Report on the Toxic Legacies of Warfare and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Warfare’s Enduring Threat to Sustainability

The aftermath of military conflict extends beyond immediate geopolitical and economic consequences, creating long-term toxic legacies that severely impede progress toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The use and improper disposal of chemical agents, hazardous materials, and general waste during military operations result in profound and lasting damage to human health and the environment. This report examines historical and recent examples of these toxic legacies, primarily drawing from US military experiences, to illustrate their direct contravention of key SDGs, including those related to health, clean environments, economic growth, and just institutions.

Case Studies: Breaches of Health and Environmental Security

Historical Precedents and their Impact on SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

Two significant historical events demonstrate the devastating, long-term health consequences of chemical exposure during warfare, directly undermining SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

1. Agent Orange in Southeast Asia: The widespread use of dioxin-contaminated herbicides, notably Agent Orange, by the US military in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1961 to 1971 caused severe environmental destruction and a public health crisis.
   • Approximately 45 million litres of these defoliants were deployed, affecting millions of hectares of forest and cropland.
   • The exposure to dioxin has been definitively linked to a range of severe medical conditions affecting both US veterans and local civilian populations, including cancers, high blood pressure, and severe birth defects that persist in generations born long after the conflict.
   • This legacy represents a catastrophic failure to protect human health, a core tenet of SDG 3.
2. Gulf War Syndrome (GWS): Following the 1990-1991 Gulf War, military personnel and local civilians began reporting a wide array of chronic symptoms collectively known as Gulf War Syndrome.
   • Recent research suggests a strong link between GWS and low-level exposure to nerve agents released during the demolition of an Iraqi chemical munitions depot at Khamasiyah.
   • The decades of suffering and medical uncertainty for veterans and the overlooked impact on local populations highlight a persistent failure to safeguard well-being in conflict zones, contrary to the ambitions of SDG 3.

Systemic Failures in Environmental Management

Unsustainable Waste Disposal: The “Burn Pit” Crisis and SDG 12

The practice of using open-air “burn pits” for waste disposal during operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere is a stark example of unsustainable practices that directly violate the principles of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Driven by logistical expediency and short-term cost-cutting, this method created complex toxicological hazards.

• Materials Burned: A vast array of materials were incinerated, including ammunition, medical waste, electronics, plastics, and human waste, often using jet fuel as an accelerant.
• Toxic Emissions: The incomplete combustion released a hazardous cocktail of chemicals, including dioxins (the same compounds found in Agent Orange), furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
• Health and Environmental Impact: These emissions have been linked to acute and chronic health problems for military personnel and local communities, while also causing long-term contamination of air and soil, undermining the goal of environmentally sound management of waste.

Contamination of Natural Habitats and Resources

Military activities have frequently resulted in the severe degradation of local ecosystems, directly challenging SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).

1. Expeditionary Toxic Environments: Bases established in pre-existing contaminated sites, such as Karshi-Karnabad (‘K2’) Air Base in Uzbekistan, exposed personnel to numerous hazards.
   • At K2, US forces encountered soil contamination from leaking Soviet-era fuel infrastructure, radiation sources, asbestos, and processed uranium.
   • The failure to mitigate these known hazards led to numerous cancer diagnoses and deaths among service members, while ignoring the historical and ongoing risk to the local population and environment. This negligence undermines the goal of protecting and restoring terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15).
2. Domestic Environmental Contamination: Military bases within national borders have also become sites of significant pollution.
   • Examples include water contamination at US Marine Corps’ Camp LeJeune and asbestos use on naval vessels.
   • Such incidents compromise the safety of water resources and human settlements, directly opposing the targets of SDG 6 and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Economic and Institutional Consequences

The False Economy of Negligence and its Threat to SDG 8

The short-term financial savings achieved by ignoring environmental and health standards create massive long-term economic liabilities, hindering progress toward SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

• Direct Costs: Governments face billions of dollars in expenses for disability pensions, medical care, and litigation. US government outlays for Agent Orange-related issues alone have exceeded USD 20 billion.
• Indirect Costs: The national economy suffers when veterans are unable to work to their full potential due to service-related illnesses, representing a loss of human capital and productivity.
• This demonstrates that unsustainable military practices create long-term economic burdens that detract from sustainable growth.

Erosion of Trust and the Challenge for SDG 16

The institutional response to these toxic legacies often involves a pattern of denial and obfuscation, which is only overcome by sustained advocacy from veterans’ groups, NGOs, and legal action. This dynamic undermines SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• The failure to exercise a duty of care towards military personnel and civilian populations represents a significant failing of institutional accountability.
• Legislation like the US PACT Act (2022) was necessary to force recognition and provide compensation, highlighting that justice was not proactively delivered by the institutions responsible.
• Building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions requires a fundamental shift in military doctrine to prioritize long-term health, environmental protection, and transparent risk management, thereby aligning military operations with global sustainability commitments.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The article extensively discusses the severe health consequences of warfare’s toxic legacies on both military personnel and civilians. It details long-term medical effects such as cancer, birth defects, high blood pressure, and Gulf War Syndrome resulting from exposure to hazardous chemicals like Agent Orange, nerve agents, and emissions from burn pits.

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The article points to instances of water contamination as a direct result of military activities. It specifically mentions “domestic tap water contamination at the US Marine Corps’ Camp LeJeune” and soil and groundwater pollution from “leaky Soviet-era underground fuel storage” at the K2 air base, which directly impacts the safety of water resources.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The economic impact of these health issues is highlighted, connecting to sustainable economic growth and safe working environments. The article notes that health problems lead to veterans being unable “to work to their full potential” and cause significant financial burdens on governments for “disability pensions, legal expenses, and medical expenses,” which it terms “false economies.” It also describes military bases with toxic exposures as unsafe working environments.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The article addresses the safety and environmental quality of human settlements, specifically military bases and the surrounding areas inhabited by local populations. The use of “burn pits” for waste disposal is presented as a major source of air pollution and environmental hazard, directly reducing the safety and sustainability of these locations.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

A central theme is the improper management of waste and chemicals. The article criticizes the practice of using burn pits for disposing of “waste materials of every conceivable type” due to “exigency and economy.” This directly relates to the need for environmentally sound management of chemicals and waste throughout their lifecycle.

SDG 15: Life on Land

The environmental destruction caused by military actions is a key issue. The article explicitly states that the use of herbicides in Vietnam affected “millions of hectares of forest” and “thousands of hectares of cropland.” Furthermore, soil contamination at bases like K2 from “black goo” and other toxic substances represents significant land degradation.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The article discusses the institutional response to these issues, highlighting a “neglect of duty of care to military personnel” and “initial denials and obfuscation” by authorities. It also covers the role of litigation, advocacy, and legislation like the PACT Act (2022) in forcing institutional accountability and providing justice for affected individuals.

Identified SDG Targets

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
     
     Explanation: The article is centered on this target, detailing how millions of combatants and non-combatants have suffered “medical effects and even death from exposure to chemical substances.” Examples include cancers and birth defects from Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome from nerve agents, and health hazards from burn pit emissions containing dioxins and other toxic compounds.

2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.
     
     Explanation: The article provides direct examples of this issue, such as the “domestic tap water contamination at the US Marine Corps’ Camp LeJeune” and the “extensive contamination of soil from leaky Soviet-era underground fuel storage” at K2, which pollutes water sources with hazardous materials.

3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.
     
     Explanation: The article describes military personnel operating in “domestic toxic environment[s]” and “expeditionary toxic environments” like the K2 base, where “health hazards were not properly investigated or, if identified, often ignored.” This represents a failure to provide a safe working environment.

4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
     
     Explanation: The practice of using “burn pits” at over 200 locations to dispose of all types of waste is a clear example of poor waste management that leads to severe air pollution, affecting the health of military personnel and local populations living near these bases.

5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
     
     Explanation: The article’s core criticism is the failure to manage waste and chemicals responsibly. The spraying of “45 million litres of dioxin-bearing defoliant chemicals” and the burning of a “staggering” variety of materials in open pits are prime examples of releasing hazardous substances into the air, water, and soil.
   • Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.
     
     Explanation: The article implicitly supports this target by criticizing the “burn the rubbish” mentality and suggesting alternatives, such as “Sending refuse back up the logistical chain,” which is a concept for better waste management and reduction.

6. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.
     
     Explanation: The article directly refers to the destruction of terrestrial ecosystems, noting that in Vietnam, “millions of hectares of forest were affected, and many thousands of hectares of cropland” due to the use of herbicides.
   • Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by drought, flooding and desertification, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.
     
     Explanation: The article describes severe land degradation due to contamination at military bases. The K2 base is a key example, with “extensive contamination of soil from leaky Soviet-era underground fuel storage” and the presence of “processed uranium.”

7. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article points to a lack of institutional accountability, citing “initial denials and obfuscation” regarding the K2 base hazards and a general “neglect of duty of care to military personnel” by military bureaucracy and commanders.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

The article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

• Indicator for Target 3.9 (Health Impacts): The number of deaths and illnesses (e.g., cancer, birth defects, high blood pressure) among military personnel and civilian populations linked to exposure to toxic military waste. The article refers to “millions of people” suffering medical effects and “dozens of US servicemembers” from a single base dying from or being diagnosed with cancer.
• Indicator for Target 12.4 (Chemical Release): The volume of hazardous chemicals released into the environment. The article provides a specific figure: “Approximately 45 million litres of dioxin-bearing defoliant chemicals were sprayed over Vietnam.”
• Indicator for Target 12.4 / 11.6 (Waste Management): The number of improper waste disposal sites. The article states that “some studies have identified over 200 locations” for burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan alone.
• Indicator for Target 15.1 (Ecosystem Destruction): The area of land and forest affected by military activities. The article quantifies this by stating “millions of hectares of forest were affected” in Vietnam.
• Indicator for Economic Impact (Related to SDG 8): The financial cost associated with the toxic legacy of war. The article provides a concrete financial figure: “direct fiscal outlays from the US government on Agent Orange-related compensation and assistance to Vietnam have amounted to well over 20 billion USD.”
• Indicator for Institutional Accountability (Related to SDG 16): The number of compensation claims filed and the establishment of government-funded programs. The article mentions ongoing “compensation claims and litigation” and “government-funded schemes for recognition and recompense” as well as specific legislation like the “PACT Act (2022).”

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: euro-sd.com