Explaining Forest Conflicts Through Prisoner's Dilemma

            Forest conflicts in Brazil, Sudan, and Sierra Leone may seem to be very different from one another. However they each find their source in the same problem- poor management of resources. Whether there is an abundance or a scarcity of resources, without proper management conflict will arise. This stems from the idea that humans are selfish and will always act in their own interest, even if cooperating with one another will leave everyone better off. The prisoner’s dilemma has relevance to all three cases of forest conflicts, and provides insight as to how these conflicts could be avoided.

            The prisoner’s dilemma is a scenario that demonstrates that two individuals are likely to choose to not cooperate with one another, even if it appears in their best interest to do so. In the case of the prisoner’s dilemma, each person will be punished with more jail time if both do not cooperate. If both members do cooperate, they will both receive less jail time. The prisoner’s dilemma also helps to explain why a social contract, or a form of government, is needed to maintain order and conduct. A social contract helps to avoid a state of nature, which is seen by many to be a state of complete anarchy.  Although a state of nature allows more freedoms, as everyone can do as they please, it is also a state of complete chaos that will typically lead to war. When individuals agree to a social contract, they are giving up some of their freedoms, but with the creation of rights and obligations everyone is better off. 

            Each of the forest conflict cases can be viewed as arising in many respects as a state of nature, as the political instability in each location does not offer proper management of the resources. This results in conflict and corruption over the resources. In the case of Brazil, economic and population growth are creating a strain on resources from the Amazon rainforest. Conservationists and social activists stress the importance of protecting the Amazon and its indigenous people, while farmers and loggers want to clear-cut the forest for its timber and to create grazing land for cattle. The dispute has caused ongoing outbreaks of violence, and has even caused more than a thousand leaders of the conservation movement to be murdered. This is similar to the state of nature in that too much freedom is causing some groups to destroy rainforest lands for rangeland that is of marginal long-term value and, in doing so, creating a state of chaos in the lives of others and society as a whole by removing an important source to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. In this case each party seeks different resources from the forest. With better management practices and stricter enforcement, logging could become a sustainable commodity and lands appropriate for grazing could be diverted to that use. Compromise would stop the killing of conservationists by those who seek to exploit the lands for short term economic gains, including illegal ranchers and loggers. Under stricter policies each side would experience some loss due by giving up some demands and by making concessions. Parts of the Amazon would not be protected and only portions of it would be developed for harvesting of timber and for the creation of rangeland. In the end, each party would be better off by avoiding conflict and violence. The conservationists would achieve protection for a large portion of the most environmentally valuable land while ranchers and loggers would have legal standing to pursue their activities without future pressure on them from the state to stop the activities in which they have made a financial investments.

            The conflicts in Sudan and Sierra Leone have similarities to the conflict in Brazil- poor management of resources is resulting in violence and corruption. In Sudan conflict over water rights and benefits from the Nile River are a source of conflict as well as competition. A cooperative plan to allocate scarce water resources is needed to allow all involved parties to get a fair share. An emerging conflict arises between Sudan and South Sudan over the exploitation of oil reserves. Does Sudan have the right to this wealth as the oil must be transported across its lands to reach end users, or should South Sudan have the primary right to the revenue as the producing areas are within its borders.  Both sides would benefit from a peaceful resolution and the citizens would be better served by allowing revenue from the sale and transportation of oil to improve their lives.

In Sierra Leone, better management of the mining and the selling of diamonds would likely result in a more equitable distribution of wealth and eliminate the warlords who wreak bloodshed in their attempts to control this valuable commodity. A stronger state that received the economic value from the diamond trade would be able to return some of the wealth to those who control the mines and some of the wealth to the miners. Some wealth would trickle-down to the people as a whole through better infrastructure. But security would be the greatest return.  A stable system would inure to the benefit of all if armed conflict were stopped.

Although these three countries have a wide variety of resources to make their countries stronger for all, they each suffer an inability to assert control over their resources through better management and stricter enforcement of resource allocation.  Without that control, individuals will band together to exploit those resources on their own terms through armed conflict or the corruption of political leaders.

            The prisoner’s dilemma helps to explain why proper management of resources is necessary. Unless there is strict enforcement from the government, individuals and private groups that have banded together will act in their own ways. The end result will often be war and violence.  Brazil, Sudan, and Sierra Leone need to first strive for stronger and more stable governments. Achieving this will result in stronger and stricter resource management policies.