Sheena Ansari: The consequences of war for nature may last for decades

The head of Iran's Environmental Protection Organization, warning about the consequences of war on nature, announced that armed conflicts can make biodiversity and sensitive ecosystems extremely vulnerable; Damages that may last for decades.

Ambassador Arjan - Social Group: The vice president and head of the Environmental Protection Organization pointed out that the relationship between biodiversity, peace and security should be a two-way relationship and said: "Protection of biodiversity means protection of life, peace is necessary for nature, and effective and responsible protection of nature can in turn play a role in strengthening peace."

Sheena Ansari on Friday in the specialized panel "Biodiversity and Peace; Protection of the environment during armed conflicts" which was held with the presence of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and the directors of the United Nations environmental organizations, added: the topic of this panel, that is, the relationship between biodiversity and peace, is not just a moral or political issue from my point of view; Rather, it is considered a fundamental issue in the field of environmental governance, international law and human security.

He continued: In the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, we mainly consider factors such as land use change, habitat destruction, pollution, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, and climate change as the most important driving factors for reducing biodiversity.

Ansari added: In this case, there is another factor that deserves much more attention in this equation: the collapse of peace and the occurrence of armed conflicts, war can activate several driving factors of biodiversity reduction at the same time and with devastating intensity. Its consequences range from the direct destruction of habitats and widespread fires to soil and water pollution, the release of hazardous substances, the displacement of human populations, the disruption of the management of protected areas, and the weakening of national capacities for monitoring and protecting nature.

He said: The Islamic Republic of Iran expresses this fact not only on a theoretical level, but based on its direct experience. In recent years, we have closely experienced the consequences of such conditions. During the 12-day war in 2025, a number of Iran's protected areas were also affected by the attacks and consequences of the conflicts. Based on the evaluations, thirteen protected areas and thousands of hectares of natural areas, especially in the Zagros mountain range, were damaged and affected by fires. However, the actual dimensions of the damage are far beyond The number of hectares burned or destroyed.

The head of the Environmental Protection Organization continued: During the recent war of aggression by the United States of America and the Israeli regime against Iran, the vulnerability of the Persian Gulf ecosystems to pollution caused by damage to oil and gas facilities, fires, and the release of pollutants was once again revealed.

According to him, the Persian Gulf is a semi-enclosed sea, shallow and very environmentally sensitive.

Ansari added: Coral reefs, mangrove forests, coastal habitats and the wide variety of aquatic organisms in this water zone have high environmental value. Moreover, these ecosystems have a direct relationship with the food security and livelihoods of millions of people throughout the region, in such a situation, no pollution incident can be considered as a local issue, pollutants may be transported by sea currents, enter the food chain and affect habitats that are located at a considerable distance from the initial site of the incident.

The head of the Environmental Protection Organization added: From this point of view, condemning aggressive actions and holding the aggressor accountable should go beyond the traditional dimensions of international peace and security, ecological security should also be recognized as one of the integral dimensions of regional security.

The Vice President continued: One of the important lessons we have learned from our recent experience is the need for a clearer distinction between damage to infrastructure and damage to nature. A building can be rebuilt, a road can be rebuilt, but the extinction of a species, the loss of a distinct genetic population or the collapse of a unique habitat may be irreversible. For this reason, the assessment of the consequences of armed conflicts must adopt an approach in which environmental damages are be investigated independently, scientifically and over a long period of time.

He emphasized that such assessments should not be limited to the amount of physical destruction, but should also include the reduction of biodiversity, destruction of habitats, damage to ecosystem services, soil and water pollution, and damage to genetic resources.

Ansari said: The countries of West Asia and Southwest Asia are facing increasing environmental pressures, including climate change, water shortage, desertification, reduction of natural resources and increasing pressure on ecosystems. And in a situation where they are still struggling with continuous security crises, in such a situation, war can intensify the consequences of environmental crises and increase the vulnerability of societies and ecosystems, therefore, the relationship between biodiversity, peace and security should be considered a two-way relationship, peace is necessary for nature; And effective and responsible protection of nature can also play a role in strengthening peace.

The head of the Environmental Protection Organization continued: Cooperation in the field of common rivers, wetlands, seas, migratory species and genetic resources can provide valuable opportunities for dialogue, trust building and expanding cooperation between countries. I believe that it is precisely at this point that environmental diplomacy can become a tool for peace diplomacy. We should pay more attention to the issue of peace and armed conflicts in the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Ansari added: We should also recognize the protection of biodiversity during armed conflicts as part of the common responsibility of the international community.

He emphasized: peace is more than the absence of war; Peace is the basic condition for realizing the possibility of protecting life, and protecting biodiversity means protecting life itself. If we want to achieve the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity, we must also strive to realize peace, because a war may end in a few days or weeks, but its consequences for nature can continue for decades.

The summit of the 17th conference of the members of the Convention on Biological Diversity was held in Armenia today, Friday, October 24th, and the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Masoud Mezikian, who went to Yerevan to participate in this summit, stated in his speech that the Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the global goals of nature protection, and said: The international community should accept that countries under sanctions or under military aggression should not pay the environmental costs of war and sanctions alone.

During this one-day trip, the doctor met and talked with the Prime Minister of Armenia and the Prime Minister of Georgia.

In this trip, Sheena Ansari, the head of the Environmental Protection Organization, Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mohsen Haji Mirzaei, the head of the president's office, accompanied Masoud Al-Mizkian.

Sheena Ansari announced the activation of the Strategic Council of Golestan National Park with the aim of strengthening the protection and management of this valuable ecosystem and using the capacity of related institutions.

In an official letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, the vice president and head of the Environmental Protection Organization warned of the damaging consequences of the US military actions and threats in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman and called for the immediate intervention of the United Nations to prevent a widespread environmental crisis.

The main difference between the new US National Security Strategy document and the previous two documents is that in the previous documents, to resolve US nuclear and security concerns, the path of diplomacy was introduced as the main solution and there was an emphasis on achieving goals through negotiation; While Trump now claims to have achieved these goals through military means.