systems. Prior research generally concluded environ-
mental stress is an important, but indirect, contributor
to instability and conflict, acting in combination with
other economic, political, and social contextual factors
to produce its effects (Homer Dixon 1999; NATO 1999).
Recent research by the United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP) is supportive of this conclusion,
suggesting “environmental factors are rarely, if ever,
the sole cause of violent conflict ... the exploitation of
natural resources and related environmental stresses
can be implicated in all phases of the conflict cycle”
(UNEP 2009, 5). This same report found over the last
60 years at least 40% of all intrastate conflicts have a
link to natural resources. These causal relationships
have important consequences to policy makers con-
sidering how and when to intervene to resolve con-
flict, ideally in its early stages before conflict escalates
to a point where peacekeeping forces may be needed
to provide stability and security.
A simplified framework (Figure 1) is proposed to
describe the causal relationship between change in
human and environmental systems, state fragility,
and conflict (Hearne 2011). At the center of this frame-
work is nation-state capacity, resilience and low-level
social unrest which are used to characterize a states’
fragility as a precursor to violent conflict and politi-
cal instability. This framework accounts for internal
socioeconomic, political, environmental risk factors,
external shocks—both natural and manmade—and
bordering conflicts which may confront a nation-state.
It also suggests external stabilizing factors (e.g., par-
ticipation in regional organizations and bilateral and
multilateral aid) may prevent a country from reach-
ing the critical tipping point into political instability,
evidenced by economic crisis, increasing violence and
more armed conflict. International response to such
sharon
(sharon)
#1