Nature of Peace

Colombia’s environment in the post-conflict transition – New set-backs by the global pandemic

Farm landscape in the Putumayo department, Colombia. Photo taken by Torsten Krause, December 2019

By Torsten Krause*, Ana Maria Vargas Falla**, Britta Sjöstedt*, Sandra Valencia***, Fariborz Zelli*[1]

Here you can open the brief in Spanish / Español as a pdf:Download

A glimpse of hope quickly vanishing

In 2016, Colombia officially emerged from one of the world’s longest internal armed conflicts when the government, under former President Juan Manual Santos, signed a peace agreement with the country’s largest and most influential guerrilla group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army, also known as FARC.

Four years have passed since, and while some of Colombia’s departments have been able to enjoy a relatively tranquil time with the retraction of the FARC and the cessation of hostilities and violence, other departments and rural areas, have moved even further away from peace. For decades the FARC had exercised a de-facto state authority with rules and regulation in the territories previously under its control. However, since October 2016, when the FARC retracted from these territories as part of the demobilization process, the void has often been filled by a diverse range of new armed groups including criminal gangs. These gangs, referred to by local authorities as BACRIM,[2] have been trying to seize control of lucrative informal markets including the coca and gold trades. In addition, the power vacuum was filled by other leftist guerilla groups that have been fighting the Colombian state for decades. These include, foremost, the National Liberation Army (ELN)[3], but also former FARC guerilla fighters who rejected or abandoned the re-integration process and formed FARC dissident groups.

Thus far, the outcome of these developments is a complex mixture of violent armed groups, all of which profit financially from the general chaos of the power vacuum. While some of them, such as the ELN, claim to pursue larger political objectives, what all of these groups have in common is their main modus operandi, that implies a dangerous cocktail of illegal practices, violence and intimidation of local populations, including peasants, social leaders, international and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as large multinational corporations.

Farm run by former FARC guerilla members, Municipality of Puerto Guzmán, Putumayo department, December 2019. Photo taken by Torsten Krause

The consequences reverberate through rural Colombia once again in the form of forced displacements of thousands of families in the departments of Antioquia, Caquetá, Cauca, Chocó, Nariño, Norte de Santander, Putumayo, and Santander. Hundreds of civilians have been murdered, including numerous social and indigenous leaders that had demanded access to land and resources, had defended the rights of indigenous peoples, had tried to defend communities from illegal mining and drug trade, had been involved in coca eradication initiatives, or had protected the environment from polluting mining practices and illegal logging[4]. This continuous conflict has earned Colombia the inglorious 2^nd and 3^rd places, respectively, among the countries with the highest number of assassinations of human right defenders and social and environmental leaders in the past four years (Witness 2017, 2019, UN 2020).

A new victim: The environment

Thus, while it might seem from an outsider’s perspective that the Colombian armed conflict has come to an end, the life of many people in rural areas is in reality marked by ruthless violence and intimidations that have come to haunt areas of the countryside once more. What is new this time is that the targets of harm include not just human beings, such as farmers, social leaders and indigenous people, but also the natural environment. Ever since the cease fire between the FARC and Colombian state in 2014 and the signing of the peace agreement in 2016, deforestation in Colombia has soared and there is a strong overlap between areas that record high levels of violence since the peace agreement and those that exhibit illegal conversion of forests to agricultural land uses, cattle pastures and coca plantations (Prem et al. 2018, Negret et al. 2019, Clerici et al. 2020, Murillo Sandoval et al. 2020). In particular the Amazon frontier departments of Colombia are experiencing a sharp rise in deforestation (see Fig.1) (Clerici et al. 2020).

Deforestation rates in Colombia, the Amazon region and individual Amazonian departments. The dashed line in 2014 indicates the year when the indefinite ceasefire between the FARC and the Colombian government was agreed. Source: Global Forest Watch 2020.

To make matters worse and more complicated, environmental and social organizations are becoming a target of intimidation and violence too. A recent pamphlet that was circulated, supposedly by a FARC dissident group, sends a warning to anybody who collaborates with organizations working on environmental projects in the Amazons and other regions. The pamphlet explicitly mentions international organizations (namely, the Organization of American States – OAS and USAID), national programs to fight deforestation (Visión Amazonía), research institutions (the Colombian Institute for Amazonic Scientific Research – SINCHI), regional environmental authorities (in particular, the Corporation for the Sustainable Development of the North and Oriental Amazon – CDA; and Corpoamazonia) as well as the Colombian National Park Authority (Infoamazonia, April 16, 2020).[5] In the past months, national park rangers have been increasingly targeted by armed groups, some have been assassinated, and they had to abandon their posts in many of the national parks in the Andean-Amazon region, unable to control intrusion and deforestation.

In recent months alone, deforestation has considerably soared again, and is particularly severe in the Tinigua and La Macarena national parks in the Meta department, as well as in the Nukak indigenous reservation in the Guaviare department (FIP, 2020).[6] There are several explanations for this development, but it is first and foremost attributable to processes of land grabbing, mainly by large landowners, who seek to use the current void and absence of state control to expand their land holdings by cutting down large stretches of forests (Van Dexter and Visseren-Hamakers 2019, Murillo Sandoval et al. 2020). By putting cattle on these newly deforested areas they hope to be able to claim these lands in the future. Put differently, the peace agreement and FARC’s demobilization raise expectations and opportunities of big land owners to eventually obtain legal land titles. Unfortunately, thus, the peace process must be considered an unintended driver of land grabbing and illegal land markets (Murillo Sandoval et al. 2020).

Apart from the serious long-term environmental consequences that deforestation leads to, it also brings to light the underlying issue that fueled the armed conflict in Colombia in the first place, namely the highly unequal access to, and control of, land in Colombia. A small share of landowners possesses the majority of agricultural lands in the country. This unequal distribution was, ironically, perpetuated by armed groups during the conflict due to the violent displacements of small-scale farmers, and it has now further increased in the aftermath of the peace agreement (Guereña 2017).

Recent patches of deforestation in the Guaviare department. Photo taken by Torsten Krause, June 2017.

The Amazon frontier region in the Guaviare department with encroaching agricultural activities. Photo taken by Torsten Krause, June 2017.

The rise in coca plantations over the past 10 years is another environmentally harmful development that complicates Colombia’s transition to peace (Fig. 2). During the armed conflict the production and trade of cocaine was a major income generating activity for different factions. The FARC, ELN and paramilitaries used it to finance their operations, buy weapons, pay their soldiers and make a lot of money. The high profitability of the globally demanded product, the established system from cultivation, production to export as well as the acquired know-how in Colombia, all facilitate the continuation of the lucrative cocaine trade. The current trade includes some of the actors from before the peace agreement, but also new ones that seek to control the business, most notably notorious Mexican cartels, such as the Gulf, Sinaloa and New Jalisco cartels.

Furthermore, Colombia has also experienced an increase in the mining of minerals, such as gold and coltan (Ballvé 2012, Guevara et al. 2016). By some estimates, approximately 85% of precious ore mining in Colombia, in its majority gold, is illegal.[7] Armed groups are often involved in these mining and trade operations. The use of mercury in the extraction process is resulting in devastating health and environmental consequences for local populations, rivers and forests. A rise in homicides and massacres associated with illegal gold mining has also been reported (Guevara et al. 2016).

Extent of coca cultivation in Colombia. Source: U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)

A new set-back by Covid-19

The aforementioned setbacks to the post-conflict transition, and the negative social and environmental impacts in particular, are further exacerbated and reinforced by the Covid-19 pandemic caused by the current coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). In addition to its detrimental health impacts, the Covid-19 pandemic has developed into a powerful social and political force by occupying and channeling key public discourses and political attention. With these multi-dimensional implications, we argue that the current pandemic poses a major threat for the Colombian peace transition and for the natural environment in several ways.

First, the crisis caused by the spread of the coronavirus and the ensuing strict stay-at-home quarantine, declared nation-wide by President Duque from March 24 this year, has diverted considerable attention and response capacities away from the tensions in rural and frontier areas (FIP, 2020, p. 16). This reinforces the already existing governance gaps in these areas at a time when both local vulnerable communities and the environment are in even higher demand of protection.

With regard to vulnerable groups, the violence in Colombia’s rural areas has continued despite the quarantine, and there have been numerous registers of assassinations of social and indigenous leaders during the lockdown.[8] The Ideas for Peace Foundation (FIP – Fundación Ideas para la Paz in Spanish) argues that social and indigenous leaders can be more vulnerable during the quarantine as their routines and locations become more predictable. In its recent report on armed conflict dynamics during the pandemic FIP provided evidence showing that attacks on oil pipelines have intensified over the first four months of 2020, while deforestation and illegal mining practices are persisting.

These worrying developments notwithstanding, there are a few signs of improvement. For one, the overall number of attacks carried out by armed groups has declined in April. This may be explained by the ELN’s declaration of cease fire with a view to the corona crisis (FIP, 2020, p. 8). Likewise, the number of violent deaths has been steadily decreasing since early 2019 in municipalities that are implementing specific initiatives based on the peace agreement. These include the Development Programs with Territorial Focus (PDET in Spanish) and the National Program for the Integral Substitution of Illicit Crops (PNIS in Spanish) (ibid., p. 13). Nonetheless, a few areas have not followed this positive trend though and instead witnessed and increase in the death toll. This goes for Santa Marta in the Magdalena department, Tarazá and Segovia in Antioquia, and most notably in El Tambo in Cauca (22 violent deaths between January and April 2020, compared to 8 during the same period in 2019) (ibid., p. 15).

With respect to the environment, armed groups, settlers (colonos) and landgrabbers have been further moving into forested areas, causing massive deforestation during the coronavirus crisis, while environmental organizations, both public and private ones, can do even less due to the quarantine-related mobility restrictions (FIP, 2020). The example of Brazil gives a bleak outlook of what more is about to happen in Colombian Amazon regions. In Colombia’s biggest neighbor, deforestation in the Amazon region has soared considerably in the first weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic, also due to the reduced enforcement power of the national environmental agencies.

In addition to these direct social and ecological consequences of pandemic, we expect stark indirect negative impacts, fueled by global economic downturn. The associated fall in demand for oil has already resulted in a slump of oil prices, which, in turn, has entailed a substantial increase of the price for gold. This provides an incentive to further expand gold mining activities and will likely exacerbate violence and its severe negative social and environmental repercussions (Guevara et al. 2016, Rodríguez and Galvis 2016).

As one example of such a dynamic, the Wiwa indigenous group, located in the Guajira department in the north of the country, reported that, during the pandemic, illegal mining of gold in their ancestral territory has intensified. Studies conducted in the area prior to the pandemic had already revealed high concentrations of heavy metals in rivers and fish attributable to mining activities.[9] These activities are carried out by outsiders who carry weapons and are often linked to armed groups. Besides the immediate concerns for security and environment,[10] the Wiwa community is worried about a heightened risk of SARS-Cov2-infection by the illegal miners (FIP, 2020).

A challenging road ahead

Colombia’s transition to peace is heading towards a difficult path and the Covid-19 pandemic is most likely more than a minor roadblock. Due its major social and environmental consequences, it may undermine the small positive efforts taken towards a sustainable peace so far.

Where does this lead us? On the one hand, and in spite of these developments and dynamics, many people in Colombia do still believe in the peace process. The FARC party, composed of demobilized leaders, frequently reinstates its commitment to the process. Efforts continue to integrate FARC ex-combatants into civilian life. Some of these efforts include agricultural projects, training programs and conservation initiatives (e.g. Ambientes para la Paz – Environments for Peace program[11]). In addition, even if peace talks have not succeeded with the ELN, some of its members are starting to demobilize[12].

On the other hand, the Colombian government struggles to build lasting and sustainable peace. Already before the current pandemic, the government had been in a balancing act. It had to keep up its discourse to build lasting peace and to satisfy the demands of international forest conservation activists and project donors (Krause, 2020). On the other hand, pressure has been mounting from within the government and the private sector to gear up the extraction of natural resources in the form of mining, infrastructure and industrial agriculture (DNP 2018). Such activities, however, are more akin to traditional models of economic growth.

There is no doubt that Colombia’s social and environmental problems are considerably shaped by global market demands for agricultural produce, oil, minerals and coca. This notwithstanding, there are fundamental domestic reasons, starting with governmental policies that directly and indirectly incentivize environmental degradation. The strong inequalities in land access and ownership that have been underlying the decade-long armed conflict have still not been tackled sufficiently. Instead, the severe enforcement gaps to address land grabbing and illegal mining de facto turn a blind eye to local corruption, violence and assassinations. As long as these contradictions and shortcomings are not openly discussed and acted upon in a comprehensive manner, the armed conflict over resources and land will be perpetuated – and with it the severe social and environmental crisis in Colombia.

References

Ballvé, T. 2012. Everyday State Formation: Territory, Decentralization, and the Narco Landgrab in Colombia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30:603-622.

Clerici, N., D. Armenteras, P. Kareiva, R. Botero, J. P. Ramírez-Delgado, G. Forero-Medina, J. Ochoa, C. Pedraza, L. Schneider, C. Lora, C. Gómez, M. Linares, C. Hirashiki, and D. Biggs. 2020. Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-conflict periods. Scientific Reports 10:4971.

DNP. 2018. Bases del Plan Nacional de Desarollo 2018-2022. Page 945 in D. N. d. Planeación, editor. Government of Colombia, Bogotá.

FIP. 2020. Dinámicas de la Confrontación Armada y su Impacto Humanitario y Ambiental: Tendencias en la Pandemia – Enero a Abril 2020. Fundación Ideas para la Paz, Bogotá.

Guereña, A. 2017. A Snapshot of Inequality – What the Latest Agricultural Census Reveals About Land Distribution in Colombia. Oxfam.

Guevara, E. L., N. Duarte, and E. Salcedo-Albarán. 2016. Introduction to Trafficking of Gold and Coltan in Colombia. Vortex Foundation, Bogotá.

Krause, T., Reducing deforestation in Colombia while building peace and pursuing business as usual extractivism? Journal of Political Ecology, 2020. 27(1): p. 17.

Murillo Sandoval, P. J., K. Van Dexter, J. Van Den Hoek, D. Wrathall, and R. Kennedy, E. . 2020. The end of gunpoint conservation: Forest disturbance after the Colombian peace agreement. Environmental Research Letters.

Negret, P. J., L. Sonter, J. E. M. Watson, H. P. Possingham, K. R. Jones, C. Suarez, J. M. Ochoa-Quintero, and M. Maron. 2019. Emerging evidence that armed conflict and coca cultivation influence deforestation patterns. Biological Conservation:108176.

Prem, M., S. Saavedra, and J. F. Vargas. 2018. End-Of-Conflict Deforestation: Evidence from Colombia’s Peace Agreement. Universidad de Rosario, Bogotá.

Rodríguez, C. A., and S. R. Galvis. 2016. El oro, la contaminación y los seres del agua. Visiones locales de los impactos ambientales de la minería en el mundo acuático de la Amazonia colombiana., Tropenbos Internacional Colombia.

UN. 2020. Colombia: ‘Staggering number’ of human rights defenders killed in 2019. United Nations, n/a.

Van Dexter, K., and I. Visseren-Hamakers. 2019. Forests in the time of peace. Journal of Land Use Science:1-16.

Witness, G. 2017. Environmental Activists. Global Witness, London.

Witness, G. 2019. Enemies of the state? How governments and business silence land and environmental defenders.

[1] Affiliation: *Lund University, ** Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy, *** Chalmers University of Technology.

[2] In its nomenclature of 2016, the Ministry of Defense (through the Directiva permanente 15 de 2016)officially distinguished Criminal Bands (Bandas Criminales – BACRIM) from Organized Armed Groups (Grupos Armados Organizados – GAO)and Organized Crime Groups (Grupo Delictivo Organizado – GDO).

[3] There have been several attempts to hold peace negotiations between the Colombian Government and the ELN. In October 2016, both parties announced the initiation of peace talks, which officially started in February 2017 in Quito, Ecuador. However, the talks faced several obstacles including the ELN refusing to release kidnapped hostages. The negotiations were cancelled by President Ivan Duque after ELN attacked a military school in Bogotá killing 21 people and injuring 68 in January 2019.

[4] According to January 2020 data from the Colombia Ombudsman Office, an estimate of 555 social leaders were assassinated since 2016 (https://www.defensoria.gov.co/es/nube/enlosmedios/8996/Al-menos-555-l%C3%ADderes-sociales-han-sido-asesinados-entre-2016-y-2019-Defensor%C3%ADa-del-Pueblo.htm).

[5] See: https://www.elespectador.com/noticias/medio-ambiente/panfletos-firmados-por-disidencias-de-las-farc-invitan-deforestar-la-amazonia-articulo-914948

[6] See: https://www.eltiempo.com/vida/medio-ambiente/la-deforestacion-va-a-un-ritmo-exagerado-con-o-sin-pandemia-488750

[7] See: https://www.eltiempo.com/vida/medio-ambiente/coronavirus-en-colombia-francia-marquez-explica-por-que-mineria-se-incrementara-tras-la-pandemia-490444

[8] See: https://www.elespectador.com/colombia2020/pais/los-rostros-y-luchas-de-los-lideres-sociales-asesinados-en-lo-corrido-del-2020-articulo-913792

[9] https://sostenibilidad.semana.com/medio-ambiente/articulo/la-mineria-ilegal-azota-al-territorio-wiwa/47864

[10] https://www.eltiempo.com/vida/medio-ambiente/en-cuarentena-indigenas-denuncian-mineria-ilegal-en-su-territorio-490582

[11] https://www.co.undp.org/content/colombia/es/home/projects/ambientes-para-la-paz.html

[12] https://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/colombia-no-puede-tener-la-pandemia-del-virus-y-la-pandemia-de-la-violencia/667189

May 31, 2020

Torsten Krause

This entry was posted in

Uncategorized

Comments

2 Comments Leave a comment

New research project: At the nexus between peace and nature in Uganda and Colombia

We will evaluate the changes in livelihoods and their impacts on the natural enviroment after the end of the armed conflict.Credit: Brian Harries, licensed under CC BY 2.0

From the Amazon forest and the Andean mountains in Colombia to the vast plains and valleys in northern Uganda, The Nature of Peace research group will explore the connection between the peace processes and the ongoing environmental changes and their social and human rights implications in these two post-conflict societies.

For the next three years, our interdisciplinary research team – with members from Lund University, the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and the University of Gothenburg – will investigate how peace peacebuilding impacts the natural environment and how, in turn, environmental concerns are integrated into stabilization policies of these two countries.

The cases of Colombia and Uganda bring key insights about the connections between the natural environment and the post-conflict policies. Credit: Laura Betancur A. and Nina R. licensed under CC BY 2.0

Both cases bring relevant insight into the environmental peacebuilding research agenda. On the one hand, Colombia and Uganda have similar trends regarding low environmental awareness and dominance of resource-exploiting preferences and discourses. On the other hand, they provide geographical diversity with their embeddedness in two world regions, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively. Additionally, we expect novel and timely insights considering the recent post-conflict phase in Colombia since 2016; and more longstanding outcomes from the peace processes in Uganda, where the stabilization period has taken place since 2007.

For both countries, we mainly inquire to which extent there are concerns of environmental protection integrated or neglected in the post-conflict peacebuilding process? To gain a deeper understanding, we aim to identify the major drivers and conditions underlying this integration or neglection.

Consequently, we will also investigate the impacts of these considerations on the natural environment, livelihoods of local communities, vulnerable groups and on political conditions that also influence peace itself. With this knowledge, we expect to compile helpful lessons for societies that have similar situations in the present or the future.

Initially, we have selected specific protected areas and their buffer zones for our fieldwork in Colombia and Uganda. In 2020, four researchers (two scholars per country) will conduct interviews and focus groups with key social groups and institutions, narrative and transect walks in different areas, and workshops with community members.

We expect novel and timely insights considering the recent post-conflict phase in Colombia since 2016; and more longstanding outcomes from the peace processes in Uganda.
The Nature of Peace Project

Along with fieldwork, we will develop a spatial analysis to understand land-use changes in the areas under studied; and will also conduct legal and policy analyses. During these years, we will collaborate with researchers, universities and international cooperation agencies in Colombia and Uganda.

The photo shows deforested areas in the Colombian Amazon. Since the signing of the peace agreement, the deforestation rate has doubled in the country. We will analyze these changes in land-use changes in our research. Credit: Ideam, Colombia.

With this exciting research journey, we expect to provide comprehensive theoretical frameworks and systematic comparative empirical analyses for the intersection between post-conflict peacebuilding and the environment and the communities depending on it.

At the same time, we seek to contribute to prevent further negative consequences for the natural environment and current and future generations once protracted violent conflicts come to an end.

Our research team

Researchers

Fariborz Zelli (Project leader)
fariborz.Zelli@svet.lu.se

Sandra Valencia (Colombia case)
sandra.valencia@chalmers.se

Torsten Krause (Colombia case)
Torsten.Krause@lucsus.lu.se

Maria Andrea Nardi (Uganda case)
maria.andrea.Nardi@rwi.lu.se

Joshka Wessels (Adviser)
joshka.wessels@cme.lu.se

Britta Sjöstedt (Law and policy analysis/Colombia case)
britta.sjostedt@jur.lu.se

Micael Runnström (GIS Analysis/Uganda case)
micael.runnstrom@nateko.lu.se

Alejandro Fuentes (Law and policy analysis)
alejandro.fuentes@rwi.lu.se

Research assistants

Laura Betancur (2019-2020)
Alice Kasznar Feghali (2019-2020)

November 25, 2019

This entry was posted in

Uncategorized

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Three provocative ideas in the first Environmental Peacebuilding Conference

Gold miners — Screenshot from the photo essay by Nancy Lee Peluso about gold miners in Indonesia. Peluso participated from the Environmental Peacebuilding Conference at Irvine, California.

Under the umbrella of “environmental peacebuilding”, a growing community of researchers and practitioners are framing their efforts in relating the natural environment and the peacebuilding agenda in several countries around the world. As I described in a previous post, last week, this community got together in the First Environmental Peacebuilding Conference in Irvine, California (US). Among all the presentations and case studies, three outstanding interventions called my attention to reflect on my own research work. Here, I want to share interesting insights to look ahead in the field:

The three researchers called the attention for critical views in the field of Environmental Peacebuilding.From left to right: Elaine (Lan Yin) Hsiao, Teresa Lappe-Osthege, and Nancy Lee Peluso..

Looking backward to understand the future. During the second session on Thursday (October 24) about ‘Early Linkages in Environment, Conflict, and Peace’, someone in the audience asked about the future of research in the environmental peacebuilding field. Far from typical answers on technology applications or climate change scenarios, Elaine (Lan Yin) Hsiao, a Global Challenges Fellow at the Sheffield Institute for International Development (SIID), claimed that one need of the field is to ‘look backward’ to understand colonial tensions and those are embedded in the socio-ecological conflicts. Her mention of the colonial aspect shed light on the “elephant” in the room and made me reflect: How much are we addressing colonial and post-colonial influences in the analysis we do on our cases? How, in the development practices, are we solving previous colonialist sources of conflict to promote a better balance between conservation and social justice?

Contesting our views on “peace” and “conflict” dynamics in the territories. On Friday, the political ecology professor Nancy Lee Peluso, from the University of California Berkley, gave an interesting presentation on ‘Landscapes of violence and peace’ with focus on her work in small-scale gold mining in Indonesia. Peluso presented how miners viewed their activity as a ‘peaceful moment’ in contrast to other perspectives emphasizing the violence in the same transformed territories. She called attention to understand how some “types” of violence are more accepted than others, for instance, the political violence affecting this region. Likewise, she invited the audience to focus on labor transformations to understand the political economy of the territories and the roots of conflicts. Peluso opened a valuable discussion to revise our pre-fixed normative conceptualizations on peace and conflict and how value judgments can prevent us from a more comprehensive view of the local territorial dynamics.

During her presentation, Peluso shared her photo essay about the lives of ‘gold farmers’ in Indonesia.

Is environmental peacebuilding covering up neoliberal approaches? On Thursday (October 24), Teresa Lappe-Osthege, research associate on the Biosec project, made a very interesting presentation about how the concept of environmental peacebuilding can be used to cover up neoliberal peace approaches. Her presentation, focusing on EU peacebuilding policies in Kosovo, showed that perspectives on sustainability remained stagnant in views about security and development, without addressing existing socio-ecological injustices in the country. Teresa highlighted the relevance of a more critical reflection on the practices and narratives we are allowing to be framed under the umbrella of environmental peacebuilding.

November 25, 2019

This entry was posted in

Conversations

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Our project at the First Environmental Peacebuilding Conference in California

Last week, the First Environmental Peacebuilding Conference in Irvine, California (US) brought together almost 250 researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers dealing with human-nature interactions in conflict-affected settings. It was a very intense and enlightening three-day conference (October 23- 25) for exchanging ideas and projects in around 8 training sessions and 40 panel sessions.

Our project, the Nature of Peace, an interdisciplinary research initiative on the links between the natural environment and peace in post-conflict societies, contributed during the sessions to broaden the debate on the state of the art of the field and the analysis on Colombia’s cases.

The association gathers different researchers and practicioners from around 40 countries. Credit: @EnvPeacebuild

The first to present was Andrea Nardi, researcher at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, who explained the main findings of a systematic literature review conducted to understand the intersection of nature, peace, and post-conflict. Nardi pointed out that existing literature do not distinguish the different levels of vulnerability of specific groups, like women or indigenous communities, in the post-conflict transitions and the changes brought by it in regards the access to natural resources or the exposure to environmental pollution.

She also emphasized the need to revise the ontological perceptions about nature in the field of environmental peacebuilding, since the dominant framing of nature as a source to be exploited is still the most frequent conceptualization present in the papers. The study she presented was supported by the Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies at Lund University between September 2017 and April 2018.

Colombia’s analysis at Irvine

On Thursday (October 24), Torsten Krause, Britta Sjöstedt and Laura Betancur participated in the panel session “Changing Environment: Exploring the Links and Consequences of the Peace Agreement in Colombia’s Natural Environment”, moderated by Helena Durán, environmental justice researcher from Dejusticia, a think tank based in Bogotá, Colombia.

Laura’s presentation focused in the highlands landscape in Colombia. In contrast, Krause´s was mainly about the impacts of the postconflict phase in the Amazon rainforest. Credit: The Nature of Peace

Krause, Associate Senior Lecturer from Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, gave a critical explanation on how the current and pressing deforestation dynamic in the Amazon forest is caused by the contradictory practices framed under the double discourses of the Colombian government, which formally expresses its intention to protect the forest while still promoting mining and cattle ranching activities in the region.

Also focusing on the Amazon, Sjöstedt, Senior lecturer at the Department of Law, offered an explanation on how international law frameworks can contribute to the protection of this region, specifically of the Chiribiquete National Natural Park, the largest protected area in Colombia and added to UNESCO’s World Heritage List in July 2018.

In contrast, Laura, Colombian journalist who recently graduated from the Lumes programme at Lucsus, invited the audience to ‘travel’ to a different Colombian landscape. Her presentation focused on the changes in land distribution and water access in a small village in the highlands of Las Hermosas region in the southwest of the country. With this very specific case, she raised awareness on the micro-level dynamics of inequalities that are being reproduced due to interventions carried out by the State, which became the authority on water and property after the FARC guerrilla members left the region.

After our presentations, we discussed how land distribution and conflicts caused by mining remain the major obstacles to avoid negative environmental impacts in the post-peace agreement phase in Colombia.

November 25, 2019

This entry was posted in

Uncategorized

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Two years The Nature of Peace: setting the basis of our research

The group held around 30 sessions of discussions since 2016. Credit: Maria Andrea Nardi.

In September 2016, we initiated a research journey to understand the interconnections between bringing peace to post-conflict societies and the role of nature in that matter. After almost two years of seminars, international exchanges, conversations with researchers in the field of environment and peacebuilding, an international conference and a research review analysis, we concluded this initial phase of our research in April 2018.

We reflected on the role assigned to the natural environment in peace and post-conflict academic studies. Moreover, we analyzed the complexities of defining both peace and nature concepts and the implications of this framing both for research and policy. Here, we looked back at the key moments of our learning process.

The beginning

The Nature of Peace started as an Advanced Study Group in 2016 thanks to the support of the Pufendorf Institute of Advanced Studies at Lund University, which seeks to promote interdisciplinary discussions on relevant and novel research issues.

We – 12 researchers from different disciplines ranging from theology to natural science – got together to examine how human activities shape, produce and influence those non-living human processes during peace-building situations.

Becoming a research theme

In September 2017, we became a research theme of the Pufendorf Institute. During this time, we did almost 30 meetings to continue our conversations on how the conceptualization about peace and the natural environment differs in disciplines such as political science, human geography, environmental studies or law. We guided our sessions with questions such as: What is the nature for a law researcher? What does the same word mean for a human geographer? What can we learn from the difference?

We also focused our activities on inquiries such as: how the environment is considered in fragile economies that need to develop? why peace consolidation can also generate processes of environmental degradation? or whose meaning of peace prevails in the pressing moments of securing development and stability?

We enriched our work with the visits of two guests’ researchers in March and April of 2018. They are Rania Masri, an environmentalist, and human right activist and Regional Coordinator at ACKNOWL-EJ (Academic-Activist Co-Produced Knowledge for Environmental Justice); and Florian Krampe, researcher in SIPRI’s Climate Change and Risk Project and Affiliated Researcher at the Research School for International Water Cooperation at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University and the Unesco.

Florian Krampe (left) and Rania Masri (right) joined the sessions of debate in the spring of 2018. Credit: Photos taken from Twitter accounts of the authors.

Revealing general tendencies

Along with our meetings, we elaborated a working paper to present our systematic literature review about the intersection of nature, peace, and post-conflict. We assessed 103 peer-reviewed academic articles published in English by characterizing the theories used, the research design, the methodology and the definitions of peace and nature predominantly used.

Among our several findings, we mainly identify that there is a growing body of literature in the field of environmental peacebuilding in the last six years. Most of the research corresponds to empirical studies and qualitative methods prevailed in the field. The literature mainly focuses on African and Asia contexts.

Countries identified in the literature review at the intersection of peace, post-conflict and environment or nature. Credit: The Nature of Peace research group.

Regarding the conceptual approaches, we highlight that there is a dominant framing on the natural environment as strategic natural resources (timber, water, minerals, oil) for offering economic development in war-impacted societies in the aftermath of the conflict. We stress the shortcomings of this view and point out theoretical gaps to address in further research. Our paper- which is under revision- will soon be disseminated through this blog.

Our conference: engaging with a larger community

On April 26th and 27th of 2018, we organized The Nature of Peace Conference at Lund University. The event brought together around 35 researchers and participants interested in understanding the interlinks between the natural environment the peacebuilding agenda. We structured the event in 20 presentations divided into six seminars and three interactive sessions, where participants shared their research projects ranging different disciplines and geographies.

We received stimulating feedback for our reflections on how notions of peace, conflict, resources, and nature are applied in diverse research projects of universities in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Ireland, Colombia, Canada, Finland, United States, among other countries. We took advantage of the two-day conference to also spread some of the findings of our systematic literature revision.

The event took place at the Pufendorf Institute of Advanced Studies and the Lund University Centre for Sustainability Science in Lund, Sweden.

With this event, we fished this first phase of The Nature of Peace project. Based on the knowledge acquired along these almost two years of research, we proposed a second phase focusing on socio-ecological impacts of peace during post-conflict Uganda and Colombia. We believe that the conceptual reflections of the first phase will guide our fieldwork and case-based analysis to continue contributing to a more critical oriented view on how to integrate the natural environment after the guns fell silent in different societies.

The researchers participating in The Nature of Peace phase I:

Lina Eklund (coordinator)
lina.eklund@cme.lu.se

Maria Andrea Nardi (coordinator)
maria.andrea.nardi@rwi.lu.se

Maria Ericson
maria.ericson@rwi.lu.se

Alejandro Fuentes
alejandro.fuentes@rwi.lu.se

Torsten Krause
torsten.krause@lucsus.lu.se

Yahia Mahmoud
yahia.mahmoud@keg.lu.se

Micael Runnström
micael.runnstrom@nateko.lu.se

Britta Sjöstedt
britta.sjostedt@jur.lu.se

Fariborz Zelli
fariborz.zelli@svet.lu.se

Joshka Wessels
joshka.wessels@cme.lu.se

Sandra Valencia
sandra.valencia@chalmers.se

Ana Maria Vargas-Falla
ana.maria.vargas@icld.se

November 18, 2019

This entry was posted in

Conversations

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

The Nature of Peace Conference 2018: Exchanging perspectives on our research

In the final panel debate researchers discussed the ways in which nature is framed in their academic work.

What are the links between the natural environment and the peace efforts in societies once impacted by war? In which ways does natural resource exploitation hinder or promote fair post-war recoveries? How our own views on nature limit the understandings of peacebuilding processes? These and other challenging questions built an inspiring academic exchange during The Nature of Peace Conference on April 26^th and 27th 2018 at Lund University.

The two-day conference, organized by the interdisciplinary research group The Nature of Peace, brought together around 35 researchers interested in understanding the interlinks between the natural environment the peacebuilding agenda in the aftermath of armed conflicts. Participants of nearly 12 countries shared ideas in 20 presentations divided into six seminars and three interactive sessions. The event took place at the Pufendorf Institute of Advanced Studies and the Lund University Centre for Sustainability Science in Lund, Sweden.

The conference kicked off with an introductory presentation by Carl Bruch, president of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association– also launched at the event- and researcher of the Environmental Law Institute (US). Bruch set the discussion by explaining how the use of resources vary across the lifecycle of conflicts and the implications for maintaining peace. This initial explanation served as a roadmap for the following sessions around the themes of natural resources exploitation, environmental legislation and nature governance, biodiversity conservation and local perspectives.

Check the introduction to the conference:

Discussing diverse cases

In the seminars, the current crisis of Colombia’s environmental impacts in the post-conflict phase, the challenges for conservation and economic development, and some reflections on the role of development and neoliberalism in peacebuilding were recurring themes. These issues were based on empirical and desk-research of cases in Colombia, Northern Ireland, East Africa, and the Middle East.

For instance, Sean Brennan, a researcher from Queen’s University of Belfast, used the example of Northern Ireland to explain the ‘double transition’ -towards peace and neoliberalism- with the export-oriented economic approach in natural resources governance. He stressed how this intervention did not consider social inclusion and reconciliation.

On the side of conservation, Elaine Hsiao, a Global Challenges Fellow at the Sheffield Institute for International Development (SIID), highlighted the need of explicitly including peace and conflict resolution dimensions in Transboundary Conservation Area Agreements, such as Parks for Peace, for the cases of the Greater Virunga Landscape between the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda; and Kidepo Landscape, between South Sudan and Uganda.

Rethinking views on nature

In the closing plenary, the discussion allowed the participants to step outside their professional role by discussing personal meanings about nature. The exercise sought to challenge the strong view on nature, as a resource for exploitation, found it in the literature of the field of environmental peacebuilding.

“When we think on a personal level about nature, we don’t talk about natural resources; but in our research work we do. So, what would we gain by using other concepts? What would happen if instead of natural resources we use, for instance, the concept of ecologies?”, inquired the researcher Maria Andrea Nardi, affiliated to the Raoul Wallenberg Institute and member of The Nature of Peace project.

With this final note, the discussion revolved around questions of how the perception of researchers from the Global North about natural resources can influence their research in post-conflict societies, studied in the Global South.

What would happen if instead of natural resources we use, for instance, the concept of ecologies?”
Maria Andrea Nardi, affiliated to the Raoul Wallenberg Institute and member of The Nature of Peace project

The Nature of Peace Conference at Lund University enriched our analysis for the literature review we did in 2018 about definitions of peace and nature present in the current academic endeavors. Especially, the event offered an open and interactive platform for sharing ideas and concepts of current research on the links between the natural environment and the processes of securing a stable and lasting peace in many regions around the world.

In the video, check the closing plenary of the event:

November 18, 2019

This entry was posted in

Uncategorized

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Nature of Peace Program

The program for the conference is now online:

Conference Program (pdf)

April 26, 2018

This entry was posted in

Uncategorized

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

The Nature of Peace Conference: streaming option

We are happy to announce that large parts of the conference held this week will be streamed for those unable to attend physically.

If you’re interested in attending the conference through streaming, please send an email with subject “Streaming NoP” to lina.eklund[at]cme.lu.se and we’ll provide you with the link and the password.

April 24, 2018

This entry was posted in

Meetings

Comments

1 Comment Leave a comment

Colombia’s transition to a post-conflict era, challenges and opportunities for a more sustainable peace: Invitation to a seminar on Colombia’s post-conflict transition, April 25, 2018, 17:00 in Lund

WELCOME TO A SEMINAR ORGANIZED BY THE THE PUFENDORF IAS THEME NATURE OF PEACE AND LUND UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR SUSTINABILITY STUDIES

Speakers:
Miguel Londoño, Senior Officer for Post Conflict and Green Growth, Global Green Growth Institute

Yina Avella, Corporación Claretiana Norman Pérez Bello

Panelists:
Yina Avella, Corporación Claretiana Norman Pérez Bello, Bogotá, Colombia
Miguel Londoño, Global Green Growth Institute – GGGI, Bogotá, Colombia
Alejandro Valderrama, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Ireland
Maria del Pilar Ramirez, Centre for Global Studies, Universität Bern, Switzerland
Torsten Krause, LUCSUS, Lund University, Sweden

Moderator:
Laura Betancur Alarcón, Journalist and MSc student, Lund University
Master’s Program in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science

April 25, 17:00 – 19:00
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies,
Josephson Building, Room Ostrom (3rd floor)
Biskopsgatan 5, Lund

Full invitation here:

Invitation to a seminar on Colombia’s transition towards a post-conflict era_April 25, Lund, Sweden

April 17, 2018

This entry was posted in

Conversations

Comments

2 Comments Leave a comment

More tickets available to attend the conference on the 26th

We’ve seen a big interest in attending the Nature of Peace conference, and already the 20 seats we had for attendees are filled. We do, however, have space for some more on one day of the conference, namely Thursday the 26th of April. To register, go to this eventbrite event!

The day will involve keynotes, an interactive session, and seminars on nature and peace with international guests presenting their papers.

This ticket allows you to listen to the seminars and participate in the discussions and sessions.

Welcome!

March 8, 2018

This entry was posted in

Uncategorized

Comments

2 Comments Leave a comment

Want to attend our Nature of Peace conference in Lund?

You can now register to attend the Nature of Peace conference on 26-27th of April 2018.

This conference is organized by the interdisciplinary research group ‘The Nature of Peace’ at the Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies at Lund University, Sweden. The research group scrutinizes the role of the natural environment in post-conflict societies, posing questions such as: What role does nature have in peace building? How is the natural environment considered in fragile states that need to develop quickly, during reconstruction period? Does peace always bring sustainable development? How can peace-building activities contribute to sustainable development?

The research group is organizing a two-days final conference to take place in Lund on the 26th and 27th of April 2018. The conference will serve as a platform to engage with professionals working from different disciplinary angles and perspectives.

The conference is structured in seminars:

(1) Natural resources exploitation

(2) Environmental legislation / nature governance

(3) Biodiversity conservation

(4) Monitoring environmental transformation (tools and mechanisms)

(5) Nature, culture and rights

(6) Intersectionality, post-conflict and natural environment

Finally, the conference will be closed with a Panel on Local perspectives and a final plenary session.

Keynote speakers:
Päivi Lujala, Department of Geography, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Carl Bruch, Environmental Law Institute, Washington DC (US)
Miguel Londoño, Global Green Growth Institute, Colombia

Note that there are only 20 seats available!

Click here to register!

February 15, 2018

This entry was posted in

Meetings

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Searching for environmental justice in peacebuilding – Tools offered by international environmental law

By: Britta Sjöstedt

In this piece, I explore the notion of environmental justice by looking at international environmental law and how it pertains to peacebuilding. Environmental degradation resulting from armed conflict and/or institutional collapse, disputes over land rights and management over ‘conflict resources’ must be dealt with in a just and fair manner to build positive peace. For this reason, there is a growing advocacy on how environmental justice can be applied to pave the way to sustainable peace. For instance, such advocacy can involve pushing for local communities’ participation in decision-making related to environmental matters; undertaking proper measure to clear areas contaminated with explosive remnants from the hostilities; restoring access to safe drinking water etc. The notion of environmental justice is however multifaceted and lacks a universal definition. Its meaning changes depending on place, period, and perspective. For instance, in the US, it referred to exposing racism in the allocation of waste and linking environmental justice to citizens’ rights, while in Latin America, it has been related to social movements showing the unequal exchange between the Global South and North in resource exploitation, extractives and destruction of local livelihoods. Thus, environmental justice must be regarded as something relative that has diverse meanings to different communities, societies and institutions. Environmental justice is not a purely legal concept. It goes beyond law, having also moral, philosophical and political underpinnings. Just as the notion of justice is fluid and relative, as there is no such a thing as absolute justice, the same goes for environmental justice. The law should be viewed as merely a compromise of different understandings of justice. Yet, a legal system must be perceived as fair and just to maintain its legitimacy and authority. This is especially important in post-conflict contexts where parallel, informal justice systems can otherwise develop and compete with the legal system, which endanger predictability and trust in the law. Such a development entails a risk of destabilising an already fragile peace. International environmental law can shed some light on the content of environmental justice, especially in terms of environmental peacebuilding.

The term ‘environmental justice’ has its roots from an American movement in the 1980s protesting the placing of hazardous waste sites and other environmentally toxic facilities in poor black communities. In this case, environmental injustice describes how members of disadvantaged groups suffer disproportionately from environmental risks and degradation. Today, the notion of environmental justice hosts a broader set of meanings going beyond environmental degradation and social fairness. Environmental justice usually evolves around differences in how people and/or communities are adversely affected by environmental risks or pollutions, uneven distribution of natural resources and lack of access to justice regarding environmental matters. On an international level, environmental justice between states focuses on geopolitical tensions, for instance, how environmental harm has more serious consequences in the poorest regions in the world. For instance, the effects of climate change are likely to affect severely and disproportionately developing states that are particularly vulnerable to such effects. At the same time, developed states have greater financial and technical capability to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions and to adapt to and diminish impacts resulting from climate change.

Environmental justice is commonly described as dealing with three kinds of concerns: distribution, procedure and recognition. Distributive justice relates to equal distribution of wealth and income from environmental resources, but also for carrying the burden of preventing and repairing environmental degradation in accordance with capacity and responsibility. Procedural justice concerns rights to access to information and participate in environmental decision-making. This is to make sure that those affected by the decisions also have influence during the decision-making process. The third kind relates to the respect for identities and cultural difference. It serves to ensure that local cultures, knowledge and ideas are valued in intercultural engagement. All these concerns of environmental justice are incorporated in international environmental law.

One of the most influential instruments in creating and shaping international environmental law is the 1992 Rio Declaration. In this instrument, there are mainly three principles expressing aspects of environmental justice: Principle 7 stating the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities; Principle 10 dealing with access to environmental justice; and Principle 22 acknowledging the role of indigenous people and their communities as well as other local communities in environmental management and development. The Rio Declaration is not binding as such; nevertheless, many of its principles reflect the content of international environmental customary law, which is binding for all states. Aspects of the principles just mentioned have also been expressed in several binding environmental agreements. In addition, specifically in regard to peacebuilding, Principle 25 in the Rio declaration highlights how peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

The principle or the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities captures partly the essence of distributive environmental justice. It provides for states to contribute differently to prevent and mitigate environmental degradation depending on their capability as well as their responsibilities. To achieve an equitable distribution of the burdens to safeguard the environment, various environmental agreements have established financial mechanisms, expressed exemptions, and included provisions for transfer of technology and flexibility in the times required for compliance with international environmental obligations to benefit developing states. At the same time, developed states should take a greater responsibility than developing states to pay for past, present and future harms to the environment. Developed states should also transfer technology and invest in capacity building for developing states to assist them in complying with environmental obligations. This is due both to the larger capacity of developed states but also because they bear historically a greater responsibility for the current state of the environment. In the context of peacebuilding, this principle provides a framework to force other states to assist war-torn developing states under environmental stress. It provides for that developed states are under an obligation to provide technical, financial and other types of assistance to safeguard the environment, particularly in fragile states struggling to build an environmentally sound peace.

Different paths are possible when working towards environmental justice.

In relation to the procedural environmental justice, Principle 10 in the Rio Declaration ensures that individuals have rights to access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, and the opportunity to participate in environmental decision-making. According to this principle, states have an obligation to facilitate public awareness by making information on environmental matters widely available. In addition, states are obligated under the same principle to provide effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including means of reparations and compensations. Similar rights can also be found in international human rights law instruments. In a peacebuilding process, international law provides for procedural environmental justice that can be applied to ensure access to information and public participation of local communities and individuals in decision-making in relation to the environment. Decisions on environmental management and allocation of natural resources should be invoked in this context in accordance with the law to provide procedural equity through decision-making with the participation of those affected. If such procedures are correctly incorporated, it will empower local communities in a peace process aiming at producing outcomes that treat all affected groups fairly in matters regarding land rights, exploitation of natural resources and environmental investments or risks. However, just because the principle exists in international law, it does not necessary mean that it is respected and enforced, especially in situations of post-conflict where the state may be facing problems to uphold its state functions and institutions. Still, the principle conveys an important message to all actors – internal as well as external – involved in the peace process to not bypass communities affected by environmental matters and an obligation to ensure them influence and access to justice. Even though the primary subjects of international law are the states, even private actors may be forced to comply with this principle depending on how well it has been implemented in national legislation of the post-conflict state or actors’ home state or due to voluntary measures initiated by the industry or international organisations.

Regarding the concern for recognition, Principle 22 in the Rio Declaration expresses that states should recognise and support indigenous and other communities, their identity, culture and interests. Furthermore, it calls for adopting means to enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development. This includes respect of their traditional knowledge and practices in relation to environmental management. There are many examples on how indigenous peoples have suffered from conservation policies, in particular in states affected by armed conflicts including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Philippines, Colombia. States are under an international obligation to recognise indigenous peoples and to provide for appropriate procedures and institutions for indigenous peoples facilitate the respect for cultural differences. The environmental justice concern for recognising cultural identity both ensures rights for indigenous peoples to occupy and exploit their ancestral land as well as rights of varying degrees to participate and influence in matters regarding the land. As indigenous territories are usually rich in biological diversity and valuable natural resources, in many war-torn states, hostilities often takes place in these remote and biodiversity rich areas having severe impacts on indigenous peoples. In addition, when peace has been established, vulnerable indigenous communities can be marginalised if they are not recognised in the peacebuilding activities. The rights of the indigenous and other local communities expressed in international environmental law and human rights law are essential in a peace process to ensure social inclusion of different cultures.

To summarise, international environmental law does not provide a clear-cut solution on how to achieve environmental justice in post-conflict. However, it provides tools to address environmental entitlements, human vulnerability, and management of natural resources, which are all pressing concerns in a peacebuilding process. It contributes to stress the responsibility of states to equally distribute environmental risks and hazards as well as investments, benefits and natural resources. Also, the law ensures access to information, participation in decision-making and access to justice in all environmental matters and to recognise different cultural identities, ideas and practice. For that reason, international environmental law is a good starting point of how to build sustainable peace in an environmentally just manner. However, to fully understand the meaning and implications of environmental justice, the notion needs to be approached from other disciplines as well.