Using Land for Peace: How Sustainable Land Use Systems can foster climate action and support peacebuilding
Authors: Héctor Morales Muñoz, Katharina Löhr, Michelle Bonatti, Tatiana Rodriguez, Martha Lilia Del Rio, Luca Eufemia, Patricia Perez, Stefan Sieber at Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) (Germany); Clara Viviana Rua Bustamante at Corporación Agropecuaria de Investigación Agropecuaria AGROSAVIA (Colombia); Augusto Castro at Alliance Bioversity-CIAT (Colombia)
Context
Land is one of the most contested resources in conflict-affected contexts.[i] Meanwhile, land use change is driving global biodiversity loss, deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions.[ii] Government failures to secure sustainable land access and use have led to conflicts related to land grabbing in Liberia, Afghanistan, Timor-Leste and elsewhere.[iii]
In Colombia, unsustainable land use and unequal land access have been at the root of armed conflict, disrupting rural development.[iv] Despite a peace agreement between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the state in 2016, land conflicts persist. Deforestation increased by 50% (about 238,000 ha) in areas that had been previously inaccessible due to security restrictions.[v] Additionally, over 700 social and environmental leaders were killed between mid-2016 and January 2021.[vi]
What’s Been Done
Sustainable Land Use Systems (SLUS) are a socio-technical approach to address unsustainable land uses. SLUS are productive strategies that integrate soils, water, animals and plants to support livelihoods while respecting the preferences of local farmers, ensuring the long-term productive potential of resources, and maintaining those resources’ environmental functions. As an example, some SLUS practices are based on conservation agreements in which farmers commit to conserve forest and restore ecological functions on their farms. In return, the farmers receive technical assistance to improve the productivity of cocoa and milk.
We have studied the impacts of SLUS strategies on peacebuilding.in Caquetá, a region in the Colombian Amazon that has suffered from the ravages of war, being one of the main territories of FARC operations and also a biodiversity hotspot with the largest deforested areas in the country.[vii] Our results show that promoting SLUS enables the creation of diverse and inclusive livelihoods, including through payments for ecosystem services. Thereby, SLUS aligns the financial interest of farmers with global demands to stop deforestation and protect biodiversity. When vulnerable farmers connect to sustainable value chains, this increases their resilience against illegal economies (e.g., illegal mining and drug trade).[viii]
SLUS can enable vulnerable populations to join discussions about land access and use, as well as fairness, stability in prices and access to better markets. This is important because the populations most affected by armed conflict have been historically excluded from such discussions, and our research shows they are eager to help protect the environment within their territories. Furthermore, SLUS extension activities that promote cooperation among farmers promote a sense of belonging and build trust.
Looking Ahead
· SLUS practitioners should include capacity building in conflict transformation in their work. This will support farmers’ participation in decision-making and thus increase the impact of SLUS on climate action and peacebuilding.[ix]
· Governments should facilitate sustainable development models and mediate between large private firms and vulnerable populations, ensuring equitable access to natural resources.
· Governments should align market models with the principle of equity to promote the resilience of agricultural communities.
· Extension agencies should combine producers’ knowledge with scientific knowledge.
· A comprehensive extension network must integrate young people, ethnic communities and women in decision-making roles and pay attention to cultural and agroecological conditions.
· National governments should increase coordination between institutions that influence environmental conservation, agricultural performance and conflict transformation.
· International donors and aid agencies can use SLUS to break silos and design hybrid financial instruments to support climate action and peacebuilding.
This article is a contribution to a compendium of 50 entries on the future of environmental peacebuilding, written by 150 authors in a collective effort to chart a future course of action. Environmental peacebuilding, climate security, environmental peace and security — these are all terms to articulate the relationship between natural resources and the lines between violent conflict and peace.
The collective project was collated and launched on 1 February 2022 at the International Conference for Environmental Peacebuilding online. It is meant to be a tool both of collective sensemaking and of influence for decision-makers. Learn more here.
[i] Van Leeuwen, M., Van Der Haar, G. (2016), ‘Theorizing the Land–Violent Conflict Nexus’, World Development 78 (1 February 2016): 94–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2015.10.011.
[ii] Nkonya, E. et al. (2012), ‘Sustainable Land Use for the 21st Century’.
[iii] Unruh, J., Williams, R. (2013) ‘Lessons Learned in Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management in Post-Conflict Societies’, 18 July 2013, 553–94, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775793-38; Schilling, J., Saulich, C., Engwicht, N., (2018) ‘Introduction: A Local to Global Perspective on Resource Governance and Conflict’, Conflict, Security and Development (Routledge, 2 November 2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2018.1532641.
[iv] Gutiérrez Sanín, F. (2004) ‘¿Una Historia Simple?’, accessed 12 February 2019, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCONFLICT/Resources/ColombiaFinal.pdf; Sabine Kurtenbach, ‘Estudios Para El Análisis de Conflictos de Carácter Nacional’, http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/02955.pdf.g
[v] Murillo-Sandoval, P., et al. (2021), ‘No Peace for the Forest: Rapid, Widespread Land Changes in the Andes-Amazon Region Following the Colombian Civil War’, Global Environmental Change 69 (1 July 2021): 102283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102283.
[vi] The numbers of human right defenders varied depending on the source local NGO’s like Indepaz report over a thousand people murdered: Indepaz, ‘1.000 Líderes y Defensores de DDHH Asesinados’, 1.000 líderes y defensores de DDHH asesinados, (2020), http://www.indepaz.org.co/1-000-lideres-y-defensores-de-ddhh/. The Governmental agency Dfensoría del Pueblo reports around 753 by 2020: Defensoría del Pueblo, ‘Reportan 753 Líderes Sociales Asesinados En Colombia de 2016 a 2020 | Defensoría Del Pueblo’, 2021, https://www.defensoria.gov.co/es/nube/enlosmedios/9929/Reportan-753-líderes-sociales-asesinados-en-Colombia-de-2016-a-2020.htm. Other sources are: Human Rights Watch (2021), ‘Left Undefended: Killings of Rights Defenders in Colombia’s Remote Communities’, Report (Bogotá, Colombia), https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/02/10/left-undefended/killings-rights-defenders-colombias-remote-communities.
[vii] Graser, M., et al. (2020), ‘Peacebuilding in Rural Colombia — A Collective Perception of the Integrated Rural Reform (IRR) in the Department of Caquetá (Amazon)’, Land 9, no. 2 (25 January 2020): 36, https://doi.org/10.3390/land9020036. Clerici, N., et al., ‘Deforestation in Colombian Protected Areas Increased during Post-Conflict Periods’, Scientific Reports 10, no. 1 (1 December 2020): 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61861-y. Global Forest Watch, ‘Colombia Deforestation Rates & Statistics | GFW’, Report, 2021, https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/COL/ .
[viii] Morales-Muñoz, H., et al. (2021), ‘Assessing Impacts of Environmental Peacebuilding in Caquetá, Colombia: A Multistakeholder Perspective’, International Affairs 97, no. 1 (11 January 2021): 179–99, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa175.
[ix] Morales-Muñoz et al.
