Ecosystems Study Group, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA. Hedges, C. 2002. War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. New York: Anchor Books. Keegan, J. 1993. A History of Warfare. New York: Vintage Books. Machlis, G.E., J.E. Force, and W.R. Burch, Jr. 1999. The human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Pgs. 21-36 in R.C. Szaro, N.C. Johnson, W.T. Sexton, and A.J. Malk, eds., Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, Volume II. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Machlis, G.E., J.E Force, and W.R. Burch, Jr. 1997. The human ecosystem part I: the human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 10:347-367. Mayor, A. 2003. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press. Townshend, C. 2005. The Oxford History of Modern Warfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tucker, R.P. and E. Russell, eds. 2004. Natural Enemy, Natural Ally: Towards an Environmental History of War. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Ware, H., ed. 2006. The No-Nonsense Guide to Conflict and Peace. Oxford: New Internationalists Publications, Ltd. The Human Ecosystems Study Group (HESG) is a collaboration among faculty and students focused on research related to the behavior of human-dominated ecosystems at local, regional, national, and global scales. To learn more about the HESG, contact Dr. G.E. Machlis at <gmachlis@uidaho.edu>.

A Taxonomy of Warfare An accurate taxonomy of warfare is essential to the development of a field of study that could be called warfare ecology. Warfare includes: 1) the preparation for war, 2) war (violent conflict), and 3) post-war activities. In each of these stages (which often overlap), there are several key elements: civilians, the military, material, infrastructure, governance, and diplomacy (see Figure 1). Figure 1. A Taxonomy of Warfare

1 2

Presented at the Frontiers in Forest and Rangeland Ecosystems Seminar, 1 December 2006, Moscow, ID Machlis is Canon Professor of Conservation, University of Idaho and a principal in the Human Ecosystems Study Group (HESG). Katie Bilodeau, Angie Freeman, and Kathleen Pimblett provided valuable assistance in the preparation of this presentation.

The Ecology of Warfare All three stages of warfare (preparation, war, post-war) have significant ecological consequences. Modern war preparation requires research programs, weapons testing, training, and associated facilities. Active training often leads to residual unexploded ordnance, chemical contamination, cratering, noise pollution, vegetation removal, soil erosion, economic disruption, injury (and accidental death), and more. The ecology of war itself is largely distinguished by immense and concentrated energy flows, severe disturbances, habitat destruction, death (including but not limited to Homo sapiens) and disorganization of existing social and moral systems. Post-war conditions include intense pollution, unexploded ordnance, damaged and destroyed infrastructure, degraded landscapes and ecosystem services, economic disruption, refugee populations, and long-term illness. There is no established field or discipline for the ecological study of warfare. US (circa 1950s) Established and relevant fields of study include military history/science, peace/conflict resolution, restoration ecology, toxicology, and others. A large and growing literature exists on the environmental consequences of war and warfare (for a review, see Freeman and Machlis, 2006 and the selected references below). The literature is fragmented and separated by discipline. General frameworks, interdisciplinary models, and comprehensive syntheses have not been developed.
Weapons testing in the

Figure 2. The Human Ecosystem Model

Swords-to-Plowshares Conservation War-impacted landscapes such as defoliated forests, battle sites, land-mined regions, and large-scale areas of past and current warfare can be elements of swords-to-plowshares conservation. Swords-to-plowshares conservation is the restoration of biophysical and sociocultural systems necessary for the effective transition of former military sites to Isaiah 2:4 and conservation purposes. Military sites previously used for war preparation are often they shall beat their prime candidates for restoration/rehabilitation. Closed and/or decommissioned sites swords into can include bombing ranges, combat training facilities, munitions plants, weapons plowshares and their storage facilities, airfields and ports, and nuclear weapon testing sites. spears into pruning hooks. Because decommissioned, abandoned, or post-war military sites are often severely ecologically disturbed and lack established social, economic, and political systems, a broad conception and organizing framework for restoration is necessary. The challenge is restoration of the full human ecosystem to adequate levels of sustainable functioning. This makes swords-to-plowshares conservation an excellent test of the Human Ecosystem Model. Research Needs in the Ecology of Warfare There are several key research needs that may guide the development of an ecology of warfare. These include: The Human Ecosystem Model The Human Ecosystem Model (HEM) was first presented in a series of papers (see Machlis, et al. 1997; Force et al., 1997, Machlis et al. 1999), and is being prepared in book form (Machlis et al., forthcoming). It has had significant application, from US parks and a NSF LTER site (Baltimore, MD) to Asian mega-cities planning (Kuala Lumpur) and the monitoring of sustainable development in the Sonoran Desert. Figure 2 illustrates the HEM. Within any particular human ecosystem, a set of critical resources is required in order to provide the system with necessary supplies. These include biophysical, socioeconomic, and cultural resources. Key flows include individuals, energy, nutrients, materials, information, and capital. The flow and use of critical resources are regulated by the social system, the set of general social structures (including institutions, patterns, and processes that guide much of human behavior). The model may have application to the ecology of warfare. 1. Theoretical framework(s) to organize interdisciplinary advances, 2. Theory and methods for predicting and documenting cascading effects of warfare upon specific ecosystems, as well as aggregate/cumulative environmental effects of war, 3. Theory and methods for predicting and documenting warfare trajectories that lead to ecosystem consequences, 4. Predictive models to study and mitigate local to global catastrophic events (resource conflicts, strategic terrorism, regional wars, nuclear winter), 5. Theory and methods to predict relationships between warfare effects and other environmental trends (climate change, biodiversity loss, etc.), 6. Replicable mitigation, rehabilitation, and restoration techniques for war-dominated ecosystems, 7. Impact assessments of future war-making technologies such as simulations and new bioweapons, 8. Training of graduate students and faculty, as well as Department of Defense scientists, and 9. Funding of research projects, and creation of venues for sharing information and results.