Facilitating peace or fueling conflict? Lessons in post-conflict governance and natural resource management

Author(s):  
Carl Bruch ◽  
Lydia Slobodian ◽  
Sandra S. Nichols ◽  
Carroll Muffett
2021 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-199
Author(s):  
Héctor Morales-Muñoz ◽  
Katharina Löhr ◽  
Michelle Bonatti ◽  
Luca Eufemia ◽  
Stefan Sieber

Abstract A major challenge in the field of environmental peacebuilding is showing the impact of its initiatives. Questions emerge, such as what kind of postwar peacebuilding dimensions are more likely to be affected by natural resource management projects? Although quantitative studies assess the relation between natural resource management programmes and conflict, the question remains: what are the mechanisms involved in implementing projects designed for environmental peacebuilding? To answer these questions, a mixed methods research approach is chosen, combining four qualitative and quantitative methods to triangulate results. First, we identify a set of peacebuilding dimensions and mechanisms based in the literature that facilitate assessing the impact of sustainable land-use systems (SLUS) design in the post-peace agreement region of Caquetá, Colombia. Second, not only do we interview experts and practitioners at global, national (Colombia) and local (Department of Caquetá) levels in the fields of peacebuilding, natural resource management and environmental peacebuilding, we also conduct three workshops and a survey in Caquetá to prioritize dimensions and discover explanatory mechanisms. The case of Caquetá, Colombia, shows that peacebuilding dimensions, such as socio-economic inclusion (e.g. sustainable livelihoods), creation of governance scenarios, and building capacities for dialogue and a peace culture, should be addressed to take account of the impacts of SLUS projects in post-conflict peacebuilding.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Krampe

This forum reflects upon the current state of research on post-conflict natural resource management. It identifies two dominant perspectives on environmental peacebuilding in the literature: one focused on environmental cooperation, the other on resource risk. Both perspectives share a concern for the sustainable management of natural resources in post-conflict settings and prescribe environmental cooperation at large as a means to foster peace and stability. Yet both perspectives also feature notable differences: The cooperation perspective is driven by a faith in the potential of environmental cooperation to contribute to long-term peace through spillover effects. The resource risk perspective, however, recognizes that resource-induced instability may arise after intrastate conflict; stressing the need to mitigate instability by implementing environmental cooperation initiatives. Despite the significant contributions of both perspectives, neither has provided any cohesive theoretical understanding of environmental peacebuilding. This article suggests a timely revision of the research agenda to address this gap.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 13002
Author(s):  
Katharina Löhr ◽  
Bujar Aruqaj ◽  
Daniel Baumert ◽  
Michelle Bonatti ◽  
Michael Brüntrup ◽  
...  

Social cohesion plays a key role in processes of peacebuilding and sustainable development. Fostering social cohesion might present a potential to enhance the connection of natural resource management and peacebuilding and better functioning of sustainable land use systems. This contribution explores the nexus between social cohesion, natural resource management, and peacebuilding. We do so by (1) reviewing literature on the three concepts and (2) studying four different key action areas in the context of sustainable cocoa production for their potential to enhance social cohesion, namely (a) agroforestry; (b) cooperatives; (c) certification schemes; and (d) trade policies. Research is based on experience from cocoa production in two post-conflict countries, Côte d’Ivoire and Colombia. Our findings show that by fostering environmentally sustainable agricultural practices, these key action areas have a clear potential to foster social cohesion among cocoa producers and thus provide a valuable contribution to post-conflict peacebuilding in both countries. However, the actual effects strongly depend on a multitude of local factors which need to be carefully taken into consideration. Further, the focus in implementation of some of these approaches tends to be on increasing agricultural productivity and not directly on fostering cocoa farmers’ wellbeing and societal relations, and hence a shift toward social objectives is needed in order to strengthen these approaches as a part of overall peacebuilding strategies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document