Integrating Pixels, People, and Political Economy to Understand the Role of Armed Conflict and Geopolitics in Driving Deforestation: The Case of Myanmar

Abstract

Armed conflict and geopolitics are a driving force of Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC), but with considerable variation in deforestation trends between broader and finer scales of analysis. Remotely-sensed annual deforestation rates from 1989 to 2018 are presented at the national and (sub-) regional scales for Kachin State in the north of Myanmar and in Kayin State and Tanintharyi Region in the southeast. We pair our multiscaled remote sensing analysis with our multisited political ecology approach where we conducted field-based interviews in study sites between 2018 and 2020. Our integrated analysis identified three common periods of deforestation spikes at the national and state/region level, but with some notable disparities between regions as well as across and within townships and village tracts. We found the rate and geography of deforestation were most influenced by the territorial jurisdictions of armed authorities, national political economic reforms and timber regulations, and proximity to national borders and their respective geopolitical relations. The absence or presence of ceasefires in the north and southeast did not solely explain deforestation patterns. Rather than consider ceasefire or war as a singular explanatory variable effecting forest cover change, we demonstrate the need to analyze armed conflict as a dynamic multisited and diffuse phenomenon, which is simultaneously integrated into broader political economy and geopolitical forces.

Spatiotemporal characteristics and the national variations of borderland use change in Laos within the geopolinomical context

“…This is strong evidence that geopolinomical relations are also drivers of LUC. However, research on the impact-response interaction between geopolinomical relations and borderland use among countries is still in its early stages (Cotula, 2012;Woods et al, 2021). Specifically, current studies on geopolinomical cooperation are largely static, focusing on describing the research status and problems of competition and cooperation, such as cross-border trade and cooperation (Watcharejyothin and Shrestha, 2009) and national policies and institutions (Dovers and Hezri, 2010).…”

The 10th anniversary of the scientific description of the black snub‐nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus strykeri): It is time to initiate a set of new management strategies to save this critically endangered primate from extinction

“…However, the control and competition for natural resources by different armed groups to obtain financial gain and maintain an army has become the focus of these ethnic armed conflicts (Simpson, 2014; Woods, 2019). In addition, continued conflict between the Myanmar army and ethnic groups has led to numerous human rights violations and a reduction in social welfare for poor families (Lim et al, 2017; Prescott et al, 2017; Simpson, 2014; Woods, 2019; Woods et al, 2021). For example, the 2016–2017 armed conflict in Rakhine State led to the almost complete demolition of residential areas, a sharp increase in forest fires, and large‐scale deforestation (12.5% loss) in the northern part of the state (Aung, 2021).…”

The (In)Ability of a Multi-Stakeholder Platform to Address Land Conflicts—Lessons Learnt from an Oil Palm Landscape in Myanmar

“…In the late 1990s, the military-led government of Myanmar promoted oil palm with the main aim of achieving self-sufficiency in edible oil production. Under this policy, Tanintharyi Region was promoted as the oil bowl of Myanmar [42][43][44].…”

“…Additionally, many of the granted land permits were rather inaccurate in terms of geographic location [42] and frequently did not consider the existence of villages in these areas. Furthermore, local organisations and researchers have identified the oil palm sector as a leading cause of deforestation, especially in the southern Tanintharyi Region [34,44,[46][47][48]. Moreover, the expansion of oil palm has also reduced the local population's access to natural resources, which are of high importance for their livelihoods, such as for agriculture or for collecting non-timber forest products [30,49].…”