Issue 48 of the UN Environment Programme – Perspectives series
In Issue 48 of the UN Environment Programme’s Perspectives series, PAX critically analyzed the use of NbS and nature-positive approaches in mitigating environmental harm caused by war and as tools for conflict prevention.
The NbS framework, while advocated by many, has its flaws, including risks of carbon offsetting, land grabbing, insufficient local consent, greenwashing, human rights abuses, and militarised conservation. PAX emphasized the need for stringent standards and guidelines for implementing NbS, especially in vulnerable contexts, to ensure efforts and funds are properly invested in communities that need them the most.
The link between the environment, conflict, and peace
The relationship between the environment, conflict, and peace, can be broken down into two categories. On the one hand, one can address the environmental dimensions of conflict. Such as competition over scarce resources, illegal exploitation of natural resources, and the environment as a weapon of conflict. There has been a lot of research on environmental degradation as a driver of conflict.
However, on the other hand, one could turn this narrative around and use the environment as a medium for relationship building. To use it as an entry point for dialogue between conflicting groups. For example, the cleanup of conflict, pollution, or debris can be done cooperatively and as an entry point for dialogue. The environment can then serve as a quite neutral, apolitical topic. In some cases that can be a starting point to say “How do we protect the environment together?” and from there build on that dialogue.
Nature-Based Solutions and Peace – Risks, Potential and Limitations
One should not forget that Nature Based Solutions as a term and concept, as such, is relatively new as it was only adopted in a resolution at the United Nations Environment Assembly in 2022. Of course, the use of nature for social benefits has been going on well for the entirety of humanity, but the term as such, is new.
Realistically speaking there are also limitations. We do not expect Nature Based Solutions to be solving large, geopolitical conflicts like the conflict between Russia and Ukraine or Israel and Gaza. That is too much to ask, but Nature Based Solutions, can solve conflicts on the local and sometimes even national or transboundary level and build the resilience of communities living in conflict-affected areas.
It is also important to aknowledge and take into consideration that Nature-Based Solutions for Peace can also have the opposite effect. When they for example lead to an escalation of the conflict. This is often seen when projects are implemented in a top-down approach because then communities do not resonate with the types of activities that are being put in place. Or when indigenous and local knowledge is not being implemented. This often leads to a loss of cultural and knowledge assets and can escalate rather than de-escalate.
Success is seen, on the other hand, when communities are actively involved in the creation of conflict resolution mechanisms. Even more so when this goes beyond meaningful participation and communities are involved in decision-making processes too.
Conclusion
The session provided valuable insights into the intersection of environmental sustainability and peacebuilding. It highlighted the importance of careful implementation and adherence to standards to ensure that NbS can effectively contribute to both ecological and societal stability in conflict-affected areas.