Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The supply chain of violence

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 21 August 2019

This article has been updated


Every year, more people are killed defending the environment than are soldiers from the United Kingdom and Australia on overseas deployments in war zones combined. During the last 15 years, the number of both deaths of environmental defenders, and the countries where they occur, have increased. Recorded deaths have increased from two per week to four per week over this period. These deaths are primarily related to conflict over natural resources, across a range of sectors. Of 683 total deaths, >230 were related to mining and agribusiness between 2014 and 2017. We find that rule of law and corruption indices are closely linked to patterns of killings. Using spatial data, we investigate the drivers of these conflicts and violence and seek to identify who may be most at risk and why. We argue that businesses, investors and national governments at both ends of the chain of violence need to be more accountable.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Typology of violence.
Fig. 2: Key natural resource sectors driving violence and deaths.
Fig. 3: Global overlay of environmental defenders’ deaths (2014–2017) and natural resource drivers.
Fig. 4: Rule of law overall score.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request, and were sourced from the following organizations. For environmental defender deaths, see For area harvested, see For intact forest, see For mining concessions, see For major dams, see For rule of law index, see

Change history

  • 21 August 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.


  1. At What Cost? (Global Witness, 2018).

  2. Summary Statistics on Deaths Among the UK Regular Armed Forces (UK Government, 2018).

  3. Deaths as a Result of Service with Australian Units (Australian Government, 2018).

  4. DeBruyne, N. F. American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics (Congressional Research Service, 2017).

  5. Galtung, J. Violence, peace and peace research. J. Peace Res. 6, 167–191 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Peluso, N. L. & Watts, M. Violent Environments (Cornell Univ. Press, 2001).

  7. Le Billon, P. Wars of Plunder: Conflicts, Profits and the Politics of Resources (Columbia Univ. Press, 2012).

  8. Knox, J. H. Environmental Rights Defenders, A Global Crisis (Universal Rights Group, 2017).

  9. Ghazoul, J. & Kleinschroth, F. A global perspective is needed to protect environmental defenders. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1340–1342 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nixon, R. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor (Harvard Univ. Press, 2011).

  11. Middeldorp, N. & Le Billon, P. Deadly environmental governance: authoritarianism, eco-populism, and the repression of environmental and land defenders. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109, 324–337 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jeffords, C. & Thompson, A. An empirical analysis of fatal crimes against environmental and land activists. Econ. Bull. 36, 827–842 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P. C. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lynch, M. J., Stretesky, P. B. & Long, M. A. Green criminology and native peoples: the treadmill of production and the killing of indigenous environmental activists. Theor. Criminol. 22, 318–314 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wiedmann, T. O. et al. The material footprint of nations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6271–6276 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Finer, M., Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L., Keane, B. & Ross, C. Oil and gas projects in the Western Amazon: threats to wilderness, biodiversity and indigenous people. PLoS ONE 3, e2932 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Butt, N., Beyer, H. & Possingham, H. P. Globally important biodiversity under immediate threat in Yasuni National Park, Ecuador. Science 342, 425–426 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barletti, J. P. S. & Larson, A. M. Rights Abuse Allegations in the Context of REDD+ Readiness and Implementation: a Preliminary Review and Proposal for Moving Forward Infobrief 190 (CIFOR, 2017).

  19. Alden Wily, L. Risks to the sanctity of community lands in Kenya. A critical assessment of new legislation with reference to forestlands. Land Use Policy 75, 661–672 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Regan, A. J. Bougainville: large-scale mining and risks of conflict recurrence. Security Challenges 10, 71–96 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wijesinghe, P. Environmental Pollution and Human Rights Violations by Multinational Corporations (SSRN, 2018);

  22. Yusta-García, R., Orta-Martínez, M., González-Crespo, C. & Rosell-Melé, A. Water contamination from oil extraction activities in Northern Peruvian Amazon rivers. Environ. Pollut. 225, 370–380 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bratman, E. Z. Contradictions of green development: human rights and environmental norms in light of Belo Monte dam activism. J. Lat. Am. Stud. 2, 261–289 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Baird, I. G. Non-government organizations, villagers, political culture and the lower Sesan 2 dam in northeastern Cambodia. Crit. Asian Stud. 2, 257–277 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Burgess, H. & Burgess, G. Intractability and the frontier of the field. Confl. Resolut. Q. 24, 177–186 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Corruptions Perceptions Index (Transparency International, 2018).

  27. Rule of Law Index (World Justice Project, 2018).

  28. Jeffords, C. & Thompson, A. An empirical analysis of fatal crimes against environmental and land activists. Econ. Bull. 36, 827–842 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Deadly Environment (Global Witness, 2014).

  30. Global Study on Homicide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2013).

  31. Brazil: Pau D’Arco is the Second Largest Slaughter for Land Conflicts for 20 years (Business and Human Rights Resource Center, 2017).

  32. Menton, M. & Milanez, F. Now the real fight begins. New Scientist 240, 24–25 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Garnett, S. T. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schleicher, J., Peres, C. A., Amano, T., Llactayo, W. & Leader-Williams, N. Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon. Sci. Rep. 7, 11318 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Perraudin, F. Blackpool activists jailed for anti-fracking protest. The Guardian (26 September 2018).

  36. Wiedmann, T. & Lenzen, M. Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nat. Geosci. 11, 314–321 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Temper, L., del Bene, D. & Martinez-Alier, J. Mapping the front lines of global environmental justice: the EJAtlas. J. Political Ecol. 22, 255–278 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Adger, W. N et al. in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects (eds Field, C.B. et al.) Ch. 12 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  39. Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Limon, M. & Carey, M. G. Time for a ’Universal Magnitsky Act’? (Universal Rights Group, 2018).

Download references


We are grateful to B. Kyte, B. Leather and others at Global Witness for data provision and earlier discussion, to H. Beyer and A. Chauvenet for advice and help with data analysis, and B.A. Simmons for assistance with graphics. Thanks to the many environmental defenders we have worked with, interviewed and learned from. N.B. is supported by Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Award DE150101552.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



N.B., F.L. and M.M. planned the work. A.R. and N.B. analysed the data. All authors contributed to the writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathalie Butt.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1 and 2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Butt, N., Lambrick, F., Menton, M. et al. The supply chain of violence. Nat Sustain 2, 742–747 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing