Lebanon stands on the brink of a severe environmental crisis threatening its environmental and economic future, as well as the health of its residents, due to the catastrophic consequences of the recent Israeli aggression. This ranges from the environmental destruction of agricultural lands and forests caused by phosphorus and incendiary bombs, to the spread of toxic chemical pollutants in the air and soil due to more than 12,600 airstrikes, which claimed the lives of at least 4,000 people and injured another 16,000.
The greatest danger lies in the potential leakage of these toxic substances into groundwater. Challenges continue to mount for Lebanese authorities, threatening the future of the environment and public health. While devising a sound environmental plan to manage this issue could help avert disaster in the long term, past experiences in handling similar environmental issues and current proposals—such as dumping rubble into the sea in the Ouzai area—indicate that authorities may not comply with the Ministry of Environment’s directives or experts’ recommendations to address the crisis in a scientifically sound way that safeguards public health.
Within just two months of Israel expanding its bombing beyond southern Lebanon, and until the ceasefire on November 28, Israel conducted approximately 12,600 airstrikes, according to its military data. These targeted areas included Beirut’s southern suburbs, the Bekaa (eastern Lebanon), and the south, along with other areas. These strikes resulted in the partial or complete destruction of over 100,000 residential units, according to an initial World Bank assessment of the war’s impact on Lebanon, recorded as of November 7.
In this context, in an interview with Daraj, Lebanese MP and chemistry professor at the American University of Beirut, Najat Aoun Saliba, classified the rubble from these destroyed residential units as “the first environmental impact of the aggression that needs to be addressed.” She stressed that it is even more critical than other environmental impacts such as air, soil, and water pollution, which also require sustainable scientific solutions.
The rubble resulting from the bombing and destruction of buildings, particularly in urban areas, causes severe environmental damage. This waste often contains hazardous materials such as asbestos, heavy metals (like mercury, lead, and cadmium), industrial chemicals, and unexploded ordnance residues. These substances can seep into soil and groundwater, causing long-term contamination. For instance, a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report indicated that rubble from Israeli bombing in Gaza contained dangerous pollutants that posed a risk of persistent groundwater contamination.
Studies also show that random disposal or improper handling of rubble exacerbates environmental and health risks, such as air pollution caused by burning chemical and plastic materials. In other cases, burying rubble in unsuitable sites threatens biodiversity and destroys surrounding ecosystems.
Saliba warns of the potential misuse of rubble for sea reclamation, as occurred in previous crises, such as the Normandy landfill, which has now become Beirut’s waterfront “Biel.” This raises concerns about creating a new waterfront in the Ouzai area, as some politicians are reportedly planning, according to Saliba. This approach could lead to the random disposal of rubble in the sea, posing a significant environmental threat.
The hazardous materials present in the rubble, as mentioned earlier, cause severe marine pollution, leading to the death of marine life, destruction of coral reefs, disruption of photosynthesis in marine plants, and changes to the seabed’s terrain, which affects marine currents and biodiversity.
Additionally, such pollution introduces toxic substances into the food chain, endangering consumers with risks of poisoning. The decomposition of some organic and chemical materials in the rubble can also release gases like methane, further exacerbating the climate crisis.
International reports, such as those from UNEP and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), have emphasized the need to address rubble in sustainable ways to avoid long-term environmental and health consequences.
MP Saliba, along with lawyer Chucri Haddad, submitted a letter to the Prime Minister, highlighting all relevant laws and international agreements on environmental issues such as rubble management, quarries, and crushers. The letter urged caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati to take the necessary measures to prevent the disposal of demolition waste by reclaiming public maritime properties or dumping it randomly in mountains and valleys. It also called for a mechanism to sort and recycle demolition waste to convert it into reusable materials for reconstruction. Saliba also advocated reducing reliance on extracting raw materials locally by granting the government customs exemptions on importing cement, clinker, and other related materials for one year.
Saliba emphasized that “adopting a sustainable environmental approach to address the damage caused by the Israeli aggression will save Lebanon from an environmental disaster in the medium and long term.”
Similarly, Dr. Mohammad Abiad, advisor to the Minister of Environment and director of the Environment, Agriculture, and Food Laboratories at the American University of Beirut, agreed that rubble management should be a priority. He noted, “The rubble amounts to thousands of tons and must be dealt with scientifically to preserve the environment and citizens’ health,” adding that the ministry is preparing detailed plans to be submitted to the Cabinet soon.
Previously, Environment Minister Nasser Yassin issued a circular specifying temporary rubble collection sites, transportation methods, and final disposal protocols, designating active quarries on public properties as disposal sites. If unavailable, private properties could be used with owner consent. In the absence of either, public properties would be allocated as temporary collection sites. The ministry requested notification from local authorities and governors about the approved sites, emphasizing adherence to environmental safeguards and existing legal frameworks, and avoiding random disposal of this waste, including in unauthorized dumpsites.
Regarding transportation, processing, and final disposal, the ministry emphasized prioritizing sorting for reuse and recycling, with a focus on separating contaminated and hazardous materials for proper treatment. For waste that cannot be reused or recycled, it recommended using it to rehabilitate quarries, while adhering to environmental safeguards.
By granting the government customs exemptions on the import of cement, clinker, and other related materials for one year.
Saliba emphasized that “adopting a sustainable environmental approach to address the damage caused by the Israeli aggression will spare Lebanon an environmental disaster in the medium and long term.”
In the same context, Dr. Mohammad Abiad, advisor to the Minister of Environment and director of the Environment, Agriculture, and Food Laboratories at the American University of Beirut, agreed that the rubble issue is a priority. He noted that “rubble amounts to thousands of tons and must be scientifically addressed to preserve the environment and citizens’ health.” He also pointed out that the ministry is working on detailed plans to be submitted to the Cabinet soon.
Previously, Environment Minister Nasser Yassin issued a circular specifying temporary rubble collection sites, transportation methods, and final disposal locations, such as active quarries on public lands. If such sites are unavailable, private properties may be used with the owners’ consent. In cases where no suitable sites exist, rubble will be moved to designated public lands as temporary collection areas. The ministry requested local authorities and governors to inform it of approved sites, adhere to environmental safeguards, and avoid random disposal of this waste, including dumping it in unauthorized locations.
Regarding transportation, processing, and final disposal, the ministry emphasized prioritizing sorting for reuse and recycling, particularly separating contaminated and hazardous materials for proper treatment. For waste that cannot be reused or recycled, the plan involves utilizing it for quarry rehabilitation while adhering to environmental guidelines.
Union of Southern Suburb Municipalities Rejects the Circular
Municipalities in Beirut’s southern suburbs have started removing rubble that obstructs public roads, currently depositing it on top of destroyed building debris. The president of the Union of Southern Suburb Municipalities, Mohammad Dargham, stated that “the municipalities will adhere only to decisions made collectively by the Cabinet on this matter.”
Dargham justified his stance by claiming the circular was “unclear,” yet he declined to specify which aspects of the Environment Ministry’s directive he found ambiguous. The circular, however, explicitly calls for adherence to environmental standards and designates “clear” locations for temporarily storing rubble until it can be processed. Dargham’s refusal, along with that of the political entities he represents—namely, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement—heightens concerns about plans to dump the rubble into the Ouzai Sea.
It is worth noting that these environmental solutions do not entail additional financial costs. On the contrary, recycling operations reduce reconstruction expenses by encouraging the use of recycled materials in rebuilding projects, as confirmed by environmental experts and specialized organizations. A joint statement from Greenpeace and the Waste Management Coalition highlighted these benefits, further supporting sustainable approaches to handling rubble.
Carcinogenic Materials in the Air and Soil
Dr. Mohammad Abiad points out that the Ministry of Environment will soon begin taking samples from areas affected by the bombing and conducting laboratory tests in collaboration with the Environment, Agriculture, and Food Laboratory at the American University of Beirut. The goal is to precisely identify the toxic chemicals present in these samples. In his preliminary estimates, Abiad notes that “the violent explosions caused by Israeli airstrikes have released large quantities of toxic substances, including fine particles dispersed in the air, which may remain in the soil and water for extended periods, such as lead, arsenic, nickel, and barium. These substances, which could persist in the environment for years, might have even been present since the 2006 war.”
The explosions from the airstrikes can release significant amounts of toxic heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, nickel, and barium, into the environment. These metals can remain in the soil and water for prolonged periods, posing substantial risks to local populations through inhaling contaminated dust or consuming polluted water. Lead, for instance, can accumulate in the body and cause severe health issues, including cancer, particularly in the lungs and liver, as confirmed by studies like those published in the Journal of Environmental Health.
Arsenic is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), increasing the risk of lung and bladder cancer, according to studies published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Nickel is also considered carcinogenic, with chronic exposure linked to a higher risk of lung cancer, as confirmed by the National Cancer Institute. While barium is less toxic than some other metals, prolonged exposure can still elevate cancer risks. As such, pollution caused by the airstrikes presents a significant environmental and public health threat that must be addressed through sustainable solutions to ensure the well-being of the population.
Abiad highlights that individuals directly exposed to toxic substances, such as residents near targeted areas or those approaching destroyed buildings for photography, face a heightened risk of developing carcinogenic diseases. In addition to airborne fine particles from the dust, fires caused by the explosions release plastic and cardboard particles, further spreading carcinogens like dioxins and significantly degrading air quality. Populations living near explosion sites are particularly vulnerable.
While some of these substances disperse in the air and dissipate, others seep into agricultural lands, where they can be absorbed by plants, especially leafy greens. This poses a threat to food safety, turning it into carcinogenic produce.
The Ministry of Environment previously submitted a report on agricultural land burning in southern Lebanon to the Climate and Environment Conference held in Dubai at the end of last year, prior to the expansion of Israeli aggression across Lebanon. Between November 8 and January 2023, more than 500 hectares of green land in southern Lebanon were burned within three months, a tactic referred to as the scorched-earth policy employed by the Israeli military. Environment Minister Nasser Yassin explained that these operations used incendiary and phosphorus bombs to burn vast areas of green land, including forests, agricultural fields, and centuries-old olive trees. The “National Council for Scientific Research” published maps detailing the targeted sites.
An initial assessment of the environmental impact of these fires revealed that the environmental toll includes the destruction of agricultural land, chemical contamination, and pollution from explosive remnants, leading to soil infertility. The use of phosphorus bombs also polluted crops, surface water, and groundwater. This pollution not only affects agricultural lands but also extends to natural ecosystems, causing the death of mammals, birds, and fish. Additionally, water systems sustained significant damage, raising concerns about the spread of waterborne diseases, posing further threats to environmental and public health.
With the expansion of Israeli aggression and continued airstrikes and land burning across southern Lebanon, reaching Beirut’s southern suburbs and the Bekaa region in eastern Lebanon—known for its vast plains and agricultural lands—the devastating environmental dimensions of this aggression have become increasingly evident. While approximately 500 hectares of green land burned in the initial months of the aggression, the environmental damage has since escalated significantly, impacting much larger areas. This indicates unprecedented environmental destruction extending beyond southern Lebanon to other parts of the country.
A World Bank report on the impact of the war indicates that areas near the southern border bore the brunt of damage and losses related to crops and livestock. Direct damage to crops was valued at approximately $25 million, while income losses reached $601 million over 12 months. Banana farms sustained losses estimated at $353 million due to continued damage and limited access to farms along the coast between Tyre and Sidon. Olive groves suffered losses of approximately $58 million, with 12 percent of groves in the evaluated areas destroyed due to bombing and displacement. Citrus production also suffered, with losses estimated at $16 million.
Other crops, such as potatoes and vegetables, were heavily affected, with 23 percent of fields in the assessed areas damaged, resulting in losses of approximately $111 million. Mixed orchards and tobacco fields also sustained damage, along with 16 percent of vineyards. Livestock losses totaled about $99 million, while the total losses reached $533 million, particularly impacting cattle, poultry, sheep, and goats. Poultry suffered the greatest losses at $297 million, followed by cattle at $154 million. Additionally, disruptions in feed supplies and the abandonment of herds due to evacuations have made recovery more challenging. It is estimated that full recovery of the agricultural sector could take up to three years.
On the environmental front, the war caused significant damage to Lebanon’s environment, affecting 13 percent of forests, 16 percent of pastures, and 17 percent of river ecosystems in the assessed areas. In southern Lebanon alone, 14 percent of the coastline was damaged. Solid waste management infrastructure, including waste bins and trucks, sustained damages estimated at $3.1 million, with waste management facilities suffering damages exceeding $0.4 million. The degradation of ecosystems is expected to disrupt water purification, air quality, and soil fertility.
Estimated losses amount to $214 million, with $198 million attributed to ecosystem services dependent on natural resources and $16 million to solid waste management services. Annual losses from ecosystem service disruptions are estimated at $198 million, including $163 million in river ecosystems, $28 million in coastal ecosystems, and $4 million in forest and pasture ecosystems. Solid waste management losses stem from lost recycling revenue (approximately $3 million annually) and additional waste management costs due to displacement (about $13 million annually).
The “Postponed” Environmental Disaster: Water Source Contamination
The advisor to the Minister of Health and the director of the Environment, Agriculture, and Food Laboratories at the American University of Beirut stated that “toxic chemicals remain present in water bodies and soil.” He noted that “the effects of water source contamination will only become clear after the rainy season and the melting of snow in the coming spring.” He expressed hope that “the government will successfully address this environmental issue in a sound manner to minimize damage as much as possible in the next phase.”
Daraj, in collaboration with the Gherbal Initiative, obtained laboratory reports conducted by the National Authority for the Litani River on water samples from the areas of Khardali, Ghandooriyeh, Tayrfalsayeh, and Qasmiyeh in southern Lebanon. These reports showed that phosphorus and phosphates in all sampling points in the lower Litani basin were approximately 20 times higher than their average levels over the past five years, according to the results. This alarming rise in phosphate levels has rendered the lower Litani River basin’s water unusable. The authority warned of a new threat to the river, chemical pollution, adding to the microbial pollution caused by the discharge of untreated wastewater into the river.
The emerging environmental crisis, clearly observed in the Litani River, requires immediate action, according to the Litani Authority. Comprehensive analysis of all water sources in southern Lebanon is urgently needed. The pollution affects not only rivers and surface water but also groundwater and springs due to chemical interactions, posing a significant health risk to residents of southern Lebanon and all areas impacted by Israeli bombing.
It is important to note that 90 percent of wells, rivers, and springs in areas ranging from 1,800 meters above sea level to the coastline are contaminated, according to a study conducted by the Agricultural Research Institute of Lebanon in late 2022. This contaminated water caused a cholera outbreak last summer, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to classify Lebanon as being in a “highly severe danger zone.” Contaminated water also contributed to the spread of Hepatitis A and is used to irrigate crops, further exacerbating the situation.
Water contamination figures in Lebanon are extremely concerning. The problem is compounded across many areas due to untreated sewage. In some coastal areas, groundwater supplies directly mix with sewage, worsening both environmental and public health crises.
Wastewater Treatment Failures
Out of over 80 wastewater treatment plants distributed across Lebanon, only a small number operate effectively. This reflects a failure in implementing sewage treatment projects, despite Lebanon spending nearly $1.5 billion between 2001 and 2020 on these projects—a substantial amount for a small country like Lebanon.
Even functional plants are not connected to all surrounding villages and towns. This means that, despite being operational, these plants fail to process sewage from many nearby areas. Today, the risk of carcinogenic and hazardous chemicals reaching groundwater is added to the existing threat of sewage mixing with groundwater. This is due to the inability of water treatment plants to adequately handle these contaminants, either because of their absence in some areas or their frequent breakdowns.
Additionally, water institutions in Lebanon suffer from a water loss rate of up to 43 percent, caused by leaks due to the lack of ongoing maintenance and outdated infrastructure. These combined issues exacerbate Lebanon’s water crisis, with significant negative impacts on public health and the environment.
This investigation was conducted as part of the project “The Right to Access Information and Environmental Issues in the Middle East and North Africa,” supported by Article 19.