1. Introduction

Armed conflicts are among the most severe human-induced disturbances affecting wildlife and natural ecosystems. Their environmental consequences extend beyond direct mortality and habitat destruction and may persist throughout the post-war period. Wildlife constitutes an important component of natural capital and contributes to ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Therefore, damage to wildlife and its habitats can generate ecological consequences as well as economic costs that may remain hidden in conventional assessments of war damage.

2. Problem Statement

The environmental consequences of war are often assessed primarily through direct physical damage, while the cumulative and delayed effects on wildlife, natural capital, and ecosystem services receive less attention. War can simultaneously alter habitats, increase illegal hunting and resource extraction, introduce pollutants, disrupt wildlife behavior, and weaken environmental governance. At the same time, reduced human presence may temporarily benefit some species in certain areas. The main challenge is therefore to understand these interacting and context-dependent pathways and to recognize how ecological losses can translate into long-term economic costs during and after conflict. This study examines the pathways through which armed conflicts affect wildlife populations and natural capital and the resulting economic consequences.

3. Analysis and Key Findings

This study uses a descriptive-analytical approach based on a synthesis of theoretical and empirical evidence concerning the environmental consequences of armed conflicts. The analysis examined habitat destruction and fragmentation, increased wildlife exploitation, pollution, behavioral disturbance, unintended wildlife refuges, and post-war pressures. The findings indicated that war affects wildlife through multiple interacting pathways and that its consequences may be cumulative, delayed, and spatially and temporally variable. Reduced human presence may temporarily improve conditions for some species, but such benefits are often unstable and may disappear with the return of economic activities. The analysis further showed that wildlife population declines and habitat degradation can reduce ecosystem services and diminish natural capital, thereby increasing the economic costs of restoration and reducing future benefits derived from ecosystems. These findings suggest that conventional assessments of war damage may underestimate the full economic consequences of environmental degradation.

4. Policy Recommendations

Wildlife conservation should be integrated into crisis management, humanitarian responses, war-damage assessment, and post-war reconstruction. Damage assessment frameworks should include habitat destruction, wildlife population losses, protected areas, natural capital, and ecosystem services. Environmental governance and law enforcement should be strengthened during the post-war period, alongside sustainable alternative livelihoods for local communities. Remote sensing and geographic information systems can support biodiversity monitoring and the prioritization of conservation and restoration areas. Finally, economic assessments of reconstruction projects should incorporate changes in natural capital and ecosystem services to prevent hidden environmental costs from being overlooked.