Nature of Peace

Resource extraction after transitions to “stability”: the case of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq

By: Lina Eklund

The Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KR-I) is located in the northern part of the country and includes the three governorates of Duhok, Erbil and Sulaymania. The region is a semi-autonomous federal one and has its own government, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). On September 25^th 2017 the Kurdish Regional Government held a referendum about Kurdish independence from Iraq. The vote, which was criticized by Iraq and neighboring countries, resulted in a strong yes to independence, but was rejected by the federal government of Iraq.

Conflict situation

KR-I has a history of conflicts which has largely shaped the Kurdish and Iraqi societies. For almost a century, the Kurds have strived for independence, and been persecuted for their claims to statehood. In the 1970s, the government of Iraq carried out resettlement programs to increase the Arab population into the Kurdish areas, which dispossessed people from their lands. An incident that still plays a very important role for people in Iraqi Kurdistan is the Anfal campaign, a genocidal attack carried out by the Iraqi government during the Iran-Iraq war. By targeting rural Kurdish areas, the Iraqi government sought to curb the Kurdish guerilla (Peshmerga) and the people supporting them. Villages were bombed and burned, people were arrested, taken to camps, or killed, and chemical weapons were used, leaving many of the those who survived the attacks with health problems today. Furthermore, Iraqi Kurdistan experienced the economic consequences of the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait that led to international sanctions on Iraq.

A view from the Citadel in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan

A relative stability

The invasion of Kuwait also resulted in the establishment of a no-fly zone in the Kurdish region, which led to some initial steps towards autonomy and stability in the area. However, in 1994 clashes emerged between two political parties in Iraqi Kurdistan, which lasted until 1997 when a cease-fire agreement was reached. With the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the fall of Saddam Hussein, the KR-I, saw a new beginning. Southern Iraq went into civil war, but the KR-I became a relatively stable area. The oil revenues coming into Kurdistan from the Iraqi government, and the ability of the KRG to develop legal initiatives to stimulate foreign investments, have led to an economic boom in this region, bringing for example luxurious hotels, rapid urbanization and investments in higher education to the region. The recent developments starting in 2014 with the Islamic State (IS/ISIS/Da’esh) taking over territory in Iraq and Syria, and the aftermath of the Kurdish referendum show that the people of Iraqi Kurdistan are still living in a volatile situation.

Resource extraction

The relative stability of Kurdistan since the 2003 invasion has allowed for foreign investments in KR-I and since 2006 foreign companies have been drilling for oil and gas in the area. The KRG has signed several exploration agreements with a number of foreign oil companies from all over the world. Since the rise of IS, many international oil companies have withdrawn from some of the oil exploration areas, but they are still operating in other areas.

Trees in Duhok Province, Iraqi Kurdistan

Even though the region benefits economically from the foreign investments, consequences have been seen in the rural areas where oil exploration takes place. A documentary video from the Christian Peacemaker Teams in Iraqi Kurdistan shows how the village of Hajj Ahmed has gotten their land seized for oil exploration without proper compensation. Villagers report that this causes problems for the farmers, as their livelihoods become compromised. In the village of Gullan people are facing the same issue and view it as a threat to their surrounding natural environment. A non-governmental civil council was established in 2013 to protect the environment and its population from the threats of oil companies, through for example demonstrations, petitions and public debate.

Land and Water

The geographic location of Iraqi Kurdistan means that it has the highest precipitation rates and the most fertile lands in Iraq. KR-I thus has good agricultural potential compared to the rest of Iraq, and has traditionally been an agrarian society. While the Anfal genocide in 1988 has been cited as a major reason for the decline in agricultural production in this region, research have shown that the winter cropland area in the Duhok Governorate has increased since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. A forthcoming study of those cropland changes suggests a shift from traditional small-scale farming to agricultural entrepreneurs who choose crops based on profitability rather than suitability. Furthermore, the urbanization trend has led to urban expansion and a change in land use, from croplands to built-up areas, reducing the amount of arable land in the region.

Discussion and conclusion

The case of Iraqi Kurdistan may not be a clear case of conflict turned post-conflict, but it does show us something about what happens in an area when the political situation becomes slightly more stable. The Kurdistan region is rich with resources and some would argue that the region is becoming “a new Dubai” with tall, impressive buildings, a migrant workforce, and a rent based economy. At the same time, we can see that when opening up for resource extraction, there are consequences for the local population as well as for the local environment. Little has been done to study the effects of the oil extraction, the land use changes, and the unsustainable agricultural practices, on the biodiversity and water quality/availability. Furthermore, the social and environmental injustice, such as the events documented in villages like Hajj Ahmed and Gullan, should receive more attention. What has happened in Iraqi Kurdistan since the US invasion in 2003 shows that stability (or peace in the broadest sense) comes with new challenges that need to be addressed if we want to build a sustainable society.

December 6, 2017

natureofpeace

This entry was posted in

Case studies

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Working towards Paradise; Environmental peacebuilding in practice, part 2

By Joshka Wessels

PART 2: The case of Wadi Fukin, an example of environmental peacebuilding

To illustrate what is meant with environmental peacebuilding in practice and the many challenges that come with this kind of approach, I would like to focus on the human-environment nexus at local level in the Jordan River Basin. This was the topic of my postdoctoral research at Lund University between 2011-2014 and a documentary that I filmed and produced in 2010. With respect to one of the most conflictuous ecosystems in the world, the Jordan River Basin, it sounds maybe strange to look at the natural environment as a motivation for enemies to work together. But interestingly, the overwhelming common denominator in all six basins in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region – the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Jordan, the Nile, the Litani and the Orontes -, is the potential of water body management to foster peace and democratic stability in the region (Amery and Wolf, 2000; Kramer, 2008; Harari and Roseman, 2008; Wessels, 2009; FoEME, 2010).

Looking at environmentalism in religion, we can distinguish common ground of perceiving nature as ”Divine and God-given” (Tucker and Grim, 1999). In a religious framework, God as universal power created nature and therefore our natural environment can be regarded as spiritual, sacred and divine. These principles can be traced back in Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the three main religions in the MENA region that come together in the Jordan River Basin. Some of the holiest places of these three world religions are located in this ecosystem. Environmentalism has certainly been applied as a potential principle of finding common ground in both interfaith peace building efforts and environmental activism in civil society with initiatives by community based NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME)– ECOPeace (FoEME, 2010; Schoenfeld, 2011).

Indeed, we observe at local level in the Jordan River Basin, that the environment has in some cases joined together foes from different religious backgrounds. In 2009, I started to film in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories for the development of a documentary project about the Jordan River. On one of these occasions, I met with Palestinian villagers in Wadi Fukin working together with Israeli inhabitants of the neighboring village of Tzur Haddasah, inside Israel proper, within the 1967- ceasefire line borders. Wadi Fukin is part of a wider ecological peace building project run by the regional NGO FoEME-ECOPeace called ”Good Water Neighbors” (FoEME, 2010). My filming resulted in a long documentary film called “Valley of Hope and Despair” of which a shortened version was broadcast worldwide at Al Jazeera International in November 2010 (to watch the film, follow the on-line link here).

Figure 1 Israeli Tami Doron (l) and Palestinian Abu Mazen (r) built a friendship based on their love for nature – still of the film “Valleys of Hope and Despair” © Joshka Wessels 2010.

The film tells the story of Abu Mazen, who is a Palestinian farmer of Wadi Fukin in the occupied Palestinian West Bank and his environmental peacebuilding efforts with Tami Doron, who is living in the Israeli village Tzur Hadassah, on the other side of the ceasefire line, the so-called 1967 green line, inside Israel (see figure 1). Abu Mazen’s family has been farming and irrigating the traditional terraces of Wadi Fukin since 600 years. The valley of Wadi Fukin is designated by UNESCO as the best preserved natural heritage in the occupied Palestinian Territory of the West Bank. During the first intifada (1987-1993) the farmers of Wadi Fukin could not reach the markets in nearby Bethlehem. They found ready customers for their biological products, fruits and vegetables, in the nearby Israeli community of Tzur Hadassah. Since that time, a friendly relationship grew between some of the farmers of Wadi Fukin and the Israeli inhabitants of the village of Tzur Hadassah. This relationship sustained until today. Together these two communities have succesfully set up a courtcase to halt the building of a security wall that was planned through the valley, based on environmental arguments (Wessels, 2015). They rally against the expansion of the nearby illegal settlement of Beitar Illit, located in Palestinian territory next to the valley and they have build a so-called neighbours’ path going from Tzur Haddassah to Wadi Fukin. Preserving this unique natural heritage is the main driving force that brings these Israeli and Palestinian activists together. Their ”dreamed-of order” of a well preserved natural heritage of the valley of Wadi Fukin is shared at local level between Israelis and Palestinians across the ceasefire divide. However, this binding love for nature is not reflected at national political level.

Figure 2 The author interviewing the Palestinian Minister of Water, Dr. Shaddad Attili, next to a sewage spill in the valley of Wadi Fukin © Joshka Wessels

On national level and at local level, the mistrust from the Palestinian community towards Israeli’s runs very deep. The Israeli government does not act in the same manner as the Israeli activists from Tzur Hadassah. Continuous military occupation and settlement expansion are main daily threats to the valley of Wadi Fukin, which lies between the areas B and C in the occupied Palestinian Territory of the West Bank. The illegal settlement of Beitar Illit, next to the valley, is the second largest in the West Bank and rapidly growing (Lazaroff, 2017). In my film, I show a timelapse, filmed between 2009 and 2010, in which the rapid growth of the nearby settlement of Beitar Illit is visually documented. From the original 12 km2 of land, the Israeli authorities confiscated 8,5 km2 for settlement construction since the start of the settlement building in 1985. On Fridays, Israeli army soldiers swim in the Palestinian irrigation ponds in Wadi Fukin and on Saturdays, the settlement of Beitar Illit often lets the sewage water flow from the hills onto the Palestinan fields (see figure 2). Sewage spilling is a common practice of deliberate environmental pollution, together with pollution by Israeli factories in the occupied West bank, avoiding stringent Israeli environmental laws (Dresse et al., 2016). Therefore some Palestinians refuse to work or cooperate with any Israelis, even if they have good intentions for protecting the environment, such as the Israeli activists of Tzur Hadassah. Despite this animosity, through their environmental activism, the two local peace activist communities have managed to solve some part of the sewage problem but this is just a small victory. Tami from Tzur Hadassah summarizes it poignantly in the film, when she says; ’yes, the sewage problem is solved, but we do not have any faith in the peace process in the Middle-East’.

Figure 3 The author (middle) with the Israeli/Palestinian film crew (l) and Abu Mazen and his wife (r) in their house in Wadi Fukin. © Joshka Wessels

Conclusion

The case of Wadi Fukin indicates that environmental peacebuilding is indeed possible at a local level, in a situation when a ceasefire agreement has led to cessation of armed conflict and adversaries are working together to protect the environment. The Wadi Fukin case also shows however that despite the shared love for nature and the shared visions of a Geertzian ”dreamed-of order” of an ecological paradise in Wadi Fukin, political developments and power dimensions at a larger scale, at national level, can seriously hamper constructive environmental peacebuilding. For any kind of ecological approach to peace to succeed at a national level, this kind of approach to peacebuilding still has a very long way to go.

On-line links:

The documentary film ”Valleys of Hope and Despair” shortened version broadcast at Al Jazeera International

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTa4JARwkyY

”Valleys of Hope and Despair, peacebuilding through environmental documentaries” Powerpoint presentation by Joshka Wessels at the 4th International Conference on Peace & Reconciliation: mediating peace: reconciliation through Art, Music and Film, 6-9 November, 2012, Jerusalem, Israel. https://www.slideshare.net/Joshka_Wessels/ipcr-wessels

November 14, 2017

natureofpeace

This entry was posted in

Case studies environmental peacebuilding

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Working towards Paradise; Environmental peacebuilding in practice, part 1

By Joshka Wessels

Our Theme Nature of Peace explores links between the natural environment and peacebuilding in post armed-conflict societies. This is a blogpost in two parts with some reflections on environmental peacebuilding, based on my experience doing postdoctoral research on this topic and a documentary that I produced about environmental cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians in 2010.

PART 1: Theories of Environmental Peacebuilding

Our main question at Nature of Peace, investigates what role the natural environment can play in post-conflict peacebuilding. In each armed conflict on our planet, environmental dimensions, effects and causes can be identified (Homer-Dixon, 1999). Often these are an integral part of a plethora of political, psychological, cultural and territorial dimensions of armed conflicts. Exploring the linkages between humans and their environment has a long history in both the social and the biophysical sciences but the potential of a shared environment for peace building is a relatively under researched area. The empirical body at local level is actually quite slim. There is not a lot of extensive data on how and if the environment enhances cooperation between adversaries, after an armed conflict. Several interdisciplinary academic fields are working within our main Theme question, such as the upcoming fields of warfare ecology (Machlis et al. , 2011), environmental politics, political ecology and environmental peacemaking (Waisová 2017; Dresse et al., 2016; Carius, 2007; Conca and Dabelko, 2002), which are all areas and fields of social and physical science research investigating the environmental dimensions to armed and unarmed conflicts.

Nature and the environment are often neglected in peace treaties or regarded as lower priorities in conventional and (neo)liberal peace building efforts. In any case, the environment is not a priority in peace negotiations or ceasefire agreements. Liberal and neoliberal peacebuilding, influenced by rational choice theory and a Western-centric approach to peace, often focuses on the economic and state building benefits, the ”Victor’s peace”, the institutional peace, the constitutional peace and the goal of state building (Richmond 2010, 2008; Rittberger and Fischer, 2008). Conventional approaches to peacebuilding are much less concerned with inclusion of nature or ecosystem services in peacebuilding. Environmental or ecological peacebuilding is also outside of the spotlights of mainstream media covering peace building initiatives. Therefore, in order to include nature in peace, there is a need for a paradigm shift from conventional peacebuilding principles to a more holistic approach. This is where we can find the concept of environmental peacebuilding (Carius, 2007; Conca and Dabelko, 2002).

Initially coined as environmental peacemaking, over the past twenty years, several research projects and inititatives developed an approach that takes the sharing of natural resources and environmental cooperation as a tool for conflict resolution (Waisová 2017; Conca and Dabelko, 2002) The concept of environmental peacebuilding is based on a more holistic approach to peacemaking; for this approach of peace building, there are no “war heroes”, there are “peace heroes” (Wessels, 2009). Whilst liberal peace building and rational choice tend to ignore biological, psychological, cultural and sociological dimensions of violence and conflict, environmental peace building gives room for holistic and cognitive theories on the relationships between Humanity and Nature in a changing global ecosystem (Wessels, 2016).

Not only conventional peacebuilding needs a paradigm shift, but also conventional approaches towards ecosystems should change, as they fail to account how environmental peacebuilding could work in practice. In the conventional approach to ecosystems, within conservation sciences, places human beings outside of nature and views human activities as ”anthropogenic disturbances”. Human beings are seen as dominating species over other non-human living beings and the flora with an overwhelming negative effect on the natural environment. A less anthropocentric approach includes human beings as integral part of the ecosystem, applying the so-called Human Ecosystem Model to human-natural systems (Dalton, 2011; Wessels, 2008). In the Human Ecosystem approach, activities by human beings can have negative effects (war), also called anthropogenic disturbances on the natural environment, whilst at the same time there is the possibility that their activities can have positive effects (peace) and contribute to a sustainable and balance of the natural environment.

In this regard, it is interesting to look at anthropologist Clifford Geertz’ theories of culture. Geertz defined culture as “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz, 1973). When local cultures, religions or ideologies of a particular society are heavily influenced by the worship of nature and the “dreamed-of order” of a “human ecological paradise”, there is a suggested tendency of members and religious leaders of that society to work together to reach that ecological paradise. This perceived human ecological paradise could form common ground between environmentalists and farmers sharing an ecosystem. Any destruction to that perceived ecological paradise is considered a threat and unites those opposed to this threat in their struggle to preserve the environment. This is the core principle of environmental and ecological peace building. Thick descriptions of specific case studies of ecological peace building provide then an insight in the human cognitive processes of environmental peace building (Wessels, 2016).

Our shared natural environment can thus form a positive incentive for enemies to cooperate to achieve the dreamed-of order of an ”ecological paradise” whereby human beings have the right to healthy and sustainable environment, of being at peace with nature, which constitutes a process of healing and the achievement of an, almost religious, “inner-peace”. Geertz’ symbolic anthropology, where the role of symbols in constructing culture and public meaning is emphasized, describes the “dreamed-of order” (Geertz, 1973). Ecological peacebuilding is thus like ”working towards paradise” based on the principle that a balanced human ecosystem with fair distribution of natural resources, leads to a societal and balanced ”dreamed-of order” of peace, democracy and a sustainable natural environment.

Conclusion

Theories of environmental peacebuilding come from a variety of different disciplines within the social and biophysical sciences. I argue that in order to come to a comprehensive theory of environmental peacebuilding, there is a need to two paradigm shifts; 1) one in peace and conflict studies, from the liberal peacebuilding to a more holistic approach and 2) one in conservation sciences, from a conventional anthropocentric ecosystem approach to a Human Ecosystem approach, whereby human beings are integral part of the natural environment, linking the biophysical, terrestrial, physical, cultural and socio-economic components of the environment. The example of Wadi Fukin within the Jordan River Basin was taken as point in case for the potential of environmental peacebuilding. Combined with Geertz’ definition of culture as a ”dreamed-of order”, environmental peacebuilding in practice can be seen as working towards a shared vision of an ”ecological paradise”.

In the next part of this two-part series, I will illustrate how environmental peacebuilding works in practice in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)

This blogpost is partly based on a bookchapter published earlier last year; Wessels, J.I. (2016) “Valleys of Hope and Despair; peace building through independent environmental documentaries” in Mediating Peace, Reconciliation through Visual Art, Music and Film by Sebastian Kim, Pauline Kollontai & Sue Yore (eds.), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK. ISBN (10): 1-4438-8371-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-8371-9.

November 14, 2017

natureofpeace

This entry was posted in

Concepts environmental peacebuilding Theories

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

About “nature” and “peace”

Nature

By: Maria Andrea Nardi

Researchers working in this transdisciplinary project have different fields of expertise, ranging from theology to natural science. We have, however, a common interest: we are all interested in nature. We wonder whether nature will be at peace after armed-conflicts have come to a halt.

We have formulated some guiding questions: what happens to nature after a peace agreement? How is the natural environment transformed in post-conflict societies? What happens to natural resources once a country is ready for development?

Another common concern we have is: do we all have a common understanding when we talk about nature, natural environment and natural resources? Are these terms referring to similar things? And what about the notions of ecosystems or the non-human world for instance? What ideas are behind each of these terms?

Here is an attempt to bring this into discussion. We do not intend to answer the question “What is Nature?” We simply want to present some notions related to nature, so that we can start building a common ground for future analytical endeavours.

The idea of nature relates in general to the non-human world. We usually refer to nature when we think of all that is not social/cultural. For many, however, the nature-society is a forced dichotomy (*). After all, humans are biological beings and as such, they are also part of nature. For some, the non-human world also refers to the spiritual and/or cosmological world, which does not necessary refer to nature.

The notion of natural environment refers to the nature that surrounds humans. If humans are in the centre and surrounded by nature, then an obvious question is: who is being surrounded? Are all humans equal? What different “natures” do we have access to and why?

The term natural resources refer to the idea that some “nature” can be valued and become a resource for something. The obvious question here is: which value system and whose values? In current global neoliberal capitalism, is the value given by transnational corporations to nature the same as the value given by communities whose livelihoods depend directly on nature?

It seems then that nature has to do with life, with processes that are conditioned by, but go beyond, human control. Having this in mind then, we can agree that for analytical purposes, we will use the notion of nature to refer to non-human processes (such as biological or geological) in different time and space scales. Even such processes are not governed by human “rationality” they are very much conditioned by political, economical, and social activities. For example, we will focus on nature when we want to know how soil or trees are produced, how land is distributed or put under production, how forest is used or conserved, how oil and minerals are exploited, how water is cleaned or polluted, who benefits from such activities, who has access to environmental political participation, and whose worldviews are recognized in policy making and legislation.

Are humans part of nature, or separate from it? Photo taken in Cameroon by Maria Andrea Nardi.

Therefore, we will in this project focus in human activities controlling and regulating how nature is produced, consumed, distributed, and lived by different group of people during peace-building processes and whether this promotes sustainable peace and environmental justice or not.

In any case, what do you think nature is and how does it matter in post-conflict situations?

Comments are welcome!

(*) Division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups. dichotomy. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dichotomy (accessed: October 9, 2017).

Peace

By: Lina Eklund

Most people will probably agree that peace is something we desire. We want the dead to rest in peace, and we also want to live in peace (although that seems like a much tougher goal). But what does peace really mean?

Is peace binary – either there is peace or there is not – or is there a peace scale? Can you have more peace and less peace? 100% peace, or 54% peace?

There are many definitions of peace in the dictionary. Peace can mean a state of quiet and calm. Peace can also mean the absence of conflict, disturbance, or war. However, war or conflict is never defined as the absence of peace. Why is that? Conflict is active but peace is passive?

Iraqi Kurdistan has experienced a relatively peaceful period since 2003, but in recent years the situation has become less stable due to the nearby conflicts in Syria and Iraq. Photo by Lina Eklund.

In our discussions as an interdisciplinary group we have realized that the process towards peace has many different stages. The first step is a ceasefire, which means that the hostilities stops, although the conflict is still not resolved. The next step, a peace agreement or treaty, is a formal agreement between two or more parties in conflict to end the war. This agreement often includes issues like borders, access to resources, refugees and debts. A peace agreement, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that all conflict is gone. We may have a “negative peace” – referring to the absence of armed violence – but the aim is a “positive” peace, i.e. the absence of structural and cultural violence, where basic human rights are respected. In the aftermath of a peace agreement, there’s still a lot of peacebuilding to be made, both on a structural level (normalization) and on a cultural level (reconciliation), which may take a long time.

From our discussions as an interdisciplinary group it has become clear that peace is not a simple term to work with. It means different things to different people, and it has several different definitions and stages that needs to be considered when discussing the effects of peace.

Furthermore, peace is often positively associated with nature. Peaceful moments can be experienced in a forest, on a mountain or by a lake. Yet in this theme we discuss not only the positive effects of peace on nature, but also the negative effects. In this view peace comes with some processes that are not necessarily peaceful from a nature-perspective: economic growth and resource extraction.

We therefore wonder: who is the peace for and who it should benefit to be sustainable?

October 12, 2017

natureofpeace

This entry was posted in

Concepts

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Call for Abstracts: The Nature of Peace session at AAG 2018

We welcome contributions to our session at the AAG Annual meeting in New Orleans, 10-14 April 2018!

Title: The Nature of Peace – links between the natural environment and post-conflict societies

Organizers: Torsten Krause, Andrea Nardi and Lina Eklund (Lund University)

Sponsors: The Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies

Please send abstract (max. 300 words) by October 25 to the following email addresses: Torsten.krause@lucsus.lu.se & Andrea.nardi@keg.lu.se

With warm regards

Torsten, Andrea & Lina

—-

Description of session:

In a situation of armed conflict, environmental protection concerns are usually not high on the agenda. During conflict, natural resources are often extracted in an illegal and informal manner because of a lack of oversight from a weak state engaged in war or because of various groups (e.g., political or ethnic) battling for access to, and control over, resources and lands in order to enrich themselves and finance their activities. Conversely, notwithstanding the often-devastating social consequences, armed conflicts may also provide an unintended protection for ecosystems, such as forests (McNeely 2003, Burgess et al. 2015). This is largely due to the lack of infrastructure construction and other external investments in rural areas during the armed conflict because of security concerns (Sanchez-Cuervo and Aide 2013). In Sierra Leone, a country ravaged by civil war for many years, deforestation was substantially lower than in neighboring countries as a result of the armed conflict (Burgess et al. 2015). Similarly, Colombia has a relatively low deforestation rate compared to other countries in South America (FAO 2012). However, this odd form of protection can quickly disappear when armed conflicts end and make way for reconciliation and transition to peace.

This session proposes to scrutinize post-conflict peacebuilding and reconstructions processes that take place after the termination of an internal armed conflict. Particularly, the focus will be on the links between post-conflict developments and the effects on the natural environment, natural resources management, and, more broadly, environmental justice.

We seek contributions to the following questions:

How does a transition from armed conflict to peace impact the natural environment?

And what (negative and/or positive) consequences can these impacts have for various social groups?

Empirical evidence from around the world has shown that post-conflict reconstruction efforts often focus on the short-term and urgent needs of societies transitioning to peace. These processes, however, often fail to consider the root causes of the conflict and to integrate factors, such as the management of natural resources, that will contribute to a transition to durable peace and sustainable development (Krampe, 2016; Matthew, 2014). It is therefore of key importance to investigate if peace also brings environmental justice in the long term. For instance, the end of the civil war in Cambodia opened the doors for large-scale natural resources exploitation and infrastructure development, often at the indirect detriment of people who are dependent on natural resources to sustain their livelihoods (Le Billon 2000, Milne et al. 2015). Therefore, what is frequently framed as progress and development by governments and investors often leads to the exacerbation of environmental injustices (Bernstein 2001). In South Africa, an already water-scarce country, addressing the legacies of apartheid also involves tackling unequal access to natural resources such as land, water and electricity. In short, land restitution, social and environmental justice, go together during post-conflict situations.

Despite the above mentioned, there is a disconnection between natural resources management and the post-conflict/peacebuilding research communities. Not enough is known about when, how and why environmental factors can work for peace, and vice versa, how peace processes can contribute to environmental sustainability (Altpeter, 2016; Matthew, 2014).

References:

Bernstein, S. (2001). The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. New York, Columbia University Press.
Burgess, R., E. Miguel and C. Stanton (2015). “War and deforestation in Sierra Leone.” Environmental Research Letters 10(9).
FAO (2012). State of the World’s Forest 2012. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Le Billon, P. (2000). “The political ecology of transition in Cambodia 1989-1999: War, peace and forest exploitation.” Development and Change31(4): 785-805.
McNeely, J. A. (2003). “Conserving forest biodiversity in times of violent conflict.” Oryx 37(2): 142-152.
Milne, S., P. Kimchoeun and M. Sullivan (2015). Shackled to nature? The post-conflict state and its symbiotic relationship with natural resources. Conservation and Development in Cambodia: Exploring frontiers of change in nature, state and society: 28-50.
Sanchez-Cuervo, A. M. and T. M. Aide (2013). “Consequences of the Armed Conflict, Forced Human Displacement, and Land Abandonment on Forest Cover Change in Colombia: A Multi-scaled Analysis.” Ecosystems 16(6): 1052-1070.

October 3, 2017

natureofpeace

This entry was posted in

environmental peacebuilding

Comments

0 Comments Leave a comment

Welcome!

Welcome to the Nature of Peace Blog!

The plan for this blog is to document and share some of our experiences working as an interdisciplinary group. The theme Nature of Peace is a project that will go on for 8 months, where a team of researchers from different fields will sit together and discuss the effects of peace on nature.

As an initial stage we are discussing what the concepts nature and peace really mean to different people (and different researchers).