Effects of War and Civil Strife on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats

Research Paper, 2024

Armed conflicts have significant impacts on ecosystems, leading to environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. This paper examines the relationship between armed conflicts and ecosystems, highlighting the ways in which conflicts can damage ecosystems, and how ecosystem services can be affected. The paper also explores the potential for ecosystem-based approaches to contribute to conflict prevention and resolution, and to support post-conflict recovery and reconstruction efforts. Armed conflicts have numerous direct and indirect impacts on ecosystems. They can cause physical damage to ecosystems, lead to the loss of biodiversity, and disrupt ecosystem services that are essential for human well-being. Armed conflicts can have significant impacts on ecosystems, both during and after the conflict. During conflicts, the physical damage caused by military activities, such as bombing and shelling, can lead to habitat destruction and fragmentation. For example, ecosystem-based approaches can be used to support the development of sustainable agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, which can provide livelihoods for communities affected by conflict while also promoting ecosystem health and resilience The displacement of people due to conflicts can also lead to increased pressure on natural resources, such as forests and water souources, as refugees and internally displaced persons seek to meet their basic needs. The United Nations Environment Programme has been actively working to promote the integration of environmental considerations into peace building and conflict prevention efforts. In addition, international environmental law, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention provides frameworks for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and wetlands, respectively.

Conflict is at the core of many political ecology studies. Yet there has been limited engagement between political ecology and the field of peace and conflict studies. This lack of connection reflects in part the broader disciplinary context of these two fields. Whereas political ecology research mostly comes from disciplines that eschewed environmental determinism, such as human geography, much of peace and conflict studies is associated with political science using positivist approaches to determine the causal effects of environmental factors on conflicts. Yet greater connections are possible, notably in light of political ecology's renewed engagement with 'materialism', and peace and conflict studies' increasingly nuanced mixed-methods research on environment-related conflicts. Furthermore, political ecology's emphasis on uneven power relations and pursuit of environmental justice resonates with the structural violence approaches and social justice agenda of peace and conflict studies. This article provides an overview of the differing conceptualizations and analyses of environmental conflict under the labels of political ecology and peace and conflict studies, and points at opportunities for closer connections. Les conflits sont au coeur de nombreuses études d'écologie politique. Pourtant, il y a eu un engagement limité entre l'écologie politique et le domaine des études sur la paix et les conflits. Ce manque de connexion reflète en partie le contexte disciplinaire plus large de ces deux domaines. Alors que la recherche en écologie politique provient principalement de disciplines qui évitent le déterminisme environnemental, comme la géographie humaine, une grande partie des études sur la paix et les conflits est associée aux sciences politiques utilisant des approches positivistes pour déterminer les effets causaux des facteurs environnementaux sur les conflits. Pourtant, des liens plus étroits sont possibles, notamment à la lumière de l'engagement renouvelé de l'écologie politique dans le «matérialisme», et de l'utilisation de méthodes mixes et d'analyses plus nuancées par les études sur la paix et les conflits. De plus, l'accent mis par l'écologie politique sur les relations de pouvoir inégales et la poursuite de la justice environnementale résonne avec les concepts de violence structurelle et la pursuite de justice sociale par les études sur la paix et les conflits. Cet article donne un aperçu des différentes conceptions et analyses des conflits environnementaux dans les domaines de l'écologie politique et des études sur la paix et les conflits, et souligne les possibilités d'un plus grand rapprochement. El conflicto es el núcleo de muchos estudios de ecología política. Sin embargo, ha habido un compromiso limitado entre la ecología política y el campo de la paz y los estudios de conflictos. Esta falta de conexión refleja en parte el contexto disciplinario más amplio de estos dos campos. Mientras que la investigación de ecología política proviene principalmente de disciplinas que evitaron el determinismo ambiental, como la geografía humana, gran parte de los estudios sobre paz y conflicto están asociados con la ciencia política utilizando enfoques positivistas para determinar los efectos causales de los factores ambientales en los conflictos. Sin embargo, es posible establecer mayores conexiones, sobre todo a la luz de la renovada participación de la ecología política con el "materialismo" y la investigación de métodos mixtos cada vez más matizada de estudios de paz y conflictos sobre conflictos relacionados con el medio ambiente. Además, el énfasis de la ecología política en las relaciones desiguales de poder y la búsqueda de la justicia ambiental resuena con los enfoques de violencia estructural y la agenda de justicia social de la paz y los estudios de conflicto. Este documento proporciona una visión general de las diferentes conceptualizaciones y análisis del conflicto ambiental bajo las etiquetas de ecología política y estudios de paz y conflicto, y apunta a oportunidades para conexiones más cercanas.

Annals of The Association of American Geographers, 2011

We examine the significance of a specific type of political violence—counterinsurgency—in the making of political forests, providing a link between literatures on the political ecology of forests and the geographies of war. During the Cold War, particularly between the 1950s and the end of the 1970s, natures were remade in relation to nation-states in part through engagements with “insurgencies” and “emergencies” staged from forested territories. These insurgencies represented alternative civilizing projects to those of the nascent nation-states; they also took place in historical moments and sites where the reach of centrifically focused nations was still tentative. We argue that war, insurgency, and counterinsurgency helped normalize political forests as components of the modern nation-state during and in the aftermath of violence. The political violence also enabled state-based forestry to expand under the rubric of scientific forestry. Military counterinsurgency operations contributed to the practical and political separation of forests and agriculture, furthered and created newly racialized state forests and citizen-subjects, and facilitated the transfer of technologies to forestry departments. The crisis rhetoric of environmental security around “jungles,” as dangerous spaces peopled with suspect populations, particularly near international borders, articulated with conservation and other national security discourses that emerged concurrently. Counterinsurgency measures thus strengthened the territorial power and reach of national states by extending its political forests. En este estudio examinamos la significación de un tipo específico de violencia política—la contrainsurgencia—en el desarrollo de bosques políticos, creando así un vínculo entre las literaturas sobre ecología política de bosques y las geografías de guerra. Durante la Guerra Fría, particularmente entre los años 50 y el final de los años 70 del siglo pasado, las naturalezas se rehicieron a sí mismas en relación con los estados-nación, en parte por medio de confrontaciones con “insurgencias” y “surgencias” puestas en acción en territorios boscosos. Estas insurgencias se presentaron a título de proyectos civilistas alternativos para quienes tenían que ver con los nacientes estados-naciones; ocurrieron, además, en momentos y sitios históricos donde todavía era tentativo el alcance soberano de naciones enfocadas centrípetamente. Nuestro argumento es que la guerra, la insurgencia y la contrainsurgencia ayudaron a normalizar los bosques políticos como componentes del moderno estado-nación durante las épocas violentas. La violencia política también contribuyó a que la silvicultura con soporte estatal se expandiera bajo la rúbrica de silvicultura científica. Las operaciones de contrainsurgencia militar contribuyeron a la separación práctica y política de bosques y agricultura, promovieron y desarrollaron bosques estatales de nuevo racializados al estilo ciudadanos-sujetos, y facilitaron la transferencia de tecnologías a los departamentos de silvicultura. La retórica crisis sobre seguridad ambiental en torno de las “junglas,” como espacios peligrosos poblados por poblaciones sospechosas, particularmente cerca de las fronteras internacionales, se articuló con la conservación y otros discursos de seguridad nacional que emergieron concurrentemente. Las medidas de contrainsurgencia fortalecieron de esa manera el poder territorial y el alcance de los estados nacionales al extender el ámbito de sus bosques políticos.

Војно дело, 2017

uring 20 th century several wars were conducted in the world. It can be claimed that these wars caused serious ecological consequences, which affected the quality of the environment, the health and life of people, a decrease in population, slowing down the development of economy and many others. Four wars were waged solely at the territory of the Republic of Serbia: from the Balkan Wars via World War I and II to the NATO aggression in 1999. The NATO bombing caused the most severe consequences for the environment. Due to a rather negative effect of warfare on the environment, such effect is visible at the beginning of most famous wars. However, it was present in some wars and remained the threat for many years. This paper deals with the examples of warfare in the world that data and concrete indicators exist for and it focuses public attention to problems and consequences of warfare.

FESCOL Documents, 2022

This report identifies and analyzes several key aspects of the relationship between violent conflict and environmental degradation, based on the Catatumbo case study. Historically, state presence in this region of Colombia, which borders with Venezuela in the northeast, has been precarious. The region has also been the scene of prolonged and bloody armed disputes. In addition, for over a decade, it has been one of the largest coca growing regions in Colombia and the world. In recent years, it has received a large influx of migrants from Venezuela.

2012

International Affairs, 2014

Warfare is a uniquely human endeavour, and has been central to human culture and civilization for many thousands of years. Early forms of intergroup conflict were conducted by our hominid ancestors over one million years ago, 1 while the development of larger-scale, organized conflict is recorded by early civilizations in Mesopotamia and China almost 5,000 years ago. 2 The impetuses for warfare, being a complex mix of genetics, psychology, culture, politics, technology and resource availability, 3 are unlikely to disappear in the future, as long as our species survives. Though the nature of warfare is changing, from its most devastating twentiethcentury form of industrial 'total' warfare to the geographically and politically complex 'everywhere war' that is beginning to define conflict in the twenty-first century, 4 violent conflict is certain to remain a defining part of the human story. Warfare may be defined in different ways, from Clausewitz's 1832 conception of war as 'continuation of State policy by other means' to Machlis and Hanson's establishment of a taxonomy of warfare wherein the term incorporates preparations for warfare, acts of violent conflict and post-conflict activities. 5 Much debate and analysis of warfare has, quite rightly, focused on the moral dimensions of war in all its forms. More recently, increasing investigation of the environmental impacts of warfare, both positive and negative, has featured in public debate and scholarly analysis. 6 The environmental impacts of violent conflict have been recognized for millennia, with the intentional destruction or degradation of natural resources such as forests, crops and water sources being particularly common. 7 More recently, increasing pressures on the natural environment, combined with

The changing character of modern warfare necessitates the examination of the laws protecting the environment during armed confl ict. Most of these laws and agreements are anthropocentric, premised on the assumption that the environment merits protection only because it is vital to human survival. The few agreements that are partially ecocentric, recognizing nature’s intrinsic value, remain limited by issues of applicability, enforcement, and accountability.

1988

ReVista: Harvard Review of Latin America , 2023

In 1962, Colombian artist Alejandro Obregón unveiled La Violencia, one of his most iconic oil paintings. Imposing in its dimensions, the 61×73 inch canvas appears, initially, to be just a mountainous landscape rendered in nebulous whites and various shades of black. A closer inspection, however, reveals a horizontally extended gure amid the dark hues: the corpse of a mutilated, pregnant woman. Obregon's disturbing painting is not alone in calling attention to the close relationship between violence, female bodies and landscape in Colombia: already in the 19th century, as historian Nancy Appelbaum has shown, many travelers and explorers identi ed an association between the country's lush mountain ranges and the fratricidal brutality unleashed by their inhabitants for centuries. A similar theme pervades Apitchatpong Weerasethakul's lm Memoria (2021), in which a Scottish expatriate (played by Tilda Swinton) living in Colombia, is haunted by loud booming sounds which seem to emanate from the memory-pregnant landscape. It is far from a coincidence, then, that gendered violence and its manifold e ects have been scrutinized to the utmost extent by some of the strongest female voices in Colombian literature-Pilar Quintana and Laura Ortiz, for example, but also recently "rediscovered" authors such as Elisa Mújica and Marvel Moreno. Anthropologist Kimberly Theidon's Legacies of War: Violence, Ecologies and Kin echoes and complements these artistic explorations, and it is as rich in resonances and connotations as any of them. Merely 120 pages long, this small but substantial work brings together ethnography, environmental humanities, gender studies and even epigenetics-the study of how "experiences, exposures, and environments alter gene expression" (54)-to investigate the human and non-human legacies of war in Colombia and Peru, with a particular emphasis on children born of wartime rape.