Green Violence: Militarization of Natural Resources

by

Anselmo Matusse, Tafadzwa Mushonga

• LAST MODIFIED: 20 March 2025
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0308

Introduction

Natural resources are crucial in supporting human life and the survival of various species on Earth. The significant impact of natural resources on human development has given rise to critical intersections of resource commodification, security concerns, and the justification of nature-related violence, commonly referred to as militarization of nature with the potential to turn into green wars. These conflicts span diverse environments, including forests, rivers, seas, and mountains, and often involve border surveillance and military interventions. The convergence of security logic and military actions not only secures specific geographic areas for capital accumulation but also asserts sovereignty and strategic positioning. Advocates of this confluence, specifically in the field of nature conservation, argue that it is essential for protecting nature and curbing biodiversity loss. However, this alignment also creates deplorable and violent landscapes that often lead to confrontations between park managers and local communities. At the heart of these conflicts is the characterization of individuals such as poachers, illegal miners, or loggers as threats to state and private sector interests hence deemed killable. This characterization has resulted in severe responses, including the use of lethal measures, placing individuals and local communities within protected areas at risk. Natural resources themselves have become battlegrounds in armed conflicts, exemplified by instances such as the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War to decimate forests as a military strategy to defeat the enemy. Another example is the use of herbicides in Colombia sprayed on fields and forests to combat narcotics. In both cases, the militarization of natural resources and green wars have severed the connections between Indigenous communities and their natural landscapes. The detrimental effects of green violence on both human populations and the environment have sparked widespread concern. In response, alternative models to the militarization of natural resources are being explored, particularly in societies with a history of colonization. Proposals for demilitarization and adopting convivial, care-based, and non-capitalist approaches to natural resource management are gaining traction. Non-violent strategies are seen as pathways to peace, well-being, justice, restoration, and ethical engagement with those who have suffered the most from the militarization of natural resources and nature protection. These alternative approaches aim to foster a harmonious coexistence between humanity and the environment in the context of the ongoing poly-crises worldwide.

Main Conceptual Debates

Green violence is an umbrella concept which refers to many practices, including green wars, dispossessions, displacements, pollution, etc., not yet fully defined in academia. Such practices have been studied by various disciplines. While the concept of “green” has gained new connotations in the present to associate it with environmentalism, some of the instances of green violence, for example green wars, this is, the involvement of nature in wars, is as old as human societies. After all, as Klein 2019 shows, for Sun Tzu in his book The Art of War, nature assumes a strategic place in enabling an army’s victory or defeat. Recently, Winston 1999 has examined wars waged against nature to control pests. Benjamin 2000 and Dyer 2010 study wars that emerge due to environmental issues. Ybarra 2018 explicitly uses the concept of green wars to refer to the deleterious impacts of militarized protection of natural resources in Guatemala. Gerlak and Mukhtarov 2016 study wars waged to protect national borders and natural resources. This myriad of uses of the concept complicates its use as a heuristic tool. Nonetheless, scholars have employed the concept to understand the causes, uses, and impacts of green violence Talking about environmental conflicts, Nixon 2011 coins the concept of slow violence to indicate the gradual, long-term, and at times concealed forms of violence that lead to environmental and human injustices as a focusing device that enables researchers to understand the complexity of environmental conflicts beyond the immediate and sensational forms of violence. On the other extreme, Ross 2003 examines how wars have been extended to nature as a military strategy employed by states; Billon 2001 does the same, focusing on terrorist groups and others. This shows that green violence can range from violent and horrifying conflicts to slower forms of violence. Scholars have proposed alternative models to ensure ecological and social well-being as a political and moral imperative. Büscher and Fletcher 2019 proposes convivial conservation to decolonize nature conservation and ensure justice away from the conservation fortress model and its militarized nature. In peacebuilding studies, Lujala and Rustad 2012 calls for attending to natural resources when conducting peacebuilding campaigns. No systematic book-length study was found bringing together these different facets of green violence.

• Benjamin, Paul. 2000. Green wars: Making environmental degradation a national security issue puts peace and security at risk. San Francisco: Cato Institute.

  Cautions against treating environmental degradation as a national security matter, asserting that such a stance may jeopardize peace. Advocates for diplomatic solutions over militarization to address environmental challenges effectively and sustainably.

• Billon, Philippe Le. 2001. The political ecology of war: Natural resources and armed conflicts. Political Geography 20.5: 561–584.

  DOI: 10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00015-4

  Explores the relationships between resources and armed conflicts, emphasizing vulnerability due to resource dependence. Challenges notions of scarcity, highlighting violence risks in resource-based economies and opportunities for insurgents through resource exploitation.

• Büscher, Bram, and Robert Fletcher. 2019. Towards convivial conservation. Conservation & Society 17.3: 283–296.

  DOI: 10.4103/cs.cs_19_75

  Proposes a paradigm shift in conservation efforts. Advocates for a more inclusive and people-centered approach, emphasizing collaboration and coexistence with local communities. Argues that this “convivial conservation” model can better address both ecological and social justice concerns.

• Dyer, Gwynne. 2010. Climate wars: The fight for survival as the world overheats. New York: Oxford: Oneworld Book.

  Explores the geopolitical and societal implications of climate change. Discusses the potential for conflicts arising from resource scarcity, extreme weather events, and mass migrations due to climate-induced changes.

• Gerlak, Andrea K., and Farhad Mukhtarov. 2016. Many faces of security: Discursive framing in cross-border natural resource governance in the Mekong River Commission. Globalizations 13.6: 719–740.

  DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2015.1134133

  Explores security framing in international river basin organizations (RBOs), crucial in transboundary water governance globally. Focusing on the Mekong River Basin, it examines how RBOs facilitate cross-border cooperation, information sharing, and stakeholder engagement in discursively constructing “security.”

• Klein, John J. 2019. Understanding space strategy: The art of war in space. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

  DOI: 10.4324/9780429424724

  Highlights nature’s strategic significance in Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.

• Lujala, Päivi, and Siri Aas Rustad. 2012. High-value natural resources and post-conflict peacebuilding. New York: Earthscan.

  DOI: 10.4324/9781849775786

  Provides insights on transforming resource revenues into a peaceful future. With thirty chapters drawing on experiences from forty-one contributors, it covers key issues like resource extraction, revenue allocation, and institution building. Presents a concise framework for policymakers, researchers, practitioners, and students to navigate the intricate relationship between managing high-value resources and fostering peace.

• Nixon, Rob. 2011. Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

  DOI: 10.4159/harvard.9780674061194

  Proposes the concept of Slow Violence to foreground the often-ignored lethality of many environmental crises that exacerbate the vulnerability of ecosystems and of people who are poor, disempowered, and often involuntarily displaced, which in turn often lead to burning conflicts.

• Ross, Michael. 2003. Natural resources and civil war: An overview World Bank Research Observer. In Natural resources and violent conflict: Options and actions. Edited by Ian Bannon and Paul Collier, 1–37. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  Introduces the intersection of natural resources and civil war worldwide, and shows that natural resources play a key role in triggering, prolonging, and financing these conflicts.

• Winston, Mark L. 1999. Nature wars: People vs. pests. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

  Alerts against the dangerous tactics for controlling the pests that, while damaging, are integral parts of our world.

• Ybarra, Megan. 2018. Green wars: Conservation and decolonization in the Maya forest. Oakland: Univ. of California Press.

  Reveals the green wars’ coercive role as a governmental and military tool, exacerbating the marginalization of Indigenous communities. By displacing them from villages, disrupting farming, and eroding cultural identity, nature conservation becomes an instrument of oppression against these people.