The Relationship Between the Environment and Violence: An Overview

Eighty-six environmental activists have been murdered in Mexico since 2012 (Den Held 2020). The climate of impunity, the violent order of governance and the lack of systematic protection of social fighters are some of the sociopolitical elements that have given rise to such violence. However, the protection of the environment served as the central axis of that conflict. This is one of several instances in which the environment plays a central factor in the outbreak of violence. However, establishing the relationship between the environment (natural resources, increased meteorological phenomena, gradual climate changes, deforestation, soil degradation, etc.) and violence is not that simple.

Academics emphasize that environmental phenomena are not the only culprits of the exacerbation of violence, but that under certain conditions, environmental factors are sufficient to exacerbate it. Thus, two general schools of thought have developed that explain the impact of environmental phenomena on violence:

-The resource hypothesis or the conflict over natural resources.

-The vulnerability hypothesis or vulnerability both as a catalyst and as a result of the convergence between environmental factors and the outbreak of violence.

Resource assumptions

Within the academy, two lines of thinking have developed that identify natural resources as a central element in the exacerbation of violence: scarcity and abundance of natural resources.

The first defends the idea that when people and communities lose their livelihoods, they have no choice but to fight to survive, even violently. Homer-Dixon, for example, identifies that the conflict may be exacerbated by the scarcity of resources due to the degradation of environmental resources (crops, forests, fishing resources, etc.), by the increase in demand as consumption increases, or by the inequitable distribution of resources (1994; 1999). Other authors such as Barnett and Adger (2007) establish that factors such as climate change reduce the quality and quantity of natural resources, increasing the risk of conflict. In short, they establish that the scarcity of resources has a direct effect on the livelihood of populations, whatever the cause of this scarcity, thus increasing the risk of violent conflict in the search for resources to survive. However, this idea has been largely contested because it ignores the great diversity of sociopolitical factors that encourage violence, beyond just the lack of resources.

The second The idea is based on the abundance of natural resources. This is mainly based on the theories of “greed and grievance”¹ on the origins of the conflict. Under this approach, not only does it require that there be a large amount of a certain resource, but it must be so abundant that society is dependent on that resource. One mechanism, for example, occurs when organized groups are encouraged to resort to violence to access an abundant resource (either out of greed or grievance). Another mechanism is the “resource curse”, established by Le Billon (2008). There, a government's main income is the income from a certain abundant resource, discouraging the government from strengthening its democratic and accountability mechanisms, causing grievances to the population and increasing the risk of violence. These two mechanisms increase the risk of violence only with certain resources and under certain conditions (Midner, Wodni and Lauster, 2011:169).

Although the idea of abundance or scarcity of resources has a lot of traction, such an explanation can err on the simplistic side, ignoring stronger explanations of violence such as inequality, violent orders of governance, historical relationships, asymmetries of power, predatory economic development, and others. For this reason, other academics have explored a slightly broader vision of the connection between the environment and violence.

The vulnerability hypothesis

The second approach considers environmental degradation and climate change not as direct causes of violence, but as a vicious circle in which environmental factors can leave communities more vulnerable to violence and vice versa. Although at first glance this approach is similar to that of resource scarcity, the difference lies in the fact that it analyzes vulnerability in collective, not individual, terms, and expands its scope to an understanding of a multi-causal and non-linear relationship. A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlights that when the various environmental effects caused by climate change act in conjunction with other macro-factors of violence, there is a high risk of exacerbating the conflict (2014).

Climate change is a paradigmatic example. This can increase the vulnerability of communities directly or indirectly. For example, the effects caused by abnormal weather events cause infrastructure destruction, water stress, supply chain disruption, mass displacement, and even loss of life (Adams: 2015). These phenomena contribute to the escalation of tensions, competition for resources, and the intensification of poverty and inequality. Although these, on their own, are neither sufficient nor necessary to lead to violence, they do contribute indirectly to the main factors that exacerbate it. In the Lake Atitlán region of Guatemala, after Hurricane Stan, kidnappings, extortion, and drug trafficking increased significantly (Giorgio 2006). There are even indications that the drastic warming of temperatures in Mexico may increase interpersonal violence.², given the psychological and social impacts of perpetrators on vulnerable groups (Cohen & González: 2018).

On the other hand, violence caused by other factors can exacerbate vulnerabilities to environmental changes. Violence deteriorates capacities to adapt and mitigate climate change (Barnett, 2006; Brklacich et al., 2010). It also affects the State's capacity to respond to climate crises, disrupts markets, limits services (education, health, etc.) and limits people's debt capacity (PICC 2014:774); attributes necessary to be able to respond to sudden events and gradual climate changes. In the Gaza Strip, chronic violence in the region has reduced the government's capacity to effectively manage water resources and avoid the water crisis (Shomar 2011). This is how climate change converges with the vulnerability of communities and deteriorates their security or, on the other hand, the same violence leaves them vulnerable and reduces their capacity to adapt to climate change.

Art by Héctor Mendoza @elpajaro

Conclusion: Lessons from the debate

Both in the resource and vulnerability hypotheses, there is no shortage of detractors. Whether it's contradictory evidence, the omission of different factors, or the lack of scientific consensus, criticism often suggests that it's about forcing a direct connection between violence and the environment. However, regardless of how strong that connection is, different conclusions can be drawn given the evidence and academic debate:

1.- Institutions matter: Governance systems and institutional orders are crucial to understanding how society interacts with the environment. Whether for resource management, adaptive capacity, response to climate change, or even to resolve conflicts, institutions converge with environmental factors in order to increase or reduce violence.

2.- Social conditions matter: Factors such as inequality, territorial order, inter-community relations, poverty, racism and gender vulnerability directly and indirectly impact both violence and environmental factors. Communities plagued by violence are more vulnerable to the damaging effects of climate change, or climate change in turn can reinforce existing violent orders.

3.- The environment, in itself, matters: Although environmental causes alone are not responsible for triggering a security crisis, it is a fact that they are factors that do play into the complex mix of causes and effects. Whether it's natural resources, environmental deterioration, sudden weather events or gradual climate changes, there is sufficient evidence to ensure that they play a role. The debate, rather, focuses on what conditions the environment plays a central, marginal or no role in conflicts.

This is the first article that will explore these three findings in a series dedicated to understanding the relationship between security and the environment in Mexico. We will explore different theories through case studies in the country, such as the relationship between territory, violence and conservation; organized crime and the struggle for resources; and environmental exploitation and social conflicts. Thus, we can understand how institutions, social conditions and the environment can converge to build a peaceful Mexico.

¹ This theory was initially devised by Collier and Hoeffler (1998), establishing that violent conflicts are mainly caused by economic opportunities to take advantage, or by grievances historically caused to populations.

² The authors of this study estimate that, given climate change, sexual violence in Mexico could increase by 10.6% by the end of the century (Cohen & González: 2018).

Bibliography

Adams, T. (2017). How Chronic Violence Affects Human Development, Social Relations, and the Practice of Citizenship: A Systematic Framework for Action (no. 36). Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/how-chronic-violence-affects-human-development-social - relations-and-the-practice.

Barnett, J. (2006). “Climate Change, Insecurity and Justice”. In Adger, W. N., Paavola, J., Mace, M. and Huq, S. (editors), Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change, pp. (115-129). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Barnett, J. & Adger, W.N. (2007). Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict, Political Geography. 26(6), 639-655, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.03.003.

Brklacich, M., Chazan, M. & Bohle, H. 2010 “Human Security, Vulnerability and Global Environmental Change”. In Matthew, R. & MacDonald, B. (editors), Global Environmental Change and Human Security, pp. (15-51). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cohen, F. & Gonzalez, F. (2018). Understanding interpersonal violence: the impact of temperatures in Mexico. GRI Working Papers (291). Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lsg/lsgwps/wp291.html

Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 563-595. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3488799.

Den Held, D. (2020). Mexico's Environmental Activists Killed for Resisting Infrastructure Projects, Insight Crime. https://insightcrime.org/news/brief/mexico-environmental-activists-killed/

Homer-Dixon, T. (1994). Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases. International Security, 19(1), 5-40. doi:10.2307/2539147.

Homer-Dixon, T. (1999). Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt7pgg0.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability-Summary for Policy Makers. Geneva: IPCC. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.

Le Billon, P. (2008). Diamond Wars? Conflict Diamonds and Geographies of Resource Wars. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98(2), 345-372, SAY: 10.1080/00045600801922422.

Reuveny, R. (2008). Ecomigration and Violent Conflict: Case Studies and Public Policy Implications. Hum Ecology, 36, 1-13. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007-9142-5.

Shomar, B. (2011). The Gaza Strip: Politics and Environment. Water Policy. DOI: 13. 10.2166/wp.2009.061