Showing posts from category conflict.
-
Water, Conflict, and Cooperation: Practical Concerns for Water Development Projects
›
“Water disputes that can start at the local level—little things—have the potential, in extreme cases, to burgeon into something much bigger,” warned Ken Hackett, president of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), during a discussion at the Woodrow Wilson Center (Webcast) for the launch of CRS’ new publication, Water and Conflict: Incorporating Peacebuilding into Water Development. The report provides guidance to water development practitioners, civil society members, and others striving to incorporate water and peacebuilding into their project frameworks.
In recognition of water’s potential to drive conflict, Hackett—part of a panel featuring Jason Gehrig, Water and Conflict‘s primary author; William Hall, professor of conflict resolution at Georgetown University; and Tjip Walker, team leader of USAID’s conflict management and mitigation office‘s warning and analysis unit—urged those working on water to focus attention on identifying and diffusing areas of emerging disagreement while they are still manageable. “We must, in a proactive way, incorporate peacebuilding methodologies in water and sanitation work,” said Hackett.
Looking Beyond Tubes and TanksPrior to witnessing violent protests within the Altiplano region of Bolivia, Jason Gehrig assumed that the primary obstacles to successful water development efforts would be found in the technical phase of designing or building delivery systems. Local political developments, however, demonstrated that “we can’t just be looking at development without also looking at the structural issues at play,” said Gherig.
Emphasis on “social infrastructure” and the inclusion of peacebuilding paradigms allows for conflict transformation and the mitigation of future violence through heightened conflict sensitivity by local practitioners. Such understanding and sensitivity to local conflicts and structures, Gehrig asserted, can only be achieved by “listening, winning hearts and minds (beginning with our own) by getting close to the people so that their struggle for life, for dignity, for peace, becomes our own.”
Defining the Role of Environmental Conflict ResolutionWilliam Hall noted that conflict sensitive practices apply several elements of environmental conflict resolution (ECR), such as in-depth social participation, context analysis, stakeholder involvement, and the use of neutral parties.
For Hall, the goal of ECR is not only conflict resolution, but “also how people will be involved.” Adapting a framework design from the International Association for Public Participation, Hall reminded the audience that decision-makers must clearly communicate both the goals of their intervention as well as the degree of public involvement required and desired. These issues are sensitive; Hall emphasized that, once a commitment has been made, it is extremely important “to be true to [one’s promises.]”
In situations such as those included in the CRS report, successful peacebuilding efforts—which result in high-quality agreements and improved working relationships between the affected parties—must include effective engagement of appropriate stakeholders, proper mediation, and high-quality information. While many of these factors may be seen as additional procedural complications and expenses, Hall countered that recent research has shown that, compared to standard methods, agreements reached within an ECR context grant economic and environmental benefits beyond those afforded by alternative processes.
Peacefully Managing the CommonsTjip Walker noted that effective governance of water and other common pool resources, often magnets for mismanagement and contention, should be a pivotal concern for peacebuilders in fragile states. Drawing on research on governance and conflict, Walker explained that countries that are more democratic, and allow for greater social participation, are at a lower risk for violent conflict.
With regard to threats posed by common pool resources, Walker reminded the forum that Elinor Ostrom’s work demonstrates it is possible—providing a “enabling environment” for governance—to manage such resources without exposure to dire consequences. In many cases, however, Ostrom’s requirements for sustainable management are unfortunately difficult to achieve and are further complicated by pre-existing challenges stemming from economic dependencies and political arrangements.
Referring to previous trans-boundary river conflict projects, Walker noted that “most of them have been positive…[which] seems to suggest that we are all in this together.” Successes such as these grant hope for the future, yet also demonstrate a need for negotiated agreements across political boundaries. “Under the right circumstances,” Walker concluded, “we do have the ability to manage these resources effectively in ways that are perceived as generally being effective and legitimate.”
For more information about water, conflict and cooperation, as well as other events and publications under ECSP’s Navigating Peace Initiative, please visit www.wilsoncenter.org/water.
Photo: Courtesy David Hawxhurst, Woodrow Wilson Center.
-
Walker’s World: From Warming to Warring: A Review of Cleo Paskal’s New Book
›January 15, 2010 // By Wilson Center StaffWilson Center Senior Scholar Martin Walker recently reviewed Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map by Cleo Paskal, for his UPI column, “Walker’s World.”
Excerpts:The Copenhagen summit showed that climate change is as much about geopolitics and power as it is about the weather. China‘s blunt refusal to accept any binding limits on its carbon emissions, despite the agonized pleas of small island governments facing extinction, demonstrated that this new aspect of the game of nations is going to be played as hardball.
And yet, as Cleo Paskal argues in her pioneering new book “Global Warring,” China is also powering ahead on every aspect of climate change. While protecting its right to pollute (because it depends heavily on coal as its main homegrown energy source), China is using state subsidies to seize the lead in solar power manufacturing….But perhaps Paskal’s most striking story is the way that China is also seeking to become a major player in the arctic. China has acquired an icebreaker, a seat with observer status on the Arctic Council and its own arctic research base at Svalbard. (China also has two research bases in the Antarctic.) …
Paskal’s book is full of such vignettes, illustrating the way that climate change and the intensifying competition for resources is starting to change the nature of power politics. Paskal, a Canadian who is a fellow of London’s prestigious Chatham House think tank and a consultant for the U.S. Department of Energy, has been a pioneering scholar of the new terrain where climate change confronts national security, where geopolitics, geoeconomics and global warming all collide. It is not just rivalry for oil and gas supplies and water, but also for fishing rights and undersea mining and mineral rights that may well be up for grabs when some of the lowest-lying Pacific island countries disappear under the rising waves. …
“We need to start thinking about the legal and economic implications of these developments now, before we have to start tackling them in the middle of a crisis or a humanitarian emergency,” Paskal told a seminar at Washington’s Woodrow Wilson Center Friday. …
Paskal sees China and Russia taking these issues more seriously that the United States and Europe, and her book is not just a wakeup call for Western leaders but is also an arresting and original work on climate change, probably the most important book on the environment to be published this year.
“As pressure is put on food, water supplies and national boundaries, famine and war may become more frequent,” Paskal concludes. “This instability may make populations more tolerant of autocratic governments, especially nationalistic capitalist ones where the political, economic and military sectors combine to protect existing resources and aggressively try to secure new ones. China and Russia already have a head start on this model.” -
Alec Crawford on Climate Change and Conflict in Africa and the Middle East
›January 14, 2010 // By Sajid Anwar“Climate change certainly does pose a risk to the world in terms of violent conflict, but there’s a lot of nuance to that argument and a lot of attention and care has to be put into making that case,” says Alec Crawford, project officer at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in this video interview with ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko.
According to Crawford, the argument that climate change will lead directly to violent conflict is overly simplistic, but climate could be one of conflict’s many drivers in both Africa and the Middle East. A recent IISD report discusses the potential security challenges of climate change and how to prevent them. -
An Island of Peace in a Sea of Conflict: The Jordan River Peace Park
›Saleem Ali filmed this video on his visit to the “peace island” between Jordan and Israel, which Friends of the Earth Middle East (FOEME) is working to convert into an international peace park.
FOEME co-Director Gidon Bromberg will be at the Wilson Center today to discuss the peace park and other FOEME water cooperation initiatives in more detail as a panelist participating in “Pathways to Peace: Stories of Environment, Health, and Conflict,” an event discussing field-based lessons for addressing environment, health, development, and conflict.
Video: Filmed by Saleem H. Ali (University of Vermont, editor of the MIT Press book Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution) with commentary by Elizabeth Ya’ari (FOEME), January 2010. -
Eco-Tourism: Kenya’s Development Engine Under Threat
›Africa’s elephants and black rhinos—already at risk—are increasingly threatened as the price of black market ivory rises, global markets contract, and unemployment rates rise. To fight poaching of these tusked animals, Ian Craig, founder of the Lewa Conservancy in Kenya and the brains behind the Northern Rangelands Trust, takes a unique approach to conservation that involves both local community members and high-level government officials, as well as private and public sector investors.
In the 1970s the black rhino population was at about 20,000. Less than three decades later, it had fallen to 200. Today, the population is about 600, of which 79 live in the Lewa Conservancy. The vast regions of Kenya covered by the Northern Rangelands Trust and the Lewa Conservancy are difficult to govern, so the conservancies partner with local communities to ensure the security necessary to protect the animals from poachers. By investing in community institutions, the conservancies create long-term sustainability and self-sufficiency.
But why should local communities—often beset by poverty, disease, and hunger—care about saving elephants or rhinoceroses rather than killing them for their tusks or meat? Revenue from tourism can total hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially because of the high cost and exclusive nature of tourism facilities in the area. This money is then injected back into community programs to improve adult literacy, school nutrition, health care, micro-credit, water and irrigation systems, community livestock and agriculture, and forestry and aquaculture.
In some politically volatile areas, the conservancy serves not only as a platform for ecological security, but also as a mediator of disputes. Where livestock theft is rampant, multi-ethnic anti-poaching teams have been able to act as intermediaries. Community elders and other traditional leaders serving on the conservancies’ boards have bi-annual meetings to further intra- and inter-regional cooperation. Along with regular managerial and council meetings, the board meetings set standards for good practices, open dialogue for policymaking and cooperation, and act as a unique platform for communication between different ethnic and regional groups.
Community members understand they have a stake in protecting not only the animals, but in ensuring security and building trust within the country. With its unique combination of local-level engagement, the cooperation and support of the Kenyan Wildlife Service and the national government, and with the resources available to the conservancies as a group, the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy hopes to create a model of conservation that can be used across Africa and in other at-risk regions.
The future is shaky: ivory prices continue to rise, the migration of animals has facilitated poaching, and small arms are abundantly available. However, the new community-focused approach has helped to create positive attitudes that aren’t just about saving animals, but about developing the nation.
Justine Lindemann is program assistant with the Africa Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Photo: Elephants in Lewa Conservancy area, courtesty Flickr user Mara 1 -
The Ambivalent Security Agenda in Copenhagen
›To communicate a sense of urgency, the security paradigm is being used to push for self-sufficiency in energy, and hence “national security,” at COP-15. Such a connection, if configured with carbon-free energy sources, could provide a win-win outcome for many.
This argument has been embraced both by the left and the right of the political spectrum in the United States. But compelling as it may be politically, there is a discomforting insularity and isolationism embedded in this approach, as emphasized by the delegations from some countries that export fuels (e.g., OPEC members, emergent oil and gas economies, and uranium exporters such as Namibia and Niger).
The Canadian delegation, which was targeted by activists with a “fossil of the day” award, used the security argument to show how it could send relatively “conflict-free” fuels to the United States by developing its oil, uranium, and bituminous tar sands.
Australia played a similar security card behind the scenes. The former Environment Minister Robert Hill also served as defense minister and is now head of Australia’s Carbon Trust–connections which he suggested were very valuable in an onsite interview with journalist Giles Parkinson.
Nuclear energy was prominently discussed as a solution by numerous delegations. At a side event organized by the Danish Federation of Industries, Energy Secretary and Nobel physicist Steven Chu indicated that his biggest concern about nuclear energy was not the waste problem but rather, the potential dangers to national security from the proliferation of radioactive materials.
The other security connection that environmentalists like to make–but is empirically more tenuous–concerns the increased pressures on existing strife in resource-scarce communities potentially inflicted by climate change. I attended a presentation by an OECD research team that empirically considered the impact of climate change on the security of the vulnerable states of the African Sahel. While generally rejecting the direct linkage between climate change and the threat of violent conflict, the OECD study, launched with UK Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, identified three hotspots where existing resource scarcity and population pressure could be exacerbated by climate change, especially agropastoralist communities, who are highly sensitive to any climatic fluctuations.
So far, the rather meandering encounter with the security agenda I’ve witnessed here in Copenhagen could greatly benefit from further integrative work such as that offered by the Wilson Center.
Saleem H. Ali is associate professor of environmental planning at the University of Vermont and the author most recently of Treasures of the Earth: Need, Greed and a Sustainable Future. -
NATO Says Don’t Fight the Planet
›Climate and security are under discussion today in Copenhagen at the Danish government’s side event, which brings together heavyweights such as NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, African Union Chair Jean Ping, and Danish Foreign Minister Peter Stig Møller.
Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark, delivered his remarks the new-fashioned way: today’s Huffington Post. He says NATO is ready to “do its part” by lowering its own carbon bootprint and responding to the increasing humanitarian challenges of a warmer world. He suggests the threat of climate change does not allow powerful institutions like NATO the luxury of sitting on the sidelines.
The post even includes this embedded “Climate Change and NATO” video with an unfortunate screen grab that reads “Fighting the Planet.” Not exactly a reassuring message for those who argue that framing climate change as a security issue will militarize the environment rather than green security (to paraphrase an excellent 1994 edited volume by Finn Jyrki Kakonen).
The video’s actual message is that some security threats can be fought and others shouldn’t be. Climate change will present a security threat, but “Fight the planet and we all lose,” says NATO. Even when the video makes all the right points, those pesky screen grabs can undermine your case! -
Nobel Pursuits: Linking Climate Efforts With Development, Natural Resources, and Stability
›December 11, 2009 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoThe only mention of climate change in President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech falls squarely in the climate and security context. He introduces the climate imperative by highlighting natural resources and development connections to stability and human well-being.
In these two paragraphs, the President identifies the key communities that must come together, first in dialogue and then in cooperation, but who so commonly don’t: development, natural resources, health, climate, peacebuilding, and security.It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
Photo: President Barack Obama looks at the Nobel Peace Prize medal at the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009 (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).
And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action — it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
“Water disputes that can start at the local level—little things—have the potential, in extreme cases, to burgeon into something much bigger,” warned Ken Hackett, president of 
Prior to witnessing violent protests within the Altiplano region of Bolivia, Jason Gehrig assumed that the primary obstacles to successful water development efforts would be found in the technical phase of designing or building delivery systems. Local political developments, however, demonstrated that “we can’t just be looking at development without also looking at the structural issues at play,” said Gherig.
William Hall noted that conflict sensitive practices apply several elements of environmental conflict resolution (
Tjip Walker noted that effective governance of water and other common pool resources, often magnets for mismanagement and contention, should be a pivotal concern for peacebuilders in fragile states. Drawing on research on governance and conflict, Walker explained that countries that are more democratic, and allow for greater social participation, are at a lower risk for violent conflict.
The 
Africa’s elephants and black rhinos—already at risk—are increasingly threatened as the 
