Weaponizing the Earth: The Hidden Frontlines of Environmental Geopolitics

This article is part of our collaboration with International Policy Review at IE University. Photo Credits: Getty Images.

Abstract 

With a concentration on land-based environmental degradation, this article explores the deliberate weaponization of the environment as a means of achieving political, economic, and military objectives. It looks into the connection between environmental weaponization and the development of Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Life on Land) since 2015 and places the discussion within the context of environmental security theory. The paper illustrates how deforestation, agricultural sabotage, and scorched-earth tactics jeopardize food security, degrade biodiversity, and obstruct sustainable land management initiatives through case studies of the Amazon Rainforest and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It also analyzes how trade laws and international law could aid in dealing with these issues, pointing out both the benefits and drawbacks of sanctions and multilateral frameworks in situations where state players are involved. In order to stop the increasing weaponization of ecosystems, the article’s conclusion highlights the urgent need for improved supply chain accountability, greater support for civil society initiatives, and stronger enforcement tools.

Keywords: Environmental Weaponization, SDG 15, Environmental Security, Ecological Sabotage, and Sustainable Land Management.

1. Introduction

In recent years, environmental issues have taken center stage in global aairs—not only as challenges to sustainability but as instruments of geopolitical strategy. Previously an isolated issue, environmental geopolitics nowadays shapes the dynamics of power across the globe. Natural resources have turned into battlefields where states try to establish control, gain leverage, or undermine their adversaries all while mankind faces unprecedented ecological disasters. Land ecosystems, such as forests, agricultural land, and areas rich in minerals, are becoming increasingly manipulated for political ends. 

In light of Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Life on Land), this paper examines the weaponization of the environment, with an emphasis on land-based ecosystems. The preservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems are the main objectives of SDG 15. However, environmental conflicts pose significant challenges to the attainment of this objective; these range from agricultural disruption in war zones to deforestation for political leverage. Today, land resource manipulation is increasingly contributing to global conflict, displacing communities, and accelerating the demise of biodiversity. The deliberate destruction of natural ecosystems by states or actors to further their geopolitical objectives is known as the weaponization of the environment. The question this paper aims to answer is: ‘How is climate change weaponized by states to advance their geopolitical interests, and what are the implications for global stability?’ In order to answer this question, the theoretical foundations of environmental security and their relevance to power politics are first outlined. After that, this paper looks at specific forms of land-based environmental weaponization, such as land grabbing, agricultural sabotage, deforestation, and the extraction of rare earth minerals. These dynamics will be demonstrated in practice using case studies, such as Russia’s agricultural and forestry warfare in Ukraine, and the resource control and political conflict surrounding the Amazon Rainforest. The analysis concludes by evaluating how international law contributes to achieving SDG 15, Life on Land, offering legal measures to prevent environmental weaponization from threatening sustainability and global stability. 

2. Environmental Security and the Politics of Land 

Understanding weaponization of the environment requires a knowledge in environmental security theory, a paradigm that is becoming more and more important in international relations. Security studies typically focus on state sovereignty and military threats; however, environmental security broadens this perspective to include resource limitations, climate change, and ecological degradation as major security challenges. In this context, land becomes a strategic asset and resource, and control over it dictates state stability and geopolitical influence. 

The key principle of environmental security theory is that war can be initiated, increased, or prolonged by competition over natural resources. Forests, fertile ground, minerals, and other land-based resources are limited, and their lack or improper use can exacerbate competition. These resources can be weaponized by states to gain economic advantage, weaken their enemies, or project power. This is in line with realist theories about international relations, which hold that governments work to further their own interests, frequently at the expense of environmental sustainability. Nonetheless, the end does not justify the means. 

One instance of the weaponization of the environment is ecological sabotage, described as the willful destruction of land or ecosystems to reduce the ecological, political, or economic stability of another state. For example, targeted deforestation and scorched-earth tactics undermine local governance, displace individuals, and threaten and destroy wildlife. Similar to this, agricultural disruption or land degradation brought on by extractive corporations or industries can work as a covert conflict, jeopardizing long-term stability.  

These dynamics are linked to SDG 15, which aims to protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, and emphasizes land health. When land is weaponized, these prospects are placed in peril and the goal’s objectives are undermined, creating a situation where geopolitics overrides environmental protection. 

International frameworks such as the Paris Agreement and the UNCCD (UN Convention to Combat Desertication) address environmental degradation. The Paris Agreement seeks to limit global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while the UNCCD focuses on combating desertification and promoting sustainable land management in vulnerable regions. However, particularly in regions with conflict, they lack effective enforcement methods. Thus, this paper provides a foundation for examining how governments strategically manipulate ecosystems and land-based resources, often at substantial costs to the environment and humanity. It will then provide recommendations to strengthen the enforcement of frameworks aiding the achievement of SDG 15. 

3. Forms of Land-Based Environmental Weaponization 

Four key forms of environmental weaponization may be examined: agricultural sabotage; deforestation and land degradation; territorial land control; and conflicts over rare earth minerals. Each of these illustrates how terrestrial ecosystems are used to achieve economic and political dominance, in addition to directly endangering sustainable development, in relation to SDG 15. 

3.1 Agricultural Sabotage and Manipulation of Food Security 

Agricultural sabotage refers to the deliberate disruption of food systems to achieve political, economic, or military goals. Tactics such as crop destruction, resource blockades, and supply chain manipulation can undermine food sovereignty and weaken state resilience. Since the adoption of SDG 15 in 2015, agricultural sabotage has posed a growing challenge to sustainable land use and food systems. Russia’s 2022 blockade of Ukrainian grain exports, for instance, triggered global food insecurity, particularly in import-dependent regions like North Africa and the Middle East. While international efforts like the Black Sea Grain Initiative – a UN-brokered deal that allowed Ukrainian grain exports to safely pass through the Black Sea – temporarily addressed these disruptions, they highlighted the vulnerability of global agriculture to strategic interference. 

3.2 Deforestation and Land Degradation as a Geopolitical Tool 

Deforestation and land degradation involve the widespread clearing or damaging of ecosystems, often for industrial or political purposes. These practices reduce biodiversity, intensify climate change, and displace communities.  Since 2015, deforestation has surged in key areas like the Amazon, undermining SDG 15’s objectives of halting biodiversity loss and promoting sustainable land use. Under Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency (2019–2022), Brazil weakened environmental protections, resulting in record-high deforestation. This not only harmed ecosystems but strained Brazil’s diplomatic ties and hampered international climate efforts. While some regional reforestation programs and international pressure have emerged, progress remains uneven. 

3.3 Land-Grabbing and Territorial Control Through Environmental Means 

Land grabbing refers to the large-scale acquisition of land by states or corporations, often without the consent of local communities. It typically displaces indigenous populations, disrupts ecosystems, and reduces biodiversity. 

Since 2015, the acceleration of land grabbing has undermined SDG 15’s goals by prioritizing short-term economic gain over sustainable land use and the rights of local communities. A key example is China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has led to land acquisitions across Southeast Asia and Africa, often without adequate environmental safeguards or community consultation. Despite growing international concern, enforcement of environmental and human rights standards in these deals remains limited, such as the weak application of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) protocols meant to protect indigenous communities. 

3.4 Geopolitical Conflicts Over Rare Earth Minerals and Extractive Industries 

Rare earth extraction refers to the mining of critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which are vital for modern technologies and renewable energy transitions. These operations often degrade land, pollute water, and displace communities. 

Since 2015, rising demand for rare earths has intensified extractive activity in ecologically sensitive areas, putting SDG 15’s targets at risk. China, which controls over 60% of global production, has used export restrictions to exert political pressure, as seen in its 2010 dispute with Japan. In the Lithium Triangle of South America, mining has disrupted ecosystems and indigenous livelihoods. While some countries have implemented sustainability standards, global enforcement of said standards remains weak.

Whether it is through agricultural manipulation, deforestation, land acquisition, or mineral exploitation, the environment is no longer just a cause of conict—it is a tool of strategy. These practices not only sacrifice the integrity and vitality of ecosystems, but also endanger security across the globe. 

4. Case Studies of Environmental Weaponization on Land 

Case Study 1: The Amazon Rainforest: Resource Control and Political Conflict 

The “lungs of the earth”, or as it is better known, the Amazon Rainforest, stands at the very center of a geopolitical struggle that involves power, land, and resources. Recent years have seen a sharp rise in deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon, especially under Jair Bolsonaro’s administration (2019–2022). This environmental deterioration is not accidental or driven only by financial gain; it is rather a rejection of far greater political and strategic ends. 

In addition to reducing the enforcement of environmental regulations and promoting agribusiness expansions into protected territory, former president Bolsonaro’s administration deliberately undermined environmental protection organizations such as IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources). The administration used Amazonian land to garner political support by siding with powerful logging and agricultural groups while presenting environmental regulations as a barrier to Brazil’s economic development and sovereignty. 

There were multiple causes for this manipulation of land use. Initially, it catered to domestic groups such as illegal miners, soy producers, and cattle ranchers. Subsequently, it established national authority over an area that had long been the focus of international governments and non-governmental organizations that pushed for its defense. Bolsonaro regularly utilized nationalism as a rhetoric to defend environmental deregulation by accusing foreign parties of violating Brazilian sovereignty. 

The impact on the environment has been remarkable, regardless of the political narrative. With more than 10,000 km² of forest destroyed annually, deforestation rates reached their highest points in over a decade between 2019 and 2022. As a result, Indigenous populations have been displaced, biodiversity has collapsed, and ecosystems that are essential to controlling global warming have declined. Parts of the Amazon are currently emitting more carbon dioxide than they are absorbing, threatening the forest’s ability to hold onto carbon, a vital process for humans’ wellbeing.

This case serves as an example of how land is used as a weapon to project political influence, fend off other factors, and generate economic advantage. Environmental deterioration is no longer only a result but also an instrument of warfare in the Amazon, which has evolved into a geopolitical frontier. 

Case Study 2: Russia’s Agricultural and Forestry Warfare in Ukraine 

A fresh element of environmental weaponization emerged through Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine: the deliberate destruction and exploitation of land-based ecosystems as part of a greater military and geopolitical plan. Ukraine, commonly referred to as the “breadbasket of Europe,” is vital for the world’s food security. In addition to attacking human infrastructure, Russia’s operations have also struck natural reserves, forests, and agricultural systems. 

Grain shipments to nations in Africa and the Middle East ceased in the early months of the war as Russian soldiers blockaded Ukrainian Black Sea ports. Food became a geopolitical weapon as a result of these blockades as well as attacks on farms, silos, and transportation hubs. Russia increased pressure on Western governments and the UN to lift sanctions during the negotiation of strategic agreements by taking advantage of the world’s reliance on Ukrainian food. 

The damage done to the environment has been tremendous. Bombing has caused forests in eastern Ukraine to burn while landmines, chemical runo, and abandoned ordnance have destroyed agricultural land. In the first year following the invasion, over 30% of Ukraine’s protected natural regions were in peril, according to Nature. Furthermore, the conflict has disrupted conservation efforts, such as anti-poaching patrols in national parks like Askania-Nova; halted biodiversity monitoring programs for endangered species like the steppe eagle; and interrupted reforestation and wetland restoration projects that were central to achieving Ukraine’s SDG 15 commitments. 

Beyond the evident environmental costs, Russia’s actions are part of a larger ecological warfare strategy which utilizes environmental deterioration to undermine Ukraine’s resilience, economy, and governance. By demolishing agricultural infrastructure, Russia is weakening one of Ukraine’s most robust economic sectors, prolonging post-war recovery and shifting the balance of power in the region. 

This situation demonstrates how military strategy and foreign diplomacy are intertwined with climatic and environmental systems. Land is becoming a battlefield in and of itself, not only a casualty of conflict.

5. The Role of International Law and Policy in Addressing Environmental Weaponization

International law has faced challenges tackling the weaponization of the environment, despite growing recognition of the relationship between environmental deterioration and global security. Existing legal frameworks like the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertication (UNCCD), the Paris Agreement, and the Geneva Conventions over crucial frameworks, but have significant shortcomings in terms of enforcement, accuracy, and geopolitical applicability. 

According to the Geneva Conventions, extensive and substantial damage to the environment during combat is forbidden. These clauses are rarely implemented, though, and accountability is challenging. A large amount of environmental harm in contemporary conflicts, such as agricultural sabotage in Ukraine or deforestation in the Amazon, does not take place during actual combat or meet the legal requirements for war crimes. Similarly, the Paris Agreement addresses environmental responsibility, but its effect is limited due to the fact that it is not legally binding, and there is no possible way of enforcing any of these agreements between states, especially when it comes to state actors’ willful ecological destruction.  

The UNCCD mostly aligns with the aims of SDG 15 (Life on Land), which is concerned with combating desertification and land degradation. Nevertheless, the UNCCD is powerless to punish violators or step in when environmental weaponization occurs during a conflict. This illustrates the necessity of more robust, SDG 15-driven conflict resolution processes worldwide. Sustainability and security can be reconciled by integrating land and environmental protection into peace talks, post-convict reconstruction plans, and climate diplomacy. 

Furthermore, environmental security needs to be assigned more weight in the institutional frameworks of the UN and regional organizations. Response capacity might be significantly boosted by a more integrated strategy, such as designating environmental security envoys, setting up early warning systems for ecological sabotage, and extending the mandate of UN peacekeeping deployments to include environmental monitoring. 

In parallel, it is crucial to launch global information campaigns to build public awareness about the essential role of ecosystems in sustaining peace, resilience, and security. By highlighting the direct link between environmental degradation and geopolitical instability, such initiatives can shift public opinion, increase societal pressure on governments and corporations, and reinforce the political momentum needed for systemic reform. Only by embedding environmental protection into the global public consciousness can long-term sustainable practices be secured. 

States should place a much larger significance on the environment, on its care, and the consequences that come from its neglect. When the globe nally comes to understand the enormous importance the environment holds for the future, humans will recognize that the protection of our ecosystems is the strongest foundation for peace and human survival. 

Trade regulations and sanctions are instruments to counteract environmental weaponization. Deterrents should include targeted penalties against individuals or groups engaged in unlawful land grabbing, ecological sabotage, or deforestation. Limiting access to global markets for lumber or agricultural products associated with environmental expenses, for instance, may apply pressure on governments and businesses to adopt sustainable practices. Yet enforcing such measures presents challenges, particularly when national governments enable or shield perpetrators. In such cases, international pressure through multilateral agreements, supply chain traceability mechanisms, and collaboration with local civil society organizations can help identify and sanction responsible actors, although the overall effectiveness remains limited. 

International law must ultimately evolve rapidly to reflect the reality of the Anthropocene. The lines between ecological collapse, economics, and conflict are blurred by environmental weaponization. The international community must acknowledge environmental integrity not just as a development goal but also as a pillar of peace and global stability, given the ongoing abuse of terrestrial ecosystems for geopolitical ends.

6. Conclusion 

The environment, specifically land-based ecosystems, has emerged as a strategic tool in geopolitics. This paper has shown that the weaponization of terrestrial ecosystems is a deliberate tool of state power and geopolitical influence rather than just a result of war or development, as shown by the deforestation, agricultural sabotage, land-grabbing, and competition for rare earth minerals. These actions go against the core principles of Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Life on Land), which is to manage forests, prevent the loss of biodiversity, and protect, restore, and promote the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems. 

The findings point to a critical conflict: nations continue to exploit land-based resources in ways that exacerbate conflict, uproot communities, and hasten ecological degradation, despite the international community’s commitment to ambitious environmental targets. Examples from the Amazon and Ukraine show how agricultural disruption and deforestation are being used to establish sovereignty, undermine competitors, and solidify political power. The green energy transition’s extractive sectors, on the other hand, provide a conundrum since they both damage the ecosystems they aim to protect and provide answers to climate change. 

There is an urgent need for stronger policies that integrate environmental protection into the realms of international security and diplomacy. 

Ecosystems need to be understood as active sources of power and vulnerability rather than as passive backgrounds in order for environmental geopolitics to remain viable in the future. Not only is legal reform necessary to address this reality, but broader international cooperation based on ecological interdependence and shared responsibility is also a necessity. Land preservation needs to be viewed as a global security issue as well as a developmental one. 

When the world finally recognizes how vital the environment is to our future, it will come to understand that preserving terrestrial life is essential to fostering sustainability, resilience, and peace. Now, the task is to implement these insights into practice before the harm is irreparable.  

7. Bibliography 

Arctic Council. Reports on Arctic Resource Competition. Various years. https://www.arctic- council.org. 

Artaxo, Paulo. “Working Together for Amazonia.” Science 363, no. 6425 (2019): 323. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw6986. 

B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. Dispossession and Exploitation: Israel’s Policy in the Jordan Valley and Northern Dead Sea. July 27, 2021. https://www.btselem.org/water/20210727_dispossession_and_ exploitation_israels_policy_in_the_jordan_valley_and_northern_dead_sea. 

Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). “Revisiting the China-Japan Rare Earths Dispute of 2010.” CEPR, 2020. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/revisiting-china-japan-rare-earth s- dispute-2010. 

Dalby, Simon. Anthropocene Geopolitics: Globalization, Security, Sustainability. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2020. 

Dalby, Simon. “Environmental Security and Climate Change.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, July 1, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.168. 

de Waal, Alex. Food Security, Food Warfare, and the Future of Conflict. Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, 2018. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/food-security food- warfare/. 

Dinstein, Yoram. “Protection of the Environment in International Armed Conflict.” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 5, no. 1 (2001): 523-549. https://doi.org/10.1163/187574101X00130. 

Fearnside, Philip M. “Environmental Impacts of Brazil’s 2022 Presidential Elections: What’s at Stake for the Amazon.” Environmental Development 44 (2022): 100763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100763.

Ferrante, Lucas, and Philip M. Fearnside. “Brazil’s New President and ‘Ruralists’ Threaten Amazonia’s Environment, Traditional Peoples and the Global Climate.” Environmental Conservation 46, no. 4 (2019): 261–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892919000213. 

Forest Trends. Illicit Harvest, Complicit Goods: The State of Illegal Deforestation for Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Forest Trends, September 2021. https://www.forest trends.org/publications/illicit-harvest-complicit-goods/. 

Gatti, Luciana V., et al. “Amazonia as a Carbon Source Linked to Deforestation and Climate Change.” Nature, vol. 595, no. 7867, 2021, pp. 388–393. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03629-6. 

Hall, Ruth, Ian Scoones, and Dzodzi Tsikata. “Plantations, Outgrowers and Commercial Farming in Africa: Agricultural Commercialization and Implications for Agrarian Change.” Human Ecology 45 (2017): 737–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9908-1. 

Homer-Dixon, Thomas. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. 

Human Rights Watch. “Brazil: Amazon Illegal Deforestation Linked to Crime, Impunity.” Human Rights Watch, September 6, 2022. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/06/brazil-amazon-illegaldeforestation-linked-crime-impunity. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Sixth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2021 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Geneva: IPCC, 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/. 

International Committee of the Red Cross. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 12 August 1949. United Nations Oce on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf. 

International Energy Agency (IEA). Reports on the Geopolitics of Renewable Energy. Various years. https://www.iea.org. 

International Land Coalition. “Land Grabbing.” International Land Coalition. Accessed March 10, 2025. https://www.landcoalition.org/en/what-we-do/land-grabbing/. 

Jong, Hans Nicholas. “New Data Show 10% Increase in Primary Tropical Forest Loss in 2022.” Mongabay, June 27, 2023. 

https://news.mongabay.com/2023/06/new-data-show-10-increa se-in- primary-tropical-forest-loss-in-2022/. 

Klare, Michael T. All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2019. 

Lee, Jennifer. “Rare Earths and Clean Energy: A Geopolitical Balancing Act.” Wilson Center, January 24, 2023. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/rare-earths-and-clean-e nergy- geopolitical-balancing-act. 

Lieber Institute for Law and Land Warfare. “Protection of the Environment During an Occupation.” Lieber Institute Articles, July 2021. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/protection environment-during-occupation/. 

Mallapaty, Smriti. “Ukraine War Leaves Devastating Environmental Toll.” Nature, April 22, 2022. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01199-1. 

Oxfam. Land and Power: The Growing Scandal Surrounding the New Wave of Investments in Land. Oxfam Brieng Paper No. 151, September 2011. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/land-and-power. 

Pascual, Diego. “Lithium Mining in Latin America: A Double-Edged Sword for the Energy Transition.” International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), November 2022. https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/lithium-mining-latin-am erica-energy-transition. 

Selby, Jan, and Clemens Homann. “Beyond Scarcity: Rethinking Water, Climate Change and Conict.” Global Environmental Politics 14, no. 4 (2014): 19–36. 

Sustainability Science 16, no. 5 (2021): 1523–1536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00792-9. 

Sonter, Laura J., et al. “Renewable Energy Production Will Exacerbate Mining Threats to Biodiversity.” Nature Sustainability 3 (2020): 494–500. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0530-3. 

U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre. Myanmar: Overview of Corruption and Anti-Corruption. U4, 2017. https://www.u4.no/publications/myanmar-overview-of-corrupti on-and-anti-corruption.pdf. 

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Aairs. “Goal 15: Life on Land.” United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Accessed March 14, 2025. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal15. 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Reports on Environmental Security. Various years. https://www.unep.org. 

Zverev, Yaroslav. “War and Environmental Destruction in Ukraine.” Russian Analytical Digest, no. 284 (2022): 2–6. https://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digitallibrary/articles/article.html/5bfc77a2-eae6-4a8a-a031-fec4c32f1030.

Zhang, Qian, and Stevan Harrell. “Agricultural Land Transfer and Land-Grabbing in China’s Belt and Road Strategy: Ecological and Social Consequences.” Human Ecology 49 (2021): 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00243-z.

Finance for Nature 2021. Nairobi: UNEP, 2021. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/state-nance-nature-20 21. 

United Nations. Global Impact of the War in Ukraine on Food, Energy and Finance Systems. Global Crisis Response Group, June 2022. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-impact-war-ukraine 

food-energy-and-nance-systems. 

United Nations. “Food Crisis.” United Nations Global Issues. Accessed March 22, 2025. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/food-crisis. 

Westing, Arthur H. “The Environmental Component of Comprehensive Security.” In Comprehensive Security for the Baltic: An Environmental Approach, edited by Arthur H. Westing, 55–64. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0395-7_5. 

World Bank. Reports on Water Scarcity and Climate-Resilient Development. Various years. https://www.worldbank.org. 

Yin, Runsheng, Jianbang Gan, and Feng Wu. “Deforestation and Sustainable Land Use: A Political Ecology Perspective.”

Other posts that may interest you: