Assessing impacts of environmental peacebuilding in Caquetá, Colombia: a multistakeholder perspective

Abstract

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

Co-Benefits Through Coordination of Climate Action and Peacebuilding: A System Dynamics Model

“…To be effective, climate action benefits immensely from cooperation with conflict transformation and peacebuilding efforts across the conflict cycle in fragile and conflict-affected areas. Factors such as socioeconomic inclusion, peace culture and conflict management, governance, and human security are peacebuilding priorities to address and assess before, during, and after conflicts appear and escalate, which can also be used to inform climate finance projects (Morales-Muñoz et al, 2021). Peacebuilding and conflict analysis may also be used for programming and assessing climate action interventions in conflict-affected contexts to ensure that these interventions do not create more conflict—otherwise known as the “do no harm” approach (UN Peacebuilding Support Office, 2017)—and could be deployed effectively according to local priorities (De Coning, 2018).…”

“…In order to do that, conflict-sensitive approaches are crucial to avoid unintended and detrimental effects of interventions. For example, those implementing climate action projects that aim to bring peace-related co-benefits may not be aware of the importance of actively building on existing local capacities for dialogue toward creating local spaces that are not homogeneous or “power-neutral” (Ajroud et al, 2017; Morales-Muñoz et al, 2021). This can be built through common assessments, shared conceptual understanding, and systematic approaches.…”

Restoration, Land Tenure, Conflict, and Opportunities in Peacebuilding: 15 best practices for restoration

“…Integrate conflict sensitivity into project design to facilitate increased awareness of project-related challenges and help manage power differences and conflict episodes (Morales-Muñoz et al, 2021). clxxxv Conflict-sensitive projects should include direct and indirect objectives, the latter of which focuses on the wider context.…”

“…According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities is the best way to conserve natural environments (IPBES, 2019). xli If restoration programming includes tenure-responsive goals, then there are opportunities to sustainably scale up(Morales-Muñoz et al, 2021). xlii Synergies to broader initiatives exist.…”

Social Cohesion as the Missing Link between Natural Resource Management and Peacebuilding: Lessons from Cocoa Production in Côte d’Ivoire and Colombia

“…Therefore, in post-conflict contexts where dispute over access to land and other natural resources was part of the conflict, developing agricultural production models that enhance the sustainable use of resources can provide opportunity for building sustainable peace on all three dimensions (environmental, economic, and social), and also contribute towards other development goals such as climate change mitigation. Such models should successfully address the need for income generation and sustaining rural livelihoods, as well as ecological sustainability, carbon capture and/or greenhouse gas emission reduction, climate change adaptation, and biodiversity conservation [13][14][15]. Aligned with this logic, this paper follows the notion of environmental peacebuilding as key concept [4,16].…”