Document Sample
Continent Powered By Docstoc
					III.      Results from an Inventory of Conflict and Environment

          This section shows the outputs of descriptive data analysis of the 145 ICE cases.

The general coding indicators, including the ICE number, mnemonic and brief

description is shown in Table III-1. Appendix A provides more detail. The analysis

intends to demonstrate the system and tools available to meet the upcoming challenge in

managing cases of conflict and environment. The reporting that follows is divided into

two groups. First, it describes the data attributes and characteristics for single variable

combinations. Second, it discusses these data configurations for bi-variate combinations

using cross tabs analysis. This second level of analysis permits a closer look at the

environment factors that relate to specific types of conflict. (In the discussion that

follows, names that are capitalized refer to the mnemonic title of the ICE cases in Table


                   Table III-1, The ICE Cases
Case   Mnemonic         Description
1      NILE             Historic and modern Nile River disputes involving Egypt
2      ERITREA          Eritrea, Ethiopian Civil War and land disputes
3      SUDAN            Southern Sudan civil war over land and oil resources
4      MURUROA          French Nuclear Testing in South Pacific
5      PERUECWAR        Border dispute between Peru and Ecuador
6      JORDAN           Disputes over Jordan River resources
7      CODWAR           Cod dispute between Iceland the United Kingdom
8      KURILE           Russia and Japan dispute over Kurile Islands
9      KUWAIT           First Gulf war and the role of oil
10     NAGORNO          Azerbaijan and Armenia land dispute
11     KALIMAN          Ethnic and land conflict on Indonesian Borneo
12     BELIZE           Belize and Guatemala land dispute
13     CHIAPAS          Chiapas, Mexico conflict and land use
14     LITANI           Litani River and disputes
15     PETEN            Guatemalan civil war and land disputes
16     FALK             Falklands war and oil and seafood resources
17     IRNUKE           Iran nuclear program and conflict threats
18     AOZOU            Land dispute between Libya and Chad over uranium
19     JOHNS            US Johnstone Island atoll weapons disposal effort
20     ASSYRIA          Assyria wars using water as a weapon
21     SPRATLY          Spratly Islands disputes in Southeast Asia
22     ELSALV           El Salvador civil war and land dispute
23     RWANDA           Rwanda genocide, ethnicity and land dispute
24     SAHARA           Polasario conflict with Morocco over Spanish Sahara
25     DANUBE           Danube River dam and river diversion dispute
26     TUPAC            Civil uprising and land in Peru
27     NIGER            Nomadic and settled ethnic groups conflict over water
28     DIAYOU           Diayou Island dispute between China, Taiwan and China
29     SUBIC            USA Base in Philippines and Cleanup
30     ANGOLA           Angola civil war and roles of oil and diamonds
31     POACH            Animal poaching in Kenya and conflict
32     SOCCER           Land dispute between El Salvador and Honduras
33     USSURI           Ussruri River dispute between China and the USSR
34     VIETNAM          Vietnam War and use of herbicides
35     ARSENAL          US base cleanup of conventional and chemical weapons
36     ALASKA           US and Canada boundary dispute
37     RUSSSUB          Sinking of Russian nuclear submarine and sea impacts
38     WALL             China’s Great Wall and its historical impact
39     BOERWAR          The land dispute between the British and Boers
40     AEGAN            Turkey and Greece dispute over islands
41     GRAINWAR         Indian conflict over use of seeds for farmers

                       Table III-1, continued, The ICE Cases
Case #   Mnemonic                 Description
42       BRAZMIGR                 Brazilian Amazon migration and native people conflict
43       BIAFRA                   Civil war in Nigeria over oil
44       GAZA                     The Gaza strip and control of water resources
45       HORMUZ                   The Hormuz Straits and control of the shipping of oil
46       KIKUYU                   Kenyan ethnic conflict over land and water
47       BUFFALO                  US war on buffalo and Native Americans
48       CHACO                    Chaco war over land in South America
49       MORSPAIN                 Morocco and Spain fishing dispute
50       NOVALYA                  USSR nuclear testing on Siberian island and after-effects
51       CHILEDAM                 Chilean dam and conflict with native peoples
52       DMZ                      Korean DMZ as a wildlife sanctuary
53       CAUVERY                  Cauvery River dispute in India and water diversion
54       HAITIDEF                 Deforestation and dispute in Haiti
55       GGUYANA                  Venezuela, gold and rights of native peoples
56       LESWATER                 Lesotho and South Africa water dispute
57       BRONZE                   Rome recycles bronze artifacts for weapons or products
58       KORFAMINE                Korea drought, famine, and security
59       CEDARS                   Ancient conflicts over the Cedars of Lebanon
60       MARSH                    Marsh Arabs in Iraq and conflict
61       GUANO                    Conflict over island claims and guano resources
62       CANFISH                  Canada and Spain fishing dispute
63       KHMER                    Cambodia civil war and gems and timber resources
64       OGONIOIL                 Nigeria civil conflict over oil
65       SOMWASTE                 Somalia waste imports and support for civil war
66       LEBWASTE                 Lebanon waste imports and support for civil war
67       CANCOD                   Canada and UK cod fishing dispute
68       JAYAMINE                 Indonesian mine pollution and conflict
69       ARALSEA                  Aral Sea loss impact on military testing
70       COCAINE                  Environmental impact of coca on environment in Peru
71       BLUENILE                 Ethiopia and Egypt dispute over Nile River water
72       SERBSANC                 Serbia sanctions and environmental impacts
73       YALU                     The Yalu river and the Korean War
74       IRANIRAQ                 The Iran and Iraq war and disputed waterways
75       SOMWAR                   Somalia and Ethiopia border dispute
76       WESTBANK                 West Bank and disputes over water resources
77       TIGRIS                   Turkey dams and water dispute with Iraq
78       KASHMIRI                 Kashmir deforestation and India and Pakistan conflict
79       DIAMOND-SL               Diamonds and civil war in Sierra Leone
80       CONGO                    Diamonds and conflict in the Congo
81       LIBERIA-DAMONDS          Diamonds and civil war in Liberia
82       URANIUM-DEPLETE          Use or uranium weapons in Serbia war with NATO
83       SUDAN-SANCTIONS          Sudan sanctions and environmental impacts
84       HAWAII-BOMBS             Military testing in Hawaii and environmental impacts

                       Table III-1, continued, The ICE Cases
84    BURMAPIPELINE               Burma gas pipeline and ethnic conflict
85    ACEH                        Aceh, religion, oil and conflict with Indonesian government
86    AMPHETAMINE                 Burma, ethic conflict, drugs, and Thailand
87    CONGO-COLTAN                Coltan and conflict in Congo
88    ICEMAN                      Per-historic land dispute
89    CHINA-NUCLEAR               China attempts to acquire nuclear technology
90    NICARAGUA-HONDURAS          Nicaragua and Honduras island dispute
91    URANIUM-TRAINING            Uranium tipped material in the Gulf War and consequences
92    CHECHNYA                    Chechnya and Russia war and oil
93    VINELAND                    Viking and Native American conflict
94    KOREA-JAPAN-ISLANDS         Korea and Japan island dispute
95    TEAK                        Cambodia, Khmer Rouge and teak resources
96    LANDMINE                    Landmine and conflict in Angola
97    INDOBANG                    India and Bangladesh water agreement
98    MEKONG                      Mekong River water use and users
99    CANCOD                      Canada and Spain dispute over cod fishing
100   PAPUA                       Papua New Guinea mine, pollution and conflict
101   TURBOT                      Canada and Spain turbot dispute
102   ABUMUSA                     Island dispute between UAE and Iran
103   RUSSNUKE                    Russia nuclear technology and proliferation
104   HAITI                       Haiti sanctions and environnemental impact
105   IRAQSANC                    Iraq sanctions and environmental impacts
106   SATELLITE-DRIFTNETS         Use of US satellites to monitor environmental agreements
107   MOHENJO                     Ancient South Asia cases of water and civilization
108   SENEGAL-MAURITANIA          Senegal and Mauritania border
109   HADRIAN                     Hadrian’s Wall and Impacts
110   OLIVE-TREE                  Palestine conflict and uprooting of olive trees
111   NEANDERTHAL                 Human and Neanderthal land conflict
112   MAYA                        Decline of Maya, drought, and internecine warfare
113   ANASAZI                     The disappearance of the Anasazi and water
114   ROBINHOOD                   Robin Hood and access to forest resources
115   LEBANON-LANDMINE            Lebanon, Syria and landmines
116   LIBERIA-AMERICA             Liberia conflict involving US repatriated descendants
117   MINDINAO                    Philippine resources and support for tourism
118   AMUR                        Amur River and Russia and China territory dispute
119   VIEQUES                     Puerto Rice, US site for military testing and impacts
120   DIEGO                       Diego Viegues in Indian Ocean and terror
121   TALIBAN-POPPY               The Taliban, poppies, and war in Afghanistan
122   BARENTS                     The Barents sea and nuclear issues
123   LANKA-CONFLICT              Sri Lanka, ethnicity, and land dispute
124   AQUIFER                     Middle East underground water aquifers and boundaries
125   OPIUM-BURMA                 Opium trade in Burma and support for ethnic conflict
126   ZIMBABWE                    Land reform and conflict in Zimbabwe
127   CONGO-WOOD                  Congo and conflict over wood resources

                                    Table III-1, continued, The ICE Cases
128                    TYROL                   Tyrol, Italy and language and political control
129                    CABINDA                 The Cabinda enclave in Angola, war, and oil
130                    JAPAN-OIL               Japan’s oil needs in WWII
131                    CONFLICT-TIMBER         Timber and deforestation in Africa
132                    ATATURK                 Ataturk dam in Turkey and downstream conflict with Iraq
133                    BENIN                   USSR radioactive dumping in Benin
134                    ARCTIC                  Nuclear disposal in the Arctic by the USSR and impacts
135                    JAPANSEA                Nuclear disposal in the Japan Sea by the USSR and impacts
136                    KOSMO                   Sinking of Russian nuclear submarine and impacts
137                    LUCKY                   Fallout from US testing of the hydrogen bomb
138                    PACIFICO                Colombian oil and conflict with Native Americans
139                    LATVIAOIL                Russian oil exports to Latvia and political dispute
140                    RUSSOIL                 Russian oil development and conflict with native peoples
141                    GUMARAB                 Sudan’s gum arab exports and terrorism support
142                    MALACCA                 The strategic importance of the Malacca Straits
143                    NATO                    NATO use of uranium depleted bullets in Serbia
144                    IRANPIPELINE            Proposed Iran oil pipeline to India through Pakistan
145                    JAMES                   The James Bay dam project and native peoples conflict

      Figure III-1
      Conflict and Duration Frequencies (percent)

                                      Time Era






                            Ancient        Middle          Modern
                                         Time Era

                                                                                                         Conflict Start
                                         Conflict Start


Conflict and Duration Groups (percent)

Figure III-2





A.     One Way Data Breakouts: The Tension Belt

       The 145 ICE case studies and the data and attributes are input into a statistical

software package (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 12). Analysis was

undertaken on basic frequency and descriptive statistics. Some data is re-coded so that it

can be categorized and some data tables are omitted because of the limited number of

repeat values and thus difficulty in categorizing.

1.     When: Time, Conflict and Environment

       The start dates for conflict range from 45,000 BC to today but most often the

cases are clustered much more around the current era. This is explainable due to the

information that is available for research but also perhaps is symptomatic of the

increasing amounts of conflict and environment cases.

       Modern cases, originating after 1900, account for 82.1 percent of the total.

Ancient cases and middle cases account for about 8-9 percent each. It makes little sense

to break out data with such a single overwhelming component (see Figure III-1). Modern

cases peak around the year 1990 and seem to coincide with the end of the Cold War.

       The conflict end date mirrors the Conflict Start Dates, with some time lags.

Naturally, the cases move forward in time, so that the later periods are generally larger

than the start dates merely because some conflicts are of a long duration and may start in

one time period and end in another.

          Only a small part of the Ancient World conflicts come to an end in the time of the

Ancient World (4 of 14). This disparity appears less so in the New World time period (9

out of 12), but this is actually because of the shift of cases from the ancient into the

modern eras. Modern cases naturally also account for the most start dates (see Figure III-


          Duration of the case (the difference between begin and end year of conflict)

explains the movement of cases in differing time spans. Some cases have time spans of

months, while others have spans of hundreds of years. It is an informational artifact,

insofar as we have less knowledge of ancient issues, but suggests a shortening of modern

cycles of conflict.

          Sorted by frequency, most durations are relatively short-term that decline with the

passing of time. However, there are some periods of differentiation (0-4 years, 12-16

years, and 30-34 years) where frequencies seem in clusters of higher activity (see Figure

III-3). The pattern has some oscillations with decreasing intensity, the longer the time


          The duration of conflict shows a general pattern of reporting where year groups

double with each succeeding time interval. (Thus, starting with duration of two years per

each conflict group, then next group would double in duration, or increase to 4 years.

The results provide a bell curve pattern (see Figure III-4). The pattern is a somewhat

normal distribution of cases ordered by durations with the mid-value cluster of 8-16

years. The curve is negatively skewed, largely because of the high incidence of short-

term cases that last less than 2 years. On the other tail, 14 cases lasted over 129 years.

Because some of the cases last several thousand years (like the conflict between humans

and Neanderthals), average durations per conflict are not very revealing as a group.

Figure III-3
Cases by Conflict Durations (percent)

                                Conflict Duration





















                                    Conflict Duration

Figure III-4
Cases by Conflict Durations (Grouped) (percent)








                0-2 Years   3-7 Years 8-16 Years   16-32   32-64    65-128   Over 129
                                                   Years   Years    Years     Years

2.      Where: Continent, Region and Country

        There appear to be four tiers in terms of frequencies of groupings based on

geography (see Figure III-4). At the top their, Asia is the largest continent in terms of

ICE cases with 24.8 percent followed by the Middle East (19.3 percent). A second tier of

countries is closely clustered with North America (15.9 percent), Africa and Europe (14.5

percent each). It is not surprising that Asia ranks highest, since it is the largest in size and

population, but the Middle East, while having a large physical area, has a relatively small

population (see Figure III-5).

        The Middle East was separated out as a continent, taking pieces from Africa and

Asia that does not exist in purely geographic definitions. This largely Muslim world does

however act like its own continent and has an environment that is distinct. The intensity

of environmental conflict by continent is higher in the Middle East than anywhere else in

the world, based on the number if ICE cases as a percentage of the total. This is true

whether the dimension of comparison is land area or population.

Figure III-15
Cases by Continent (percent)


                                                    North America
                                                    South America

       Perhaps the populations ought to be viewed in relative terms: the population of

the region relative to the natural carrying capacity for human life. South America shows

much fewer cases than other continents at 6.9 percent. The Indian, Pacific and Arctic

Oceans show low levels, comprising 3.5 percent in total. These include only those cases

outside of the claimed 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone that includes other ocean areas

but are coded as part of country territory (for example, clashes between Canada and

Spain over Cod allegedly in Canadian waters).

       East Asia is the region with the most cases (19.3 percent). Next is the Middle

East (Asia) with 15.2 percent and Western Africa at 14.8 percent. Southern North

America is third largest with 7.9 percent and accounts for 45 percent of all North

America cases. These regions indicate that there exists clear “hot spots” of environment

and conflict. The Middle East (Asia) also links up with East Asia to form a band of

higher activity.

       The continental aggregates mask very different trends at the sub-continental level.

At a regional level, there are clear areas of high conflict and environment interaction that

transcend continental boundaries. These areas constitute the basis for tension zones since

there is a tendency for conflict to cross borders, especially in instances of environmental

conflict. These tension zones together form an environment-conflict "Tension Belt" that

girdles the planet roughly between the Tropic of Cancer and the Equator. This zone is

marked by climatic patterns inherent to tropical and desert areas. It is also the home to

ancient river-based civilization populations that have now far exceeded water availability.

       The zone can be conceived of as starting in the Western Hemisphere, with most of

the cases from the southern part of the North American continent, especially Mexico and

Central America. This zone melds into a South American zone that straddles the

northern and western sides of the continent and high conflict in countries such as

Colombia. This zone accounts for about two-thirds of the South America cases. The

western hemisphere "Tension Belt" bisects the two continental parts of the hemisphere

(see Figure III-6). This area will likely be a major arena for future crises of environment

and conflict.

Figure III-6
The Tension Belt

       In Africa, the Tension Belt stretches from North Africa, starting in Morocco, to

East Africa as far south as Somalia and connects with West Asia including Turkey, Iran,

Kazakhstan and Turkey (often water-distressed areas), where both its Asian and African

regions contain a large number of cases. This zone of conflict in turn connects to the East

Asian zone. No doubt these higher tensions spill over onto other countries more often in

the Tension Belt.

       What accounts for the Tension Belt? First, they are some of the oldest

civilizations on the planet. This may be due to the life of a civilization: the longer the

life, the more likely the impact on the environment. The alterations to the habitat do take

time. This relationship is probably not linear. The Nile River water was for a long time

sufficient in providing for Egypt’s water needs. It no longer is.

       A second explanation is that population levels and demands have reached a point

where the environmental resources are under extreme stress. The belt includes India,

China, Indonesia, Brazil, and Nigeria -- some of the world’s most populous countries.

Most of the world’s population lives in this zone. On a global basis it is simply a case of

more inhabitants per area. These areas also correspond to developing countries meaning

the population is more reliant on the environment.

       A third reason is the habitats. The Tension Belt has tropical and desert habitats

for the most part. The tropical regions have been exploited for timber and year-round

production of agriculture. The desert regions that are mostly river-centered have become

too populous.

       A final reason is historical legacy. Colonialism and other types of domination left

a part of the world reliant on commodities and natural resources as a means of national

strategy and survival. At the same time, the artificial boundaries that European power

imposed have themselves been sources of conflict. The lines drawn on maps often

divided peoples and environments, thus leading to conflict.

       Given the number of cases at 145, and 170 countries in the world it is no surprise

that analysis at the country level is not very revealing. This fact will change as ICE cases

increase in number.

       The United States shows up in 6.2 percent of the cases and in Russia, 4.8 percent.

No other country exceeds 3.4 percent, the level of Canada, China, India, Indonesia and

Lebanon. Canada’s conflicts have all been non-violent (mostly fishing disputes).

Figure III-7
Cases by Habitat (percent)



3.        What: Habitat

          Most people on the planet live in tropical and temperate climate areas so one

should expect the most cases in those areas. The ICE data mirrors this reality in that

tropical accounts for 31.0 percent of the cases. Temperate areas account for 21.4 percent

of the cases.

          Dry habitats, high in terms of planet land area but low in terms of population,

ranks second in the number of ICE cases (26.2 percent). This simple statistic tells a story

of environment and conflict, especially due to the prominence of water-related cases in

the Middle East. Ocean cases are significant at 15.2 percent and cool habitat cases are

low at 6.2 percent, but no doubt growing with increasing human interventions (see Figure


4.        Why: Conflict and Environment Links

          The fatality level of conflict describes its intensity, in terms of fatalities. While a

discrete count exists, fatalities are also coded into an ordinal scale categories of high,

medium and low. There is a number curve of fatalities related to environment and

conflict. The peak of the curve is 100,000 deaths, with levels below and above this

asymptotically declining (see Figure III-8).

          The fatalities are organized into six categories based on a simple logarithmic

scale. A normal curve with all cases shows a high positive skewness, but excluding the

cases with zero fatalities the distribution corresponds to a normal curve. Skewness

describes how much a normal curve tilts to the high or low case clusters. Without the

cases that do not involve many human fatalities, the majority of casualties fall between

10,000 and 1 million (see Figure III-9).

       The conflict type has different interactions with the environment. Direct conflict

that is either high (29 percent) or low (35.9 percent) is the most common types. Threats

of conflict related to environment show up in 23.4 percent of the cases and cases of

preparing for war in 11.7 percent (see Figure III-10). In fact, only 29 percent of the cases

cover the impact of large scale military wars between countries. Rather, the bulk is in

low intensity war, preparing for war that impacts the environments, and threats related to

environmental issues.

       The nature of conflict and environment can occur on national (civil) or

international (war) dimensions (see Figure III-11). Historical research reveals that intra-

state conflict is a growing phenomenon, while international conflict is declining. The

ICE breakouts show that inter-nation conflict accounts for 59.3 percent of the cases and

intra-nation conflict 40.7 percent.

       Civil groups account for 37.2 percent of all conflict opponents, and these are

mostly singular incidents for them in conflict. The United States is the opponent in 7

cases, although this accounts for only 4.8 percent of all cases. It does indicate something

about its emerging role as the world’s “policeman” and evidence of greater involvements

because of it. The cases have a broad distribution across countries. Israel and Japan

follow in number of conflicts, followed by China, Iraq, Russia, UK and Yugoslavia.

       Resource related conflicts account for 35.1 percent of the total cases, easily the

largest conflict link. Within that group conflict over energy resources (11.0 percent) and

wood resources (9.0 percent) have the highest shares.

       Political and border issues are the dominant ways in which conflict links to the

environment, each with 17.2 percent. Political issues are transient since they relate to

ideologies or kinship allegiances. Border issues are more long-term and potential

ongoing sources of conflict. Together, these two groups total a little more than one-third

of all cases. Other key areas are the preparation for war (11.7 percent) and development

infrastructure (8.3 percent). The scope of the conflict to environment links varies (see

Figure III-12).

       Most ICE cases in the environment link revolve around conflict related to a

specific resource (such as oil) at 22.1 percent or a territorial resource (such as arable land)

at 17.9 percent. Water, key to Middle East issues (and other areas) account for 14.5

percent of the cases. Habitat loss totals 11.7 percent and Deforestation 8.3 percent. The

latter two areas are often linked in practice and together account for 20 percent of the

total. Radioactive related cases totaled 8.3 percent and Pollution Land was also

significant at 6.9 percent (see Figure III-13). One interesting aspect of the breakout is the

obvious shift from environment and conflict issues that were source focused to those sink


Figure III-8                              Figure III-9
Cases by Conflict Fatality (percent)      Cases by Conflict Fatality Coded (percent)

                   Conflict Fatality                                          Fatality Coded





           20                                        30

           10                                        20

            0                                        10























                      Conflict Fatality
                                                          Less than   101-1,000   1,001-10,000    10,001-    1 million to 10 More than 10
                                                             100                                 1,000,000      million         million
                                                                                    Fatality Coded

Figure III-10                                               Figure III-11
Cases by Conflict Level (percent)                           Cases by Conflict Type (percent)

                       Conflict Level                                               Conflict Type







                Harm    High            Low   Threat
                          Conflict Level
                                                                            Civil                      War
                                                                                       Conflict Type

Figure III-12                                                                                                                                               Figure III-13
Cases by Conflict Link (percent)                                                                                                                            Cases by Environment Link (percent)

                                                   Conflict Link
                                                                                                                                                                                 Environment Link

           15                                                                                                                                                                                       Pols



                Bo       In           Po           Pr         Re        Re          Re           Re             Re           Te         Te
                  rd        fra          liti         ep        so         so          so             so           so          rra          rra
                    er         st             ca         ar       ur         ur           ur             ur           ur           -a          -n
                                 ru              l          e        ce         ce           ce             ce           ce          nt           at
                                   ct                                  -e          -m           -o             -w           -w         hr            ur
                                     ur                                  ne                        th                                     o             e
                                       e                                             in               er         at           oo
                                                                           rg          er                          er            d
                                                                              y           al

                                                            Conflict Link

                          5.                       How: Strategy, Conflict and Environment

                                                   Conflict outcome can reveal the paths that lead to differing decisions. Since most

                          cases in ICE are new, ongoing cases account for 16.6 percent of the total. Terror cases

                          are actually cases that might be either Stalemate or Ongoing related and account for about

                          4 percent of the total.

                                                   The scope of the cases gives an ordinal view of the internationalization of issues

                          in environment and conflict, ranging from local to global (see Figure III-14). The cases

                          are skewed towards the lower end of the scale. Sub-state cases total 37.2 percent and

                          Bilateral 25.5 percent, followed by Regional cases at 20.7 percent. This is a rather linear

scale of locale and conflict events. Multilateral cases are low at 11.7 percent of the

cases. This is not surprising, insofar as environmental problems are largely more specific

than general.

       Stalemate was the most common outcome at 33.8 percent and victory at 19.3

percent. In 12.4 percent of the cases, Compromise was the outcome. The breakouts

show that convincing victories are often elusive in terms of outcome. This may be due to

the environmental roots of the conflict that are of interest here which suggests many

deep-rooted and indirect influences (see Figure III-15). Victory applies to the country

that was coded as the one where the actual environmental impacts are at issue. Whether

the case is a victory or loss depends on the case focus, which relates to the country in the

location of the case.

       Most international cases, however, do not directly involve armed conflict. Harm

to the environment through the preparation for possible armed conflict and threats to

resort to such conflict for environmental reasons outnumber the cases of actual armed

conflict. Of the 16 cases that focus on harm to the environment as a consequence of war,

about half of them are related to nuclear weapons testing. These cases are the result of

actions that build-up for war rather than as an aftermath of one.

Figure III-15                               Figure III-14
Cases by Outcome (percent)                  Cases by Scope (percent)






                                                                Bilat   Multi      Region   Sub   Unilat

B.     Two Way Breakouts: Investigating Indicators for Meaning

       The prior data description focused on single vector variables. This section looks

more deeply at the relationship by exploring analysis from two vectors. With 145 cases

two-vector matrices may not always reveal strong evidence if a larger number of the cells

have none or only a few cases. Some conclusions are however possible.

       Out of the 15 attributes coded in the case study, only a limited number are used

here. This is partly due to redundant reporting or a limited number of likely cases. This

section uses the dimensions of coding in the previous section and cross-matches them.

This can give some indication of the intersections of the differing vectors, especially

between conflict and environment. The reporting of these two way break-outs are based

on the criteria of when, where, what, why and how questions related to conflict and


1.             When: Time, Conflict and Environment

       With so many Modern World cases out of the total, breakdowns by Conflict Start

Date provide little insight with so few cases in other time periods. Durations of conflict

however can reveal some basic connections when compared using a simple cross tabs

function. These time dimensions frame the types of other attributes associated with

certain coinciding behaviors.

                                      Table III-2
                         Habitat and Duration (by percent share)
                                            Durations                                Total

                  0-2       3-7      8-16      16-32     32-64 65-128         129
 Habitat         Years     Years     Years     Years     Years Years         Years
 Cool                9.5         0      2.6        7.4       8.3    0          14.3       6.2
 Dry               14.3        5.6    30.8       22.2      37.5  50.0          42.9     26.2
 Ocean             33.3      22.2       7.7      18.5      12.5     0             0     15.2
 Temperate         19.0      44.4     25.6         3.7     12.5  50.0          28.6     21.4
 Tropical          23.8      27.8     33.3       48.1      29.2     0          14.3     31.0
 Total              100       100      100        100       100   100           100      100

       Most conflict durations (27 percent) occur in the 8-16 year period, but other

categories have a somewhat even distribution (around 15 percent), save for the high end

cases which differ greatly by habitat type. When comparing durations with the habitats at

issue some clear patterns appear.

       In the shortest period (0-2 years), ocean cases dominate. Perhaps these cases are

more tractable because they are outside of national boundaries. Some of these cases

include intrusions in a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZs) or islands whose size

is small but whose value is in the EEZ around it.

       In the most common period (8-16 years), tropical cases account for about one-half

of the total. Since wood and timber is often at the root of the case, the time may suggest

how long it takes for suggest resources to begin to become scarce and thus heighten

conflict intensity. In long-term periods (those from 32 years and beyond) are dominated

by dry habitat cases. Again, this may suggest the roots of early civilization around water

systems and the current degree of scarcity of the water (see Table III-2).

       About 60 percent of all cases are international in nature, yet on the basis of these

periodic breakouts, it is a majority, and mostly a large one, in most categories. It is only

in the duration group of 16-32 years that civil cases constitute a majority at 55 percent

(see Figures III-16 and III-17). There are clear high-water patterns on the short-, middle-

and long-term time horizons. These time periods may reflect natural groups of type that

are independent of time.

                                       Table III-13
                  Environment Link and Duration (Percent within Durations)
                                                   Duration                                 Total
 Environment           0-2   3-7        8-16       16-32      32-64    65-128    129
 Link                 Years Years       Years      Years      Years     Years   Years
 Deforestation             0   5.6       15.4        11.1        8.3          0      0           8.3
 Habitat Loss         23.8 11.1          12.8         7.4       12.5          0      0          11.7
 Pollution Land          9.5     5.6      10.3        3.7        4.2     50.0          0         6.9
 Pollution Sea           4.8       0       2.6          0          0          0        0         1.4
 Radioactive            14.3       0       7.7       11.1       12.5          0        0         8.3
 Resource               19.0    16.7      28.2      25.9        20.8          0     14.3        22.1
 Species Loss
                           0    11.1        2.6       7.4          0          0      7.1         4.1
 Species Loss Sea        9.5    11.1         0        7.4        4.2          0        0         4.8
 Territory              14.3   33.0       10.3       14.8        4.2     50.0 50.0              17.9
 Water                   4.8      5.6     10.3       11.1     33.3                  28.6        14.5
 Total                  100      100       100        100       100        100       100         100

         Durations of conflict do not always relate to the type of environment link (see

Table III-3). The importance of issues seems to go from the general to the specific. In

short term durations (0-2 years), habitat loss (23.8 percent) is the largest environment

link, followed by resource (19 percent) and territory and radioactive issues (14.3 percent


         Of interest is how these causes (links) change in distribution over time. In the

duration era of 3-7 years, territory accounts for one-third of all cases. In later periods it

falls off, and rises in the longest time periods. Territorial issues seem much more

periodic compared to most of environment links. Radiation issues are also generally

longer in time and Habitat Loss cases shorter in time. Resource issues generally remain

high throughout most all periods with great fluctuations.

Figure III-16                                                                                Figure III-17
Conflict Type and Duration (percent)                                                         Scope and Duration (percent)

                               Conflict Type and Duration                                                                        Scope and Duration

                                                                             Conflict Type
                                                                                    Civil                                                                                 Scope
                                                                                    War                                                                                    Bilat





                0-2 Years      8-16 Years     32-64 Years   Over 129 Years
                        3-7 Years     16-32 Years    65-128 Years
                                     Durations                                                           0
                                                                                                              0-2 Years      8-16 Years    32-64 Years   Over 129 Years
                                                                                                                      3-7 Years     16-32 Years   65-128 Years

        Scope issues show differing patterns over time. Bilateral issues account for over

50 percent in the near-term period then generally decline in importance from 0-7 years.

These cases earlier appeared in relation to ocean habitats and the environmental link of

habitat loss.

        Over the middle term, sub-state and regional issues emerge as dominant for the

three time periods that last from 8 to 128 years. In the long-term the sources of scope are

more spread out, but led by bilateral and regional dimensions (see Table III-4).

        It is entirely logical that the longer the duration of the conflict, the more likely

that it is a stalemate. The shortest conflict durations are compromise (28.6 percent). The

following interval is victory (38.9 percent). After this period the remaining times are

dominated by stalemate (see Table III-5).

                                          Table III-4
                         Scope and Durations (Percent within Duration)
 Scope                                  Duration of Conflict                                 Total
                0-2         3-7     8-16        16-32         32-64      65-128      129
               Years       Years    Years       Years         Years       Years     Years
Bilateral        52.4        38.9     17.9        11.1          20.8            0     28.6    25.5
Multilateral       4.8       27.8       7.7       14.8            4.2           0     21.4    11.7
Regional         19.0        11.1     20.5        14.8          33.3            0     28.6    20.7
Sub-state        23.8        22.2     51.3        55.6          33.3         100         0    37.2
Unilateral           0          0       2.6         3.7           8.3           0     21.4      4.8
Total             100         100      100         100           100         100       100     100

Table III-5
Outcome and Durations (Percent within Durations)
 Outcome                                         Durations                                   Total
                    0-2    3-7         8-16         16-32      32-64      65-128    129
                   Years Years         Years        Years      Years       Years   Years
Compromise           28.6  11.1           5.1         11.1       16.7        50.0       0     12.4
Loss                 19.0  11.1           5.1             0        4.2           0   21.4      8.3
Ongoing                9.5 16.7         25.6          18.5       16.7            0      0     16.6
Stalemate            19.0  22.2         38.5          40.7       41.7        50.0    28.6     33.8
Terror                   0     0          7.7           7.4        4.2           0      0      4.1
Victory              14.3  38.9         12.8          14.8         8.3           0   50.0     19.3
Withdraw               9.5     0          5.1           7.4        8.3           0      0      5.5
Total                 100   100          100           100        100         100     100     100

          Low level conflict and threats of conflict dominate the short term, as is expected.

Low threats continue as a pulse throughout the periods, but the highest level of conflict

occurs over the long term and is no doubt cumulative. Harm from conflict preparation is

often associated with weapons of mass destruction has a span of 20-40 years (see Table


          The noted attributes of time duration and conflict spill over onto continents of the

world. Short term conflicts are most evident in Europe, as are long-term cases. The

short-term cases have been peaceful and the longer-term have involved extended periods

when conflict has been violent. In the middle are the rises of conflicts in stages in Africa,

Asia and the Middle East (see Table II-7). This coincides with the nexus of habitat loss

as an environment link, deforestation as the environmental problem, and tropical areas

where the cases are occurring.

Table III-6
Conflict Level * Durations (Percent within Durations)
 Level                                      Durations                                        Total
                  0-2  3-7         8-16        16-32        32-64      65-128       129
                Years Years       Years        Years        Years       Years      Years
Harm            14.3%             17.9%         11.1%        16.7%                  11.7%
High            23.8% 38.9%       25.6%         25.9%        20.8%      50.0% 50.0% 29.0%
Low             38.1% 22.2%       41.0%        44.4%         29.2%      50.0% 28.6% 35.9%
Threat          23.8% 38.9%       15.4%         18.5%       33.3%             21.4% 23.4%
Total            100% 100%         100%          100%         100%       100% 100% 100%

Table III-7
Continent and Duration (Percent with Durations)
 Continent                                      Durations                                    Total
                      0-2   3-7       8-16        16-32      32-64      65-128      129
                     Years Years      Years       Years      Years       Years     Years
Africa                14.3  33.3       17.9         11.1         8.3           0       7.1    15.2
Asia                  19.0  27.8       25.6         29.6       29.2            0     14.3     24.8
Europe                23.8  16.7         7.7        11.1         8.3       50.0      28.6     14.5
Middle East             9.5     0      25.6         14.8       29.2        50.0      28.6     19.3
North America         14.3  11.1       15.4         14.8       20.8            0     21.4     15.9
Oceans                  9.6     0          0          7.4        4.2           0         0      3.5
South America           9.5 11.1         7.7        11.1           0           0         0      6.9
Total                  100   100        100          100        100         100       100      100

       The cases by region break down somewhat along regional lines. Eastern Asia, the

largest place for case concentration, shows more short and middle term cases in terms of

their duration. East Africa also shows a higher concentration of near term cases. Perhaps

these areas represent parts of the world where populations are undergoing the most

change, especially related to economic reasons.

       On the other hand, the longer term conflicts appear to occur in areas where

change is not as dramatic. This includes the Middle East (especially Asia and less so

Africa) and Europe. One-half of the Western Europe and the Middle East Africa cases

are in the long term category (65-128 years).

2.     Where: Continent, Conflict and Environment

       The focus here is on geographic continental locations and the types of habitats in

the world. Obviously, continents have more than one type of habitat so the measure has

some imprecision. They are proximate but not necessarily general climate types.

 Table III-8
 Habitats and Continents (Percent within Continent)
                                      Eur-     Mid-      North    Oceans  South
                  Africa     Asia     ope       east   America      *    America          Total
 Cool                           2.8     23.8                13.0                              6.2
  Dry                 36.4      5.6              96.4         4.3                           26.2
  Ocean                 4.5   16.7      14.3       3.6      21.7     100    20.0            15.2
 Temperate            22.7    25.0      61.9                  8.7           20.0            21.4
  Tropical            36.4    50.0                          52.2            60.0            31.0
 Total                 100     100       100      100        100     100     100             100
* There are four cases from the Arctic, Indian and Pacific Oceans

       Table III-18 illustrates the diversity of habits in each continent. Africa shows

both cases of dry and tropical cases in equal amounts. On the other hand, Asian cases are

largely topical and European cases mostly temperate. Some types of areas within

conflicts are clearly magnets for conflict and do not represent general spatial

distributions. While 96.4 percent of Middle East cases are in dry habitats, there are parts

of the region that are temperate (parts of Northern Iraq, for example). The same is true in

the fact that over 50 percent of the North American cases are tropical, but most of the

continent is not.

        Civil conflicts dominate in Africa (68.2 percent) and South America (60 percent).

International conflicts, the largest portion, dominate elsewhere especially Europe and the

Middle East. Most African and Middle Eastern cases encounter high levels of conflict

and most North American cases are quite low. Low level civil conflict persists in the

America’s (see Figure III-18).

   Figure III-18
   Conflict Type and Continent



            60%                                                                     Threat
            40%                                                                     High

                    Africa    Asia Europe Mideast       N.    S.
                                                       Amer. Amer.

        Problems and continental geographic locations are clearly linked. African issues

are related to Resources (31.8 Percent) as are Asian cases (25 percent) and South

American cases (40 percent). Arctic radiation poisoning cases represent nuclear testing

impacts. Europe cases relate to territory and borders, especially nationalities. Mideast

cases, not surprisingly, relate to water.

Table III-9
Scope and Continent (Percent within Continent)

                                     Eur-     Mid-      North         South
Scope            Africa     Asia     ope      east     America Ocean Amer.            Total
Bilateral          27.3      25.0     28.6     25.0        21.7  20.0   30.0           25.5
Multilateral        4.5        5.6    28.6     10.7        13.0  40.0                  11.7
Regional                     22.2     23.8     39.3          8.7 40.0   20.0           20.7
Sub-state           68.2     41.7     14.3     25.0        43.5         40.0           37.2
Unilateral                     5.6      4.8                13.0         10.0             4.8
Total                100      100      100      100         100   100    100            100

               Sub-state issues account for 68.2 percent of all African cases, suggesting that the

    conflicts have an enormous link to tribal tensions in countries (see Table III-19). Sub-

    state issues are leading factors in North America (46 percent), Asia (42 percent) and

    South America (40 percent). In the Middle East, regional cases related to water

    dominate. Europe’s cases are most varied and cross many scope dimensions.

               Stalemate is the most common outcome in these types of conflict. There is more

    compromise in North America than stalemate, an outcome of the largely peaceful US-

    Canadian relations. Victory, suggestive of conflict between intractable opponents, is

    highest in the Mideast, Africa and South America.

               Low scale conflict is most common and thus dominates most continents. High

    conflict is more dominant in Africa and the Mideast. Harm from preparing for conflict is

    strongest in Europe (23.8 percent). Threats are high in the Mideast as are threats in non-

    sovereign areas like the Arctic, Indian and Pacific Oceans (see Figure III-9).

    3.         What: Habitat, Conflict and Environment

               The type of habitat is compared to the environment link categories. There are

    some links that are natural associations. Tropical areas, for example, are more likely to

    encounter problems of deforestation compared to dry or ocean areas.

Table III-10
Environment Link and Habitat (percent within Habitat)
 Environment Link                              Habitat                                    Total
                          Cool        Dry       Ocean             Temp        Trop
 Deforestation                                                       6.5        22.2            8.3
 Habitat Loss                 11.1         5.3        4.5           12.9        20.0          11.7
 Pollution Land               11.1         7.9        4.5                       11.1            6.9
 Pollution Sea                             2.6                       3.2                        1.4
 Radiation                    22.2         2.6      22.7             9.7         2.2            8.3
 Resource                     11.1       18.4       27.3            19.4        26.7          22.1
 Species Loss Land                         7.9                       6.5         2.2            4.1
 Species Loss Sea                                   31.8                                        4.8
 Territory                    44.4       15.8         9.1           32.3         8.9          17.9
 Water                                   39.5                         9.7        6.7          14.5
 Total                         100        100        100             100        100            100

       Resource and territory conflicts are the leading types of environment links (see

Table II-10). Cool areas, which include Arctic areas, see a significant amount of cases

related to radioactivity and nuclear weapons testing. Water, as a cause of conflict,

amounts to 39.5 percent of all cases in dry areas. Species loss sea cases dominate ocean

cases (31.8 percent). Tropical areas are fairly evenly divided between problem of

deforestation, habitat loss and access to resources.

Table III-11
Scope and Habitat (percent within Habitat)
 Scope                                   Habitat                                Total
                    Cool        Dry       Ocean         Temp         Trop
 Bilateral           22.2%      26.3%      50.0%         25.8%       13.3%       25.5%
 Multilateral        33.3%        7.9%     13.6%         16.1%         6.7%      11.7%
 Regional            22.2%      28.9%      27.3%         22.6%         8.9%      20.7%
 Sub-state           22.2%      34.2%        4.5%        29.0%       64.4%       37.2%
 Unilateral                       2.6%       4.5%          6.5%        6.7%        4.8%
 Total                100%       100%       100%          100%        100%        100%

       Sub-state cases amount to 37.2 percent of total cases. Ocean cases are largely

bilateral affairs (50 percent), no doubt related to territorial claims. Temperate cases are

largely evenly divided between bilateral, regional and sub-state scopes (see Table III-11).

Tropical cases are related to sub-state conflict issues in 64.4 percent of cases.

           Stalemates dominate as conflict outcomes and total almost one-half of the

temperate related cases. Cool areas cases are equally split between withdraw, or loss or

stalemate (22.2 percent). In ocean cases, 27.3 percent are compromises and victory rare

(9.1 percent).

           Differing types of conflict occur in differing habitats. Harm to the environment

from preparing for conflict is one-third of all cases, again tied to nuclear testing in many

cases. In dry habitats, high levels of conflict occur in almost 40 percent of the cases,

suggesting these conflicts are among the ones most deadly. Threats of conflict are the

leading type in 54.5 percent of the cases, which no doubt related to the desire to

compromise as an outcome. Tropical cases are usually low scale conflicts (see Figure


           War or international conflict accounts for about 60 percent of all cases. All ocean

cases are international in nature, a consequence of the lack of sovereign jurisdiction, and

in cool areas nearly 90 percent of the cases are war. The only habitat where war is not

predominant is in tropical locales. In these areas, largely developing countries, civil

conflict accounts for 77.8 percent of all cases (see Figure III-19).

Figure III-18
Conflict Type and Habitat (percent)






               Cool     Dry    Ocean     Temp    Trop

Figure III-19
Conflict Level and Habitat (percent)




               Cool     Dry    Ocean     Temp    Trop

4.      Why: Conflict and Environment Links

        This section examines the data break outs on the key links to the environmental

and conflict aspects of the case. The conflict link can be thought of as a “Trigger” for

events -- those that set into motion action induced by differences between structural

factors. The conflict links are somewhat predictable in terms of whether the conflict type

is civil or war in nature. Conflict links such as border disputes, development of

infrastructure, preparations for war, water allocations from rivers, and natural terra-

forming are all mostly related to international types of conflict. Civil war is more

associated with political events, mineral resources, and wood resources.

        The environment and conflict links and their intersections reveal a significant

means by which these events are cultivated and are triggered. Border issues as a conflict

link is associated with territory disputes on land and species loss sea disputes on the

oceans. Infrastructure on the other hand associates with water (building dams) and

pollution land (buildings on small islands as a type of sovereign claim).

        Other categories align due to the logic of the coding. Preparations for war

(military base residues) relate to radioactivity and nuclear residue.   The conflict link of

resource-wood naturally suggests environmental links to deforestation, natural terra-

forming, often where rivers that serve as national boundaries shift, have a strong link to

territorial disputes (50 percent).

        There is a strong overlap between border disputes as a conflict link and bilateral

relations as the Scope of the cases (56 percent). Infrastructure cases, building dams on

rivers and structures on disputed islands, are often regional in the scope. Politically or

ideologically motivated conflict inordinately focuses on local adversaries, and link to

bilateral and sub-state levels. Water and regional issues overlap in 80 percent of the water

cases. Energy issues in conflict are related to sub-state issues in 68.8 percent of the


          Border disputes are often long-standing and prone to stalemate (40 percent) and

compromise (36 percent). This is also true with respect to water-related disputes.

Political disputes are most associated with victory and these conflicts are no doubt the

most expensive in terms of human life. Border cases often involve threats of violent

behavior. Resource demands produce differing types and levels of conflict. One half of

the cases related to energy involve a high level of conflict and nearly one half of mineral

cases. Wood and water resources usually related to conflict that is on a lower scale.

         Scope and the environment link vectors show a varied pattern. Of the deforestation

cases, three-quarters are sub-state in their scope. They are also dominant in habitat,

pollution land, and resource cases, but much smaller for the remainder of the categories.

The multilateral vector is important in radiation and species loss land cases. Bilateral

cases account for 71.4 percent of the species loss sea cases.

5.        How: Strategy, Conflict and Environment

          Strategic decisions revolve around questions related to the type of conflict that

ensues, how many countries are involved in the conflict, and the conflict outcome.

a.        Conflict Level and Conflict Type

       Threat and harm as a conflict level are much more associated with war, although

some instances occur in civil domains. In fact, these non-lethal aspects of war account

for slightly more than one-half of the total. About one-half of the civil cases are related

to low level conflict (see Figure III-20).

       It is not surprising that 81.4 percent of the civil cases related to a sub-state scope

(see Figure III-21). Most war cases relate to bilateral and regional levels of scope.

Figure III-22
Conflict Level and Conflict Type (percent)

                Harm         High            Low         Threat
                                 Conflict Level

Figure III-21
Scope and Conflict Type (percent)

              Sub-S     Unilat       Bilat    Region      Multi

Table III-22
Percent within Conflict Type
                              Conflict Type          Total
 Outcome                     Civil      War
 Compromise                      6.8      16.3         12.4
 Loss                            3.4      11.6          8.3
 Ongoing                       25.4       10.5         16.6
 Stalemate                     39.0       30.2         33.8
 Terror                          5.1        3.5         4.1
 Victory                       20.3       18.6         19.3
 Withdraw                          0        9.3         5.5
 Total                        100.0      100.0        100.0

       Stalemate holds the largest share for both civil and war cases (Table III-22).

Ongoing cases are much more likely to be civil in nature at 25.4 percent rate. War

between countries is more of a definitive event, with clear victors and losers in 40 percent

of the cases. Compromise is less likely in inter-state cases.

Table III-23
Conflict Level and Scope (Percent within Scope)
                                          Scope                                Total
 Conflict Level      Bilat     Multi      Region          Sub       Unilat
 Harm                   10.8      11.8       10.0           11.1      28.6        11.7
 High                   24.3      17.6       16.7           44.4      14.3        29.0
 Low                    29.7      23.5       36.7           40.7      57.1        35.9
 Threat                 35.1      47.1       36.7            3.7           0      23.4
 Total                100.0      100.0      100.0          100.0     100.0       100.0

       Sub-state cases involved high or low violence levels that account for over 85

percent (Table III-23). Regional conflicts are more often threats and low scale conflict

levels. Almost one-half of the multilateral cases are related to threats.

       Bilateral cases show a limited number of outcomes, especially compromise and

stalemate. Multilateral cases are more likely to be stalemates as are regional cases.

Bilateral cases show a great imbalance in outcomes, with a clear victory sometimes

common (defeat is more ambiguous, as in withdrawal). Multilateral cases, where formal

war is often declared, are more definitive victories or losses.

       Compromise seems most possible where conflict is at a low level or as a threat. A

clear victory is most apparent in the instance of a high level of conflict (64.3 percent).

Ongoing and stalemate situations usually related to low levels of conflict. Threats are

often associated with a loss, where one side backs down.

C.     Key Relations in Time

       The lengthy breakouts show threads of behavior that consistently show up

throughout the discussion. Below is a recap of the above break-outs with an eye towards

those recurring, key threads. The following section uses the lens of time duration to

piece together these patterns of environment and conflict behavior.

       Duration breakouts show definite patterns. While duration of years may seem a

long time from a personal perspective, from the historical perspective these are limited in

terms of the total spectrum of examples. One need only recall the 100 Years War to find

some relative bearing and perspective. Short-term disputes show very distinct patterns

between the first two years of conflict (near term) and the later five years (short term).

       The first two years -- or near-term cases -- are bilateral in over one-half of the

cases. They are more likely to include threats of conflict as well as low levels, so that

significant investments into conflict have not emerged. This allows for much more

compromise than in other durations (28.6 percent). North American disputes over

boundaries and specifically over the enforcement of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs),

and the protection of sea resources, epitomize some of these threads (see Table III-24).

Table III-24
Key Themes in Near-Term Durations
Time Period                Key Relational Theme
                                 Resource Other (Especially Sea Species)
Near-Term Durations              War Situation
(0-2)                            Threat of War
                                 Bilateral Dispute
                                 Compromise Outcome

       The medium term cases (3-7 years) are more likely to be multilateral (27.8

percent), with a high conflict and the threat of conflict prominent (38.9 percent each).

Territory is the source of conflict in one-third of the cases. Victory occurs most often

(27.8 percent). Europe seems to exemplify these types of relations and one-quarter of

Europe’s cases are related to territory disputes (see Table III-25).

Table III-25
Key Themes in Short-Term Durations
Time Period                Key Relational Theme
                                 Resource Demand (especially Wood)
Short-Term Durations             Civil War Situation
(0-2 and 3-7 years)              Low Level of Conflcit
                                 Sub-State Scope
                                 Stalemate Outcome

       Wars with significant environmental elements generally last a long time,

according to their duration. The focus on environment as a filter for discussion obviously

points the lens of inspection in that temporal direction. The majority of cases last from 8

to 32 years, broken down into two groups. Several threads emerge from this pattern of

time in conflict (see Table III-26).

       Conflicts with such Durations have a number of consistently appearing relational

threads. One thread shows about one half of the civil cases that mostly relate to sub-state

conflicts where resources are a significant source of dispute, the outcome is often a


       For Africa, which has 68.2 percent share of total civil conflict, this pattern shows

up once more (stalemates are 68 percent of the total, for example). Asia especially

represents these patterns in conflict, where stalemate accounts for 50 percent of the total


Table III-26
Key Themes in Medium-Term Durations
Time Period               Key Relational Theme
                                 Resource Demand (especially Wood)
Medium Term Durations            Civil War
(8-16 and 16-32 years)           Low Level
                                 Sub-State Scope
                                 Stalemate Outcome

       Long-term durations occur in situations where the exhaustion of a resource occurs

over an extended period. This is particularly true in environment cases and instances

where, for example, water is at issue. Conflicts over water in dry areas (37.5 percent) fall

under this general thread. These cases occur often in the Mideast and involve high

conflict, international war, and definitive victory. The cases are highly regionalized

amongst one another (see Table III-26).

Table III-27
Key Themes in Long-Term Durations
Time Period               Key Relational Theme
                                 Resource Demand (especially Water)
Long-Term Durations              International War
(32 to 64 years)                 High Level
                                 Regional Scope
                                 Victory Outcome

           The forecasts fall into distinct categories that again can be divided along temporal

dimensions. The earlier categorization of durations of conflict provides a framework for

aggregation which is used here. These periods can reverse the earlier backward looking

dimensions and assign weights or reliability based on these future periods (see Table III-


           These backward looking temporal views are telescoped into the future in time

periods of expanding durations or reliability and scope. Overlaying the historical percent

distribution of cases suggests that the case of the future, in the area of conflict and

environment, may be now emerging, but will persist over long periods. In other words,

most historical cases were not short-term affairs, but situations that averaged about 20

years in duration.

           Starting an arbitrary clock in the year 2010, the durations used earlier set some

milestones for thinking about trends in conflict and environment and what might be

encountered in the future based in part on past trends. Since these trends are long-term

the need today may be to look events that may persist over the long term, or over the

period 2021-2037, which accounts for over one-quarter of this type of conflict in the past.

The short-term future ends at the year 2037 and the long-term future begins (see Table


                  Table III-28
             Durations and the Future
               Future Periods from    Historical
 Durations             2010            Percent
0-2 Years                2010-2012           14.5
3-7 Years                2013-2020           12.4
8-16 Years               2021-2037           26.9
16-32 Years              2038-2060           18.6
32-64 Years              2061-2125           16.6
65-128 Years             2126-2353            1.4
Over 129 Years     2354 and beyond            9.7
Total                             --       100.0

       Unlike other types of forecasts, such as economics, long-term forecasts related to

conflict and environment may be more reliable the further into the future it is imagined.

Perhaps this optimal point is the 8-16 future period temporal view.

       The long and the short term have a separate basis in epistemology. The long term

forecasts are likely empirical extrapolations of past behavior. The short term focus has

more of a policy emphasis and thus related to the decision process of using empirical

information, especially that which is historical. Ideally, a model of use would combine

the short and long term and the empirics and policy.

D.     Key Linkages of Environment and Conflict

       Two categories appear of keen importance when considering the cause of

violence, from both the standpoints of conflict and environment. These two are the

environment and the conflict triggers for violence. Up to this point, most of the factors

relate to long-term issue of conflict management. The management of the issue also

requires numerous short-term interventions. The triggers provide that opportunity.

1.      Environmental Link and Relations

        The environment link to the conflict usually has a long-term connotation. But

long-term covers a broad spectrum of years. Some long-term problems, such as climate

change, may take thousands of years to cause change. Other problems, such as

deforestation, may take a decade or so. The time dimension almost requires more precise

words to describe time horizons outside the short-term. This time dimension is important

to consider as a background factor when looking at the triggers for environmental


a.      Environmental Link and Habitat

        The habitat change link stands out in tropical areas, accounting for 65.5 percent.

This finding seems at least to confirm what researchers say about the pace of change and

its possible impacts which include violence. Pollution related cases have a high

incidence in cool habitats. Many of these are associated with nuclear testing and nuclear

waste disposal by the Soviet Union. The resources in the dry areas (mostly water and oil)

are the major type of conflict (57.9 percent). Border and territorial disputes are largely

absent. Ocean cases, where territorial boundaries is a dominant issues, focuses on species

cases (53.8 percent), that are mostly fish.

        Species cases are mostly related to ocean habitats. The fish cases are about the

growing dominion of countries over the 200 hundred mile EEZ under the Law of the Sea

treaty. This unheralded agreement extended effective national control of area from 10 to

200 miles off shore. To some countries, this added enormous amounts “territory”, such

as Canada, and to others it mattered little, such as Austria.

       Territory cases are most of temperate habitat cases (38.5 percent) but also

constitute a large part of cool habitats (44.5 percent).   There are a large part of tropical

cases as well. This shows a general pattern of tension in the definition of a nation’s

borders. Some of these differences are solved peacefully, some not.

       Clear typologies of type emerge from the analysis. It is useful to know this a

probable type of problem to be encountered. This is the origins of some type of

predictive or reactive capacity (see Table III-29).

Table III-29
Environment Link and Habitat Cross-Tabulation (by percent)
Link                                 Habitat                                Total
                  Cool       Dry     Ocean      Temp       Trop
Habitat Change       3.4        6.9       3.4      20.7      65.5            100.0
Pollute             12.5       20.8     25.0       16.7      25.0            100.0
Resource             1.9       41.5     11.3       17.0      28.3            100.0
Species                .0      23.1     53.8       15.4       7.7            100.0
Territory           15.4       23.1       7.7      38.5      15.4            100.0
Total                   9        38        22        31        45              145
                   100.0      100.0    100.0      100.0     100.0            100.0

b.     Environmental Link and Conflict Type

       Habitat change highly associates with civil conflict (75.9 percent). It is no

surprise that local problems occur at a local level since this is where the habitat change is

underway.    Such problems are usually contained within state boundaries but as these

changes become more widespread they are spilling over more borders.

       A large share (75 percent) of pollution cases relate to war, especially in the

preparation for it. Nuclear testing by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and

others contributes to this total. Resource cases fall largely under conditions of war (60.4

percent). These conditions no doubt show differing combinations of push and pull.

Fresh water is a significant part of this equation. It tends to expand to cover every

country through which a river passes.

       Species cases are inordinately related to war (84.6 percent). This again relates to

the EEZ and control of species in ocean waters. These conflicts are ordinarily not

violent. Territory disputes is also (69.2 percent) highly associated with war. Since the

territory encompasses both the habitat and the species it. These disputes are related to

high amounts of fatalities.

       Civil conflict has a clear tie to changes in habitat, but war is common in other

environment links. The point is that there are clear proto-types of war types according to

the habitat types and environmental conditions that underlie them (see Table III-30).

Table III-30
Environment Link and Conflict Type Cross-Tabulation (by percent)
 Environment Link            Conflict Type        Total
                            Civil       War
 Habitat Change                75.9       24.1     100.0
 Pollute                       25.0       75.0     100.0
 Resource                      39.6       60.4     100.0
 Species                       15.4       84.6     100.0
 Territory                     30.8       69.2     100.0
 Total                         40.7       59.3     100.0

c.     Environmental Link and Scope

       Habitat change is largely at the sub-state level (65.5 percent) in terms of the scope

of the case. Combined with unilateral cases this accounts for three-fourths of the total.

Habitat change in turn amounts to about three-quarters of scope. This powerful dynamic

of habitat change, driven by population and technology, leading to intra-state conflict is

becoming a major source of conflict today. Deteriorating state conditions only hastens

the problem (see Table-31).

       Pollution cases are related to sub-state levels of scope (37.5 percent) as are

resource cases (37.7 percent). Species are the most common bilateral issue (38.5

percent). Bilateral cases are most often related to territory issues (36.4 percent).

Table III-31
Environment Link and Scope Cross Tabulation (by percent)
ment Link                        Scope                                 Total
              Bilat    Multi    Region      Sub      Unilat
                13.8       3.4      6.9       65.5       10.3            100.0
Pollute         20.8     20.8      20.8       37.5         .0            100.0
Resource        26.4       3.8     30.2       37.7        1.9            100.0
Species         38.5     23.1      15.4        7.7       15.4            100.0
Territory       34.6     23.1      19.2       19.2        3.8            100.0
Total           25.5     11.7      20.7       37.2        4.8            100.0
Across         100.0    100.0     100.0      100.0     100.0             100.0
Down            25.5     11.7      20.7       37.2        4.8            100.0

d.     Environmental Link and Outcome

       Habitat cases are related to stalemates in outcomes (34.5 percent). This means

that wars and perpetual and periodic. Over time there is a dwindling of the resources at

issue and an increase in demands (see Table III-32).

       Pollution cases result in withdrawals in 87.5 percent of the time. This indicates

that the cases never were serious disputes. Resource disputes are not clear victories and

often result in stalemate (41.5 percent). On the other hand these are 42.9 percent of the

victory in outcome, the largest share. Species cases relate to compromise in 38.5 percent

of those cases. These types of environmental conflicts have mechanisms for some level

of discussion, such as CITES.

       Of the Territory cases, 34.6 percent are part of a stalemate situation. These are

often long, intractable disputes. If the victory and loss cases are aggregated, the total of

these definitive outcomes is substantial. These cases account for a majority of the

territory cases and significant parts of the habitat, resource, species and pollution cases.

Table III-32
Environment Link and Outcome Cross Tabulation (by percent)
                                          Outcome                                         Total
Environment      Compro              On-      Stale-            Win- With-
Link               mise             going     mate      Terror Loss draw
Habitat              10.3             20.7       34.5      13.8 20.6    .0                 100.0
Pollute               8.3             20.8       25.0        .0 16.7 29.2                  100.0
Resource              9.4             17.0       41.5       1.9 28.3   1.9                 100.0
Species              38.5             15.4       15.4       7.7 23.1    .0                 100.0
Territory            11.5              7.7       34.6        .0 46.2    .0                 100.0
Total                12.4             16.6       33.8       4.1 27.6   5.5                 100.0
                    100.0            100.0      100.0    100.0 100.0 100.0                 100.0

e.     Environmental Link and Conflict Level

       Of the habitat change cases 51.7 percent were at a low level of conflict. As the

change in habitat occurs over a very long period, the fatalities gradually accompany it

over that period. The further into time the greater the total fatalities. The annual trends

act to mask the overall patterns.

       Pollution cases generally fall under instances of preparation for war such as the

building of military bases and the testing of weapons. The may involve a variety of

substances ranging from radiation to chemical weapons reside to run-of-the-mill

industrial pollution.

       Resource issues encounter mostly low levels of conflict (37.7 percent). Resources

issues account for about 50 percent of threats, so these threats may tend to become

violent. Species cases (61.5 percent) occur at a low level of the conflict. The species are

often poached to support the daily needs of guerrilla movements (eating elephant meat)

or to raise funds for them (selling elephant tusks). Of the territory aspects, high conflict

accompanies it in 53.8 percent of the cases (see Table III-33).

Table III-33
Environment Link and Conflict Level Cross Tabulation (by percent)
Link                        Conflict Level                  Total
                Harm       High       Low       Threat
Habitat             3.4       31.0       51.7      13.8      100.0
Pollute            50.0       16.7        8.3      25.0      100.0
Resource            3.8       28.3       37.7      30.2      100.0
Species             7.7         .0       61.5      30.8      100.0
Territorial         3.8       53.8       26.9      15.4      100.0
Total              11.7       29.0       35.9      23.4      100.0
                  100.0      100.0     100.0      100.0      100.0

2.     Conflict Causes and Relations

       The conflict link is the natural counter-part of the environmental link. Similar to

the flows of two great rivers combining to form a single stream, like the White and Blue

Nile, the environment and conflict triggers combine to orient the direction of violence in

the case.

a.     Conflict Link and Environmental Link

       Border conflict is naturally related to territorial environmental concerns (36

percent). Of the Species cases, they account for 46.2 percent of all. This is in part the

impact of the fish cases and the EEZ issue but also in some instances of trans-national

poaching (see Table III-34).

       Political acts are highly associated with territorial disputes (40 percent). These

are decisions to invade or take some action that is viewed as provocative by the other

opposing party. Over one half (55.2 percent) of the pollution cases are related to the

preparation for war.

       Resources are the common point for the two links, since the variable occurs in

both. Yet the resources association is only 55.8 percent. What are the other types of

resource cases? Almost 20 percent are related to loss of habitat that accompanies the

acquiring of the resource. Terra-forming cases are 46.7 percent of the resource cases.

The change in environment on a micro-level but massive scale coincides with a larger

change in habitat.

Table III-34
Conflict Link and Environment Link Cross Tabulation (by percent)
                               Environment Link                            Total
               Habitat   Pollute Resource Species Territory
Border             16.0       4.0      20.0       24.0       36.0            100.0
Political          32.0      12.0      16.0          .0      40.0            100.0
Prepare            10.3      55.2      24.1       10.3           .0          100.0
Resource           19.6       7.8      58.8        7.8        5.9            100.0
Terra              26.7        .0      46.7          .0      26.7            100.0
Total              20.0      16.6      36.6        9.0       17.9            100.0
                  100.0    100.0      100.0      100.0      100.0            100.0

       Some links are quite logical. Cases of access-forest are common in deforestation

instances (42.9 percent) which seem a likely definitional relation. This is also apparent in

that habitat cases related to human terra-forming (33.3 percent). Energy cases are a large

share of resources (83.3 percent), but access to forests, water and oceans also are

common themes.

       It makes sense that one-third of the water cases relate to terra-anthropogenic,

implying the diversion of the resource as an associated cause of war. One-third of the

territory cases are terra-natural, means that nature is the source for some disputes. Some

outcomes are also hopeful as in the 2004 Christmas tsunami in Asia and the impact on

civil conflict in Aceh, Indonesia. Relations between the rebels and the Indonesian

government are now peaceful in the aftermath.

b.     Conflict Link and Habitat

       Border conflict link cases are mostly related to Ocean cases, followed closely by

temperate ones. This again points to the EEZ and issues of “hot pursuit” when it comes

to access to fish stocks who may migrate across the national boundary into open

commons waters (see Table III-35).

       Political acts are the conflict link in tropical habitats in 40 percent of the cases.

This is in stark contrast to the share of tropical cases (22.2 percent), or about twice as

much. Political acts in these areas are among the triggers most difficult to predict. This

coupled with gradual habitat change makes these situations unpredictable. In

preparations for war, ocean cases amount to 31 percent. This usually occurs when

countries attempt to build installations of some type on disputed islands in order to

establish a presence and claim the area as territory. The conflict link over resources is

greatest in tropical areas (43.1 percent), which is lower than the overall share of tropical

areas in habitat (48.9 percent). Large-scale changes in landscape (terra-forming cases) in

tropical areas account for one-third of the total. The relative share of terra-forming cases

in all Tropical cases is much smaller at 11 percent.

Table III-35
Conflict Link and Habitat Cross Tabulation (by percent)
Conflict                          Habitat                                Total

                Cool       Dry       Ocean           Temp     Trop
Border             8.0      24.0       32.0            28.0      8.0     100.0
Political            .0     20.0       12.0            28.0     40.0     100.0
Prepare           10.3      24.1       31.0            13.8     20.7     100.0
Resource           2.0      31.4        3.9            19.6     43.1     100.0
Terra             20.0      26.7          .0           20.0     33.3     100.0
Total                 9       38         22              31       45       145
                 100.0     100.0      100.0           100.0    100.0     100.0

       Triggers are the spark that set of a conflict that may have environmental structural

roots. The sparks no doubt have differing attributes just as fires begin in a variety of

ways. The initiating fire can come from several sources, the heat of the fire may differ,

the kindling may vary, and the heart of the blaze may burn a dimension of materials.

       Dry habitat types show strong relations to types of relations to conflict triggers.

All of the cases related to access-water are in dry habitats and 60 percent of the access-

sea cases are. Dry habitats also account for one-third of the changes in environment due

to natural disasters and natural conditions.

       Ocean cases stand out in terms of the importance in Border Disputes, usually

related to the enforcement of EEZ’s (27.8 percent). They also are related to the building

of Infrastructure, meaning the establishment of “facts-on-the-ground” particularly in

cases of disputed claims over islands. The islands themselves have little intrinsic value,

but the value is in the EEZ line of resource claims such as fish and energy.

       Tropical Habitats also show areas of specialization. Tropical cases account for

more than 50 percent of the totals in the following Triggers: Access-Forest, Civil,

Political, Resource-Access, and Terra-Anthropogenic. The Tropical cases are part of a

nexus of cases. These relations epitomize many African cases but many from other parts

of the developing world as well. They suggest a resource-intensive base of violence.

c.      Conflict Link and Conflict Type

        The conflict link is also definable by the conflict type, although this is a bivariate

distinction. Thus the focus will be on differences where either Civil or War types is over

60 percent (see Table III-36). For border cases, war accounts for 80 percent of the total.

This is not surprising since these are the points where nations are defined. Prepare cases

are also dominated by war matches, equaling 86.2 percent of the total. As this relates to

establish a type of border this is also not surprising.

        Resource issues surprisingly are civil issues mostly (60.8 percent). These are

issues within countries rather than between them. Of the terra-Form cases 60 percent are

related to war. This represents structures for establishing sovereign claims or water

diversion and dam projects especially. The fact that 40 percent of these cases are civil

also indicates that there are strong internal resentments to water diversions.

Table III-36
Conflict Link and Conflict Type Cross Tabulation (by percent)
 Link             Conflict Type       Total
                 Civil      War
 Border            20.0       80.0      100.0
 Political         52.0       48.0      100.0
 Preparation       13.8       86.2      100.0
                   60.8       39.2      100.0
                   40.0       60.0      100.0
 Total               4.1        6.2      10.3
                  100.0      100.0      100.0

       Civil cases have a definite focus on resources. The access-energy cases are

mostly civil (83.3 percent). Political cases (63.2 percent) also dominate as well as natural

environmental changes (66.7 percent). In the instance of inter-state war, the patterns

appear quite different. Water shows an inordinate role. Cases of dispute over fresh (100

percent) and ocean water resources (80 percent) are concentrated and this usually has

military implications (87.1 percent).

d.     Conflict Link and Scope

       The conflict link to bilateral cases is obvious since border disputes involve usually

two neighbors. But alliance before also tends to include other into the dispute. Some

border disputes have a clear link to sub-state cases (24 percent), meaning that there is

support for rebel group who are antagonistic to their own government. This is quite

common in border disputes. Even then, a small part of the total (12 percent) of border

cases turn into region wide affairs (12 percent).

       Of the political types of conflict links 40 percent of the cases are bilateral. This

thread of connection suggests that border disputes are in many cases between two or

more countries where there is evidence of civilian ethnic differences also at play. These

usually are seen in less developed countries lacking in stable government structures. This

uneven context provides the basis for rather rash decisions, at least to some, that is a

combination of war and ethnic cleansing.

       Region cases 37.9 percent of total preparations as a conflict link. These cases are

often water diversion cases (such as the Nile or Tigris-Euphrates) where upstream actions

involve the region through which the world’s longer rivers flow. Resource access as a

conflict link is mostly made up of sub-state cases (58.8 percent). This illuminates the

issue of local control over valuable environmental assets. This is often then the result in

civil conflict. Of the terra-forming cases, 26.7 percent are also at the sub-state level.

These are sometimes often linked to the resources (see Table III-37).

Table III-37
Conflict Link and Scope Cross Tabulation (by percent)
Link                                 Scope                              Total
                  Bilat    Multi     Region        Sub      Unilat
Border              56.0      4.0       12.0        24.0        4.0      100.0
Political           40.0    16.0         8.0        36.0         .0      100.0
Preparation         13.8    24.1        37.9        17.2        6.9      100.0
                    11.8       5.9       21.6       58.8         2.0     100.0
                    20.0      13.3       20.0       26.7       20.0      100.0
Total               25.5     11.7        20.7       37.2        4.8      100.0
                   100.0    100.0       100.0      100.0      100.0      100.0

       Sub-state cases have an extreme focus on access-energy and access-forest.

Bilateral cases relate to access-sea, access-ocean, border cases, and military cases.

Multilateral cases correspond to access-ocean (33.3 percent) and preparation for war

(28.6 percent).

e.     Conflict Link and Outcome

       The conflict link and the outcome are important. The border as the conflict link

usually results in a stalemate (40 percent) or compromise (36 percent), meaning that these

situations usually are not clear cut victories by one side or the other. This is twice the

share for the stalemate cases as a whole. Of the political acts in the conflict link, 36

percent of these are related to a victory. These so called rash acts, because of their

suddenness and unpredictability, seem most associated with a clear cut outcome.

           Preparation shows no remarkable linkages. Stalemate and Withdrawal each occur

24.1 percent of the cases, suggesting that these acts do not usually reach some definable

objective. In fact, their purpose may be mostly provocative. Withdrawal from

Preparation however accounts for 87.5 of the total.

           Of the Resource Access cases, 41.2 percent are related to Stalemate situations.

The resources may be very specific in place (such as oil) or more diffuse (such as

diamonds). Both need a stable environment to enjoy these valuables but these situations

do not suggest this happens on a frequent basis. These situations are risky. Of the terra-

forming cases, 40.2 percent are again related to stalemate. Clearly defined outcomes,

such as a victory or a loss, however, each account for 20 percent of the total (see Table


Table III-38
Conflict Link and Outcome Cross Tabulation (by percent)
                                          Outcome                                            Total
               Compro-              On-     Stale-                               With-
                 mise     Loss     going     mate    Terror Victory              draw
Border              36.0     4.0     12.0     40.0         .0   8.0                  .0      100.0
Political            8.0     8.0     20.0     20.0        8.0  36.0                  .0      100.0
Preparation          6.9    13.8     17.2     24.1        3.4  10.3                24.1      100.0
                     5.9     3.9     19.6     41.2        5.9  21.6                 2.0      100.0
                    13.3    20.0      6.7     40.0         .0  20.0                   .0     100.0
Total               12.4     8.3     16.6     33.8        4.1  19.3                 5.5      100.0
                   100.0   100.0    100.0 100.0         100.0 100.0               100.0      100.0

f.      Conflict Link and Conflict Level

        Of the Conflict Links related to Borders some 40 percent are accounted for by

Threats (see Table III-39). This also is 29.4 percent of the total threat cases. Of the

politically-based links, 40 percent of them relate to high levels of conflict, thus

reinforcing that deadly thread. Preparation for war is 39.4 percent of all threats.

Resource wars are the major part of high conflict 39.4 percent. Terra-forming cases are

about one-half of the low conflict cases.

Table III-39
Conflict Link and Conflict Level Cross Tabulation (by percent)
                             Conflict Level                  Total
 Con. Link       Harm       High       Low       Threat
 Border              4.0       28.0      28.0        40.0      100.0
 Political           4.0       40.0      28.0        28.0      100.0
 Preparation        34.5        3.4      24.1        37.9      100.0
                     7.8       39.2      47.1         5.9      100.0
                     6.7       26.7      46.7        20.0      100.0
 Total             100.0      100.0     100.0       100.0      100.0

        Preparation for war related to environmental harm as a conflict level is strongly

related (57.1 percent). High conflict level cases are substantial in access-forest (42.9

percent) and these cases link to overt military activity on behalf of governments. Low-

level conflict cases are the great majority in access cases of energy, forest, and fresh

water. Threat cases relate to encroaching issues of control over commons areas. This

implicates issues of access to water and sea resources as well as the development of

Infrastructure (all at 40 percent).

3.     Scope

       Compromise is the most often outcome for bilateral cases (29.7), even though

Compromise accounts for only 11 percent of the total outcomes (see Table III-40).

Stalemate is the most common outcome in multilateral cases (35.3), but stalemate overall

accounts for almost 43 percent of all cases. Loss and victory are the second and third

highest at 29.4 percent and 23.5 percent. Together, over 50 percent of the multilateral

cases end up with a clearly end. This also accounts for 41.7 percent of all loss cases.

       At the region level, 40 percent of the cases find up as a stalemate, although this

only accounts for about 25 percent of the stalemate total. Regional cases seem less likely

to have a definitive outcome. About 35 percent of the sub-state cases are also of a

stalemate nature. These are often intermittent conflict in Africa that surrounds issues of

state sovereignty and control of resources. At the unilateral level 42.9 cases are also of a

stalemate nature.

Table III-40
Scope and Outcome Cross Tabulation (by percent)

 Scope                                    Outcome                               Total
                Compro               On-    Stale              Vic- With-
                 mise       Loss    going mate Terror          tory  draw
 Bilateral         29.7       2.7      8.1    24.3 5.4          21.6    8.1      100.0
 Multilateral       5.9      29.4      5.9    35.3  .0          23.5     .0      100.0
 Regional          10.0      13.3     13.3    40.0 3.3          13.3    6.7      100.0
 Sub-State          3.7       1.9     27.8    35.2 5.6          20.4    5.6      100.0
 Unilateral        14.3      14.3     14.3    42.9  .0          14.3     .0      100.0
 Total             12.4       8.3     16.6    33.8 4.1          19.3    5.5      100.0
                  100.0     100.0   100.0 100.0 100.0          100.0 100.0       100.0

4.     Outcome and Relations

       The outcome is of course a key indicator for creating a system of managing

environment and conflict. What is meant by differing outcomes in the short- and long-

term surely differ. A “Victory” or a “Compromise” may have vastly differing

perspectives when viewed from the context of 5 and 50 years.

a.     Outcome and Conflict Type

       Compromise occurs clearly most often in war situations (77.8 percent), meaning

that civil conflict is likely to have a peaceful conflict. Losses overwhelmingly associate

with war (83.3 percent), but victory only in 57.1 percent of the cases. Ongoing conflicts,

especially in the absence of large-power conflict, are mostly of a civil nature (62.5

percent). All withdrawals are related to war cases (see Table III-41).

Table III-41
Outcome and Conflict Type Cross Tabulation
 Outcome          Conflict Type       Total
                Civil       War
 Compromise        22.2       77.8      100.0
 Loss              16.7       83.3      100.0
 Ongoing           62.5       37.5      100.0
 Stalemate         46.9       53.1      100.0
 Terror            50.0       50.0      100.0
 Victory           42.9       57.1      100.0
 Withdraw             .0     100.0      100.0
 Total             40.7       59.3      100.0
                  100.0      100.0      100.0

e.     Outcome and Conflict Level

       Compromise occurs almost always in cases of low conflict and threats of conflict.

In cases of high conflict compromise seems less of an option. In terms of losses, one-half

occurs in threat situations meaning that these situations force one side or the other to back

down. Stalemate is the outcome in almost one-half of the low conflict cases and two-

thirds of the terror cases. For victory, 64.3 are related to instances of high conflict. Of

the withdrawals some 87.5 percent are related to harm to the environment (see Table III-


Table III-41
Outcome and Conflict Level Cross Tabulation (by percent)
 Outcome                     Conflict Level                        Total
                Harm        High       Low       Threat
 Compromise         11.1         .0       44.4      44.4            100.0
 Loss                8.3      25.0        16.7      50.0            100.0
 Ongoing            16.7      29.2        37.5      16.7            100.0
 Stalemate           6.1      24.5        49.0      20.4            100.0
 Terror               .0      33.3        66.7         .0           100.0
 Victory              .0      64.3        14.3      21.4            100.0
 Withdraw           87.5         .0       12.5         .0           100.0
 Total              11.7      29.0        35.9      23.4            100.0
                  100.0      100.0      100.0      100.0            100.0

b.     Outcome and Habitat

       Tropical climates are associated with a Compromise, but this has more to do with a

developed country tendency towards cooperation (38.9 percent). Victory and Loss is

mostly likely in Dry areas, where access to single resources (oil or water) is the major

abiding reason for conflict. The Tropical cases are where the most uncertain outcomes

are in order. They dominate in the Ongoing, Stalemate, and Terror cases, which are all

indefinite propositions. Conflict in the developed world is under control, conflict in the

Middle East is especially volatile, and conflict related to environment in the remaining

developing countries is a question that remains to be answered (see Table III-42).

Table III-42
Outcome and Habitat Cross Tabulation (by percent)
 Outcome                           Habitat                               Total
               Cool       Dry      Ocean      Temp            Trop
 Compromise        5.6        .0       33.3      22.2          38.9       100.0
 Loss             16.7     33.3        16.7      25.0             8.3     100.0
 Ongoing               4.2       33.3      12.5       12.5     37.5       100.0
 Stalemate             4.1       26.5      10.2       28.6     30.6       100.0
 Terror                  .0      33.3      16.7         .0     50.0       100.0
 Victory               3.6     35.7         7.1      25.0       28.6      100.0
 Withdraw             25.0      12.5       37.5        .0       25.0      100.0
 Total                 6.2      26.2       15.2      21.4       31.0      100.0
                     100.0     100.0      100.0     100.0      100.0      100.0

5.        Systems, Feedback and Behavior

          The relations that have been highlighted assume no causality and therefore

suggest two-way impacts. It is possible to arrange these relationships to create a picture

or a map of interactions. These interactions indicate a system and the relationships help

define the types of behavior that such a system might exhibit.

          The system might exhibit an overall mode of behavior, but within that system

there are specific modes within it that might operate in differing behaviors. There are

also behavior patterns that are part of feedback loops and others that are part of linear

paths where there is no feedback.

       Within the structure of the overall system there are sub-systems of behavior that

are much more focused. These systems are dominated by certain characteristics but not

totally devoid of others. There is thus mixed sub-systems in this model. There are three

types in the model: the Conflict, Environment and Policy sub-systems.

1.     The Conflict Sub-System

       The Conflict Sub-System contains elements from four categories: the Scope, the

Conflict Level, Conflict Type, and Duration. Two of the categories are directly related to

conflict, one to time, and one to the number of actors. Only those items in the category

are used which did show an important relation. Ongoing cases with indeterminate

outcomes are not included (see Figure III-23).

       Two types of patterns appear. First, there are feedback loops that are both large

and small. Second, there are linear threads with no feedback, at least from this level of

focus, do not feedback. Think of the map like a subway system. The total reveals four

loops or lines of interaction in the model sub-system.

       The red loop dominates the picture. The central locus of this huge feedback loop

is the stalemate outcome. These are anchored by the environment links -- habitat change

and territorial control -- and the two conflict links -- Border disputes and terra-forming

projects. These are also largely tropical habitats.

       This insidious pattern is deceptive since these changes in habitat take decades to

develop and thus the links to conflict are slow and long-term in nature. These patterns

are corrosive to the state, which are usually fragile in many of these nations in any event.

They also tend not to capture the interest of other large powers whose interest may be in

preventing such degradation and ensuing conflict. If there is some intervention in

periodic cases of conflict outbreak, it is certainly not durable over the long-term and such

interest will naturally wane.

       The blue loop starts with the environment link of species and the adjustment to

new territorial rules that apply to control over ocean areas. These disputes do not lead to

high conflict and are usually solved through compromise. These are hopeful cases of

conflict resolution, although they generally have failed to allow for adequate conservation

and often bow to economic pressures.

       The yellow line is based on resources and access to them. Terra-forming

contributes to the problem, especially in the case of water, which is the reason that dry

habitats are part of this line. This line runs through defined outcomes such as a victory or

loss. The outcome is also linked to conflict links that are political in nature.

       The pink line also shows a non-violent path. Pollution in cool habitats as

preparation for war, meaning militarization through weapons testing or the building of

bases, has receded with the end of the Cold War.

       The blue loop and the pink line lead to non-violent outcomes, one with an option

for withdrawal and the other an option for compromise. The red loop and the yellow line

have violent outcomes, one which is a determinate victory or loss and the other a

seemingly endless conflict of broad dimensions.

       Figure III-23
       The Conflict Sub-System

2.     Environment Sub-System

       The environment sub-system consists of four parts; the environmental Link, the

habitat, the outcome, and the conflict link. Two of the categories directly relate to

environment, one to the policy, and one to the conflict (see Figure III-24). Within each

category only those attributes are included where there was a significant relationship

identified. In total, 19 variables are included in the four categories. Two of the links are

loops and two are lines.

           It is again the case that the red loop dominates the sub-system, with the locus of

behavior focusing on the stalemate outcome. Prominent in this loop are disputes over

territory that focus on border and terra-forming Issues that take place in tropical place and

involve changes in habitats. There are often today disputes in Africa where a tension

between the boundaries of the state, the ethnic nation, and the environmental systems are

all at odds. The behavior suggests a negative feedback loop that resembles a vicious

cycle. This loop has a long time span.

           There is a smaller feedback loop that seems to have a positive connotation, or

virtuous cycle, the blue loop. In instances where ocean cases that involve species are at

issue, there are often cases of compromise as an outcome. These include many instances

of disputes over the enforcement of EEZ’s. These seem like adjustment problems rather

than long-term ones.

           The yellow line focuses on resources. Resources are dominant in dry places and

access to the resources in a key factor. These may be needed energy supplies such as oil

that is fought over in situ, and there are water resources that are fought over upstream and

by diversion. The yellow loop does have a link to the red loop through the Stalemate but

also a link to a definitive victory or loss outcome. These latter instances however are

linked to overtly political actions.

           The purple line focuses on issues of commons related to Arctic and small islands

in dispute for the EEZ. Thus there are links to preparation for claims of sovereignty and

withdrawal as an outcome. It also links to pollution in cool places, which implies nuclear


Figure III-24
The Environment Sub-System

3.     Policy Sub-System

       The policy sub-system links the key variables in the conflict and environment sub

systems and the specific attributes that are the focus of behavior. This includes

prominently the attributes of middle-term duration to the case and a stalemate outcome

(see Figure III-25). Representing these two attributes are the categories of duration and

outcome, which appear to be the most central places for system interaction. The policy

sub-system is defined by expressed linkages that exist between the duration of the

conflict and the outcome.

       Short durations are likely to involve compromise as an outcome while near term

durations suggest definitive outcomes such as a loss or a victory. The middle, generation,

and long term durations all link to stalemate as an outcome. Far in time cases relate to

definitive victory or loss outcomes. Where the environment and conflict sub-systems

show patterns of behavior that may involve feedback or linear causation, the policy sub-

system appears much more of a translation mechanism that a mediating force in the


Figure III-25
Policy Sub-System