Do Violent Conflicts Create a Cycle of Scarcity?

The reading on conflict in Sudan brings up many issues related to the environmental destruction that follows many environmental conflicts.  It demonstrates that conflict can lead to a self perpetuating cycle of scarcity and violence which in turn leads to increased scarcity. In an attempt to protect themselves against environmental scarcity, the people in these conflicts actually create more scarcity in many cases.  Interestingly, this is not an isolated case and this pattern can be seen in many environmental conflicts in several developing countries.

In the case of Sudan, the area is plagued by both small and large scale conflicts.  These conflicts often result in acts of violence and environmental destruction.  Most importantly, these conflicts are spread over large expanses of land.  In addition, because violent conflicts in the Sudan last for years, these large areas of land are adversely impacted for many years.  This creates a cycle of environmental degradation that in turn reduced land availability.  As indicated in the reading, the tools of warfare also act as a source of environmental degradation in Sudan.  Landmines that are left unmarked and abandoned make the land unusable for other purposes and therefore reduces the amount of usable land.  All of these instances indicate degradation and land use choices that would not have occurred without violent conflict.

Ideas expressed about conflict driven degradation in Sudan can be applied to a wide range of violent environmental conflicts.  For example, after colonialism, many other African countries, instead of thriving and developing, fell into the same cycle as the Sudan.  These countries include Ethiopia and Uganda where land and resource conflicts have a huge impact on the land.  In Ethiopia especially, a large portion of the people rely on the land for main sources of income and their overall livelihoods.  Ethiopia’s water supply has declined after the independence of Eritrea left them landlocked.  This creates scarcity within Ethiopia and aggravates its violent conflicts with Eritrea.  By resorting to violence, Ethiopians and Eritreans actually create more scarcity within their borders.  Violent conflict reduces the amount of land available for agricultural activities.  This creates a cycle of poverty and scarcity within these countries by preventing the people of Ethiopia from accessing resources they need for survival.

The case of Chiapas, Mexico, as discussed in class follows a similar pattern as the one followed by the aforementioned African countries.  Peasants, in response to scarcity issues, take over the land that they feel has been taken from them.  In the process they often nonviolently camp out on the land and essentially take it back from the government and industry.  This type of protest contrasts strongly with their other types of protests that include the burning and destruction of the land.  This demonstrates that violence creates more land scarcity in these types of protests.  Also, this case illustrates that violent conflicts are more likely to continue the cycle of scarcity when compared to nonviolent protest methods.  In addition, it was mentioned in lecture that because of their participation in peasant rebellions, there are fewer farmers available to farm the land.  This indicates that not only does violent conflict create increased land scarcity, but it also reduces the number of people available to work the land.  This has the potential to lead to other types of scarcity.  For instance, a lack of knowledgeable farmers could create food scarcity in peasant communities.

Often, people resort to violent conflict as a last resort in response to scarcity.  In order to cope with the effects of scarcity or in some cases, to attempt to get their resources back, many engage in nonviolent or violent tactics.  In these cases, however, violent methodologies often lead to increased environmental scarcity and destruction.  In these cases, the violence leads to increased scarcity in ways that nonviolent protests that do not rely on weaponry do not.