Political Ecology and its Impact on Humans and the Environment

Extinction Rebellion September 2020 Protests for the launch of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill (CEE Bill) Across The City of London Credit: Ehimetalor Adhere Unuabona

Political ecology is a field of study that involves various researchers and does not technically have a specific background to one particular career path. The traditional definition of political ecology is almost in a sense Marxist in how it is described to relate the environment with political economy as it describes how social shifts between classes and society relate to how ecological systems exist (Ingalls et al., 2016). In terms of analysis, political ecology is considered to be an area of research pertaining to the global social structures of humans and how this interlinks with the environment as a whole system (Robbins et al., 2003). The main focus of understanding political ecology is in understanding the conditions of the environment and whether it is benefitting from or impacted by human decisions and how internal or external-based factors influence such decisions around cultures or populations that exist within it (Robbins et al., 2003). Researchers in the field of political ecology also emphasize that there need to be critical and constructive changes in managing relationships between nature and humans to ensure that the current condition of the environment will not significantly impact or displace humans in a long-term perspective (Robbins et al., 2003). It also depends on how a specific researcher approaches political ecology.

As stated previously, there are numerous researchers from various backgrounds, which results in varying degrees of opinion and thought on particular aspects within the study of political ecology. However, there are common themes that appear within the majority of research published and primarily focus on topics such as ecoscarcity, modernization, degradation, conservation, and conflict (Robbins et al., 2003). Typically, researchers focus on specifying their work between political and apolitical topics and understanding causation rather than symptoms (Robbins et al., 2003). Political ecology is also considered empirical and theoretical due to its inclusivity and in-depth investigations of such topics that interlink culture, society, and the environment (Robbins et al., 2003). This is due to the focus being directed towards broader thoughts and beliefs to explain how complicated the world is. Political ecology takes these general topics and applies them to case studies primarily focusing on investigations from a local perspective and uses theory-based constructive skills to answer such questions about causation between the environment and a specific social structure’s impact or support of their surrounding ecosystem (Robbins et al., 2003). 

An increasing discussion within political ecology is the balance of power related to all common themes investigated within this field. Ingalls et al., (2016) describes how government instability, failed states, and imbalance of power are all interrelated with common environmental crisis topics such as resource scarcity and poverty. It is believed by most that these are considered to be symptoms, not the causation of ecological degradation. Global environmental change in our present-day system is primarily influenced by adverse decisions and impulsive responses to alleviate the constantly increasing stressors rather than addressing the direct causes. It is self-evident that power will always have a winner and a loser, depending on the outcome (Ingalls et al., 2016). Within political ecology, its main focus is understanding societal and environmental interactions. Several researchers in both conservation biology and political ecology have identified that when a system changes, there is a common theme with a power imbalance, with one group acquiring more entitlement over another, as well as a shift in values regarding the economic value of ecological systems (Ingalls et al., 2016). Countries such as the Democratic Republic of The Congo, Brazil, and the United States, along with several others, align with the theme of power imbalance. In certain countries, like the Democratic Republic of The Congo, henceforth DRC, and Brazil, there are external actors of geopolitical conflict that impact the social structure and only further encourage continued power imbalance for outside economic gain in resources that would be otherwise protected due to resource scarcity in impoverished communities. 

Natural resources and the environment as a single entity has always been involved to some degree of violence and conflict (Billon, 2001). However, the DRC is not given much attention as a case study in political ecology, even as increasing violence and conflict continues to impact the social structure and environment of the country as a whole. It is much different in terms of the relationship between violence and conservation, though there is some relation to conflicts in Brazil. There is a recent interest in understanding how the political implications of conservation can contribute to general conflict, but they primarily disregard much broader themes influencing such violence within an area (Marjinen et al., 2020). In recent years, the conflicts in the DRC have led to the country being considered a failed state in regard to the lack of stability in government. It should also be noted that this external influence further encouraging conflict does not result from the abundance of resources within an area, but due to greed and desire of acquiring resources for economic benefit and social gain on a global scale (Billon, 2001). Even if this results in destroying an entire social structure and culture. Typically, it is understood that conflict over natural resource abundance is also due to lack of economic growth or gain and lack of a stable government (Billon, 2001). Within the DRC, the conflict between the government and rebel militias has been a common trend due to western colonial and elitist countries invading the region centuries ago in response to the demand for exotic goods in Europe (Billon, 2001). As tensions continue into the present day, there is still conflict between internal groups and influence from outside private corporations that encourage further tensions for their economic benefit in harvesting minerals within protected national parks in the DRC (Billon, 2001; Koenig, 2008). Not only is this encouraging resource exploitation, but it directly impacts endangered species within the DRC like the mountain gorilla due to environmental degradation and illegal poaching (Koenig, 2008). Instability continues to grow within the area as people become displaced, while tensions and competition for resources grow stronger. 

Conflicts in regions such as Brazil appear to have more complexity in locating fault for power instability and resource conflict. This is primarily because the government encourages outside groups to promote environmental exploitation and buy land rights, all the while allowing lower class farming communities to struggle for survival in a corporate greed-based world. The main concern within countries throughout Latin America is deforestation for agriculture and livestock grazing. As Mulder, 2005 describes it, the population itself is not necessarily an independent variable but is part of the product resulting from external causes. Overpopulation or poverty is not the result of deforestation and, in general, environmental degradation within Brazil. Instead, these are symptoms that occur due to the power imbalance that allows the government and wealthier individuals to maintain dominance over the entire population (Mulder, 2005). Deforestation and a lack of environmental protection concern are primary drivers for resource scarcity for lower-income communities and marginalized indigenous groups found within the Amazon rainforest. With the government not promoting more restrictive and regulatory policies for conservation, this demonstrates how some governments understand how dominance and power instability results in better economic outcomes for exploitation and lowers the potential for continued government spending for environmental management projects (Mulder, 2005). Banks within Brazil require collateral for low-income farmers to receive financial credit to support their livelihoods, but this can only be in the form of degraded and deforested property (Mulder, 2005). By encouraging endemic species to be removed from plots of land, benefitting the government’s power over land rights and incentivizes private businesses and individuals to purchase these plots for soy-based farming, which has in recent years grown in high demand for the United States and China (Mulder, 2005). This leads to a never-ending conflict and continually benefits the rich as they continue to heavily deplete the environment while lower-income families existing in these degraded areas are struggling to acquire the essential resources needed for adequate survival. 

Power imbalance within the United States appears to be more of an educational gap that ensures that more controversial decisions on the environment that are considered controversial or sensitive matter are less likely to result in complete disagreement from the entire population. The small portion who does disagree with any harmful policies is often targeted and discredited as it does not fit the social norm. Power imbalance, in this case, is primarily driven by willful ignorance. Nature in this context has been turned into a profit not only for economic gain in resources but also as a commercialized consumer-based good for tourist-based profits whether or not it is benefitting or supporting the ecosystem in question. Rural areas throughout the United States have also shaped the way local politics function and conflict with current views of a more progressive economy since it relates to the agricultural industry’s loss of control over how the country exists (Walker, 2003). Individuals with more conservative views typically disagree and conflict with the views of environmentalists and scientists alike since it challenges traditional ways of thinking about society and the environment (Walker, 2003). It is important to note that it is not necessarily individuals within rural communities directing change and severe environmental degradation. They are influenced by those in power who encourage such exploitation and destruction to continue. For the most part, large corporations have a significant influence on the decision-making process for new policies and laws that promote conservation and environmental protection. By promoting further destruction of the environment and, in some instances, buying up the rights to resources will lead to further conflict in resource scarcity with the general population not necessarily recognizing what privatized individuals and businesses are inherently doing is terrible for both economics and the environment. Capitalism is one of the significant drivers for environmental exploitation in the United States and has been a critical component of conflict within the United States since colonists first came ashore (Sheridan, 2007). Capitalism encourages the reshaping of the environment and the way we value it (Sheridan, 2007). Ranching is one of the significant components for political conflict regarding the environment due to the primarily lax rules that allow individual ranchers on grazing allotments and pressure-sensitive ecosystems (Sheridan, 2007). The way that most cattle ranchers approach the environment is no longer about communal use but for personal gain alone, allowing for personal indifference to land use to get in the way of conservation and wildlife protection. In recent years the United States has seen a shift in how society values environmental protection, causing a shift in collective intellect and understanding and only encourages those in power to thrive as they continue to exploit resources from lower-income communities and take away land rights for environmental protection. 

Political ecology focuses on understanding how society, cultural change, and the environment interact and relate to one another. Humans are not separate from the environment; they are a participant in a series of ecological events that can result in positive or negative outcomes based on decisions and social views of the environment. Within political ecology, researchers investigate areas on a case-by-case basis, which can result in similar outcomes in entirely different regions. In humanity’s current situation with the advancement of technology, societies are able to easily communicate with one another and propose or directly exploit areas for economic gain. This results in internal and external conflicts between groups and countries over the fight to obtain scarce resources. The basics of economics explain how supply and demand relate to the abundance or scarcity of an item equates to how much it is valued. This can be applied to the way societies view resources and results in continued conflict. Political ecologists want to understand how exactly societies function within the environment as well as how political decisions impact the way cultures utilize it. Themes regarding degradation, ecoscarcity, conflict all relate to each other to a certain degree. Such themes also are considered symptoms that result from anthropogenic-based causes. Political ecologists seek to understand what causes societies, primarily locally emphasized views, to shift due to resource abundance and conflict. Such topics are relevant in varying fields apart from political ecology since the economics, and ecological stability of certain aspects of resource availability and ecological stability can potentially result in massive shifts in environmental change, human populations decline or increase, as well as ecological collapse. There needs to be more concern and awareness brought up about how conflict, whether on a local or global scale, can significantly impact certain areas, especially those that are sensitive to any drastic change. Understanding also how power instability and shifts in government-based power can also lead to resource scarcity needs to be further investigated. As stated previously, political ecologists investigate topics to understand the causation of symptoms within a culture. Conflict over resources and power instability are considered symptoms. The actual causes are much more complicated and are more large-scale and need to be adequately addressed. Identifying several obvious causes as to why a country, territory, etc., is undergoing major conflict is the first step at addressing environmental degradation. This allows for more global awareness of identifying how technologically and financially powerful countries are encouraging the continuation of environmental degradation and resource overexploitation for short-term based economic gains. Countries like the United States and Brazil are examples of direct influence on the cause of environmental destruction and resource scarcity, whereas countries such as DRC as a component and endure the symptoms directly or indirectly targeted towards sought after resources within their area. Political ecologists and conservation biologists, in a sense, have similar areas of study by understanding how a social structure impacts or supports a particular environment. Understanding how certain cultures have reached a certain point regarding the environment is the first step at addressing global conservation and preservation of the environment. 

References Cited 

Billon, Philippe Le. “The Political Ecology of War: Natural Resources and Armed Conflicts.” Political Geography, vol. 20, no. 5, 2001, pp. 561–584., doi:10.1016/s0962-6298(01)00015-4. 

“Chapter 1: Political versus Apolitical Ecologies.” Political Ecology: a Critical Introduction, by Paul Robbins, Blackwell, 2003, pp. 11–24. 

“Chapter 4: Political Ecology Emerges.” Political Ecology: a Critical Introduction, by Paul Robbins, Blackwell, 2003, pp. 82–100. 

Ingalls, Micah L, and Richard C Stedman. “The Power Problematic: Exploring the Uncertain Terrains of Political Ecology and the Resilience Framework.” Ecology and Society , vol. 25, no. 3201, 2016, doi:10.5751/ES-08124-210106. 

Koenig, Robert. “Rangers Assess Toll of Congo Conflict on Threatened Mountain Gorillas.” Science, vol. 322, no. 5909, 2008, pp. 1778–1778., doi:10.1126/science.322.5909.1778.

Marijnen, Esther, et al. “Conservation in Violent Environments: Introduction to a Special Issue on the Political Ecology of Conservation amidst Violent Conflict.” Political Geography, 2020, pp. 102–253., doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102253. 

Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff., and Peter Coppolillo. Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture. Princeton University Press, 2005.

Sheridan, Thomas E. “Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl: The Political Ecology of the New American West.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 36, no. 1, 2007, pp. 121–138., doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094413. 

Walker, Peter A. “Reconsidering 'Regional' Political Ecologies: Toward a Political Ecology of the Rural American West.” Progress in Human Geography , vol. 27, no. 1, 2003, pp. 7–24., doi:10.1 191/0309132503ph41Ooa.