Migration, whether triggered by single events, such as violent conflict, or by long term pressures related to environmental change or food insecurity is altering sustainable development in societies. Although there is a large amount of literature, there is a gap for consolidating frameworks of migration-related to the interaction and correlation between drivers. We review scientific papers and research reports about three categories of drivers: Environmental Change (EC), Food Security (FS), and Violent Conflict (VC). First, we organize the literature to understand the explanations of the three drivers on migration individually, as well as the interactions among each other. Secondly, we analyse the literature produced regarding Colombia, Myanmar, and Tanzania; countries with different combinations of the driving factors for migration. Although we find that many correlations are explained in the literature, migration is mostly driven by structural vulnerabilities and unsustainable development paths in places that have a low resilience capacity to cope with risk. For example, food insecurity, as a product of environmental changes (droughts and floods), is seen as a mediating factor detonating violent conflict and migration in vulnerable populations. The paper contributes to the literature about multi-driven migration, presenting an overview of the way in which different driver combinations trigger migration. This is important for determining the best governance mechanisms and policy responses that tackle forced migration and improve the resilience of vulnerable communities as well as sustainable development.
A major challenge in the field of environmental peacebuilding is showing the impact of its initiatives. Questions emerge, such as what kind of postwar peacebuilding dimensions are more likely to be affected by natural resource management projects? Although quantitative studies assess the relation between natural resource management programmes and conflict, the question remains: what are the mechanisms involved in implementing projects designed for environmental peacebuilding? To answer these questions, a mixed methods research approach is chosen, combining four qualitative and quantitative methods to triangulate results. First, we identify a set of peacebuilding dimensions and mechanisms based in the literature that facilitate assessing the impact of sustainable land-use systems (SLUS) design in the post-peace agreement region of Caquetá, Colombia. Second, not only do we interview experts and practitioners at global, national (Colombia) and local (Department of Caquetá) levels in the fields of peacebuilding, natural resource management and environmental peacebuilding, we also conduct three workshops and a survey in Caquetá to prioritize dimensions and discover explanatory mechanisms. The case of Caquetá, Colombia, shows that peacebuilding dimensions, such as socio-economic inclusion (e.g. sustainable livelihoods), creation of governance scenarios, and building capacities for dialogue and a peace culture, should be addressed to take account of the impacts of SLUS projects in post-conflict peacebuilding.
National and international cooperation and development projects (CDP) are fundamental for peacebuilding. However, unforeseen global crises, like COVID-19, can endanger such projects, requiring rapid adaption. In Colombia, the coronavirus outbreak threatens to slow the implementation of peace-related projects, while simultaneously violence over control and ownership of land increases. Although the mid- to long-term consequences for peacebuilding are unknown, exploring risk-adapted strategies of national and international CDP can help identify crucial aspects for future processes and implementations. This study explores the key challenges and coping strategies of implementing agencies and stakeholders to COVID-19, thus helping to derive and improve risk-adapted strategies. After reviewing academic and grey literature, and implementing a semi-structured survey, peacebuilding risked-adapted strategies to COVID-19 are explored with respect to conflict-affected and vulnerable areas of Colombia. Findings show that increasing complexity rooted in top down governmental measures, the rise of new local power relations (e.g. armed groups, illicit activities), and social alienation are negatively affecting peacebuilding in Colombia. Future CDP risk adapted strategies should build on local interests and needs through public-private and environmental cooperation.
In conflict studies, environmental peacebuilding (EPB) has become an established concept to explain how environmental cooperation among opposing parties provides a platform for peacebuilding. EPB literature has been shaped predominantly by political science perspectives, initially with a focus on interstate conflicts, and ecological dynamics have received little attention to date. Building on the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF), we develop a framework for community-based EPB and test it in post-conflict settings in the department of Cesar, Colombia. We use a qualitative mixed-methods approach, with 26 semi-structured interviews, six focus group discussions, and a World Café session with 30 participants. Our findings show that in six cases communities self-organize to access, conserve, and defend water and land resources while striving to achieve recognition of their civic rights by state actors. A central outcome of cooperation within and among communities is the (re)construction of collective and territorial identities and increased social cohesion. However, community-based EPB does not contribute to improving relations between communities and the private sector or the state, thus failing to strengthen actor relationships that are essential for Colombian peacebuilding. Despite limitations of this exploratory analysis, our approach proves fruitful for integrating ecological aspects in the understanding of EPB. To further develop the EPB concept, future research should look to other disciplines to diversify the understanding of key terms like resource value, cooperation, and peace.
Climate disasters affect human security and development, moreso in fragile and conflict-affected contexts where population’ capacities to cope with climate change are compromised. Responses to such crises lie at the nexus of humanitarian assistance, development, and peacebuilding. Yet, there are still too few integrated programmatic responses coordinating peacebuilding and climate actions to ensure a progressive human development. This research develops a multi-scalar model to help actors identify thematic areas to inform synergistic efforts and programs at different scales to better coordinate their actions. Findings suggest that climate action and peacebuilding sectors can coordinate actions around climate and conflict risk assessments, the management of land and water resources, ecosystem restoration, nature-based climate adaptation, climate and conflict smart agriculture, natural resources governance, and sustainable market development. These collaborative efforts have the potential to generate co-benefits, such as increased social cohesion and livelihood creation.
Social cohesion plays a key role in processes of peacebuilding and sustainable development. Fostering social cohesion might present a potential to enhance the connection of natural resource management and peacebuilding and better functioning of sustainable land use systems. This contribution explores the nexus between social cohesion, natural resource management, and peacebuilding. We do so by (1) reviewing literature on the three concepts and (2) studying four different key action areas in the context of sustainable cocoa production for their potential to enhance social cohesion, namely (a) agroforestry; (b) cooperatives; (c) certification schemes; and (d) trade policies. Research is based on experience from cocoa production in two post-conflict countries, Côte d’Ivoire and Colombia. Our findings show that by fostering environmentally sustainable agricultural practices, these key action areas have a clear potential to foster social cohesion among cocoa producers and thus provide a valuable contribution to post-conflict peacebuilding in both countries. However, the actual effects strongly depend on a multitude of local factors which need to be carefully taken into consideration. Further, the focus in implementation of some of these approaches tends to be on increasing agricultural productivity and not directly on fostering cocoa farmers’ wellbeing and societal relations, and hence a shift toward social objectives is needed in order to strengthen these approaches as a part of overall peacebuilding strategies.
Land is an essential natural resource for climate mitigation and peace. It is commonly connected with sources of GHG emissions and with drivers of (violent) conflict. Therefore, climate mitigation and peacebuilding strategies are co-designing sustainable land-use systems (SLUS) with affected communities to integrate land-based climate mitigation and peacebuilding objectives. SLUS is practiced within agricultural production systems that meet sustainability principles (environmental, social, and economic). Nevertheless, there needs to be more program evaluation frameworks, especially measurable indicators, that integrate these two objectives (achieving peace and climate mitigation). This study aims to develop a methodology and criteria to evaluate the precise mechanisms of SLUS influencing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and drivers of conflict. A mix-method approach was used in two case study regions, Cesar and Caquetá, Colombia, where SLUS strategies where implemented. First, we conducted three workshops, two in-person and one virtual (n = 103). Secondly, we held semi-structured interviews (n = 115) to make an analysis of the conflict. Our research focused on the drivers of land-based emissions and conflict drivers targeted by the SLUS implementation. Lastly, through a household survey (n = 929), we illustrated the impacts of SLUS in peacebuilding at the farm level. Results show that SLUS, such as cocoa agroforestry, can contribute to climate change mitigation and deliver co-benefits in four core factors: (i) socio-economic inclusion by creating jobs and diversifying livelihoods, (ii) dialogue and conflict transformation by allowing negotiations around the participatory design of farms, including conservation agreements, (iii) natural resource governance, and (iv) cooperation by creating knowledge exchange and a community of practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.