Events
Workshop and Brainstorm session "The Environment and Conflict Prevention" 16-17 December 2008
Monday October 6, 2008, the Clingendael’s Security and Conflict Programme organised a workshop and brainstorm session on the environment and conflict prevention. The exploratory workshop “Environment & Conflict Prevention” provided a forum for discussing environment, conflict and peace-making by bringing together policy makers, experts, and academics from various backgrounds who presented their respective understandings on this issue.
Even though every conflict has its own dynamic, it is clear that there are potentially serious consequences of environmental changes (including climate change). Environmental degradation is associated with food and water shortages, population shifts and economic losses. These, in turn, may increase a range of risks to human security, including the risk of conflict. Yet, the relationship between environmental change and conflict is not yet sufficiently understood, partly because the processes that produce violent conflict in any particular situation are almost always attributable to more than one factor. Although environmental change has never likely been or ever will be the sole or proximate cause of deadly conflict, it can contribute to the conditions that make it more likely or severe. One valuable tactic to approach environmental change is called ‘Environmental Peacemaking’. The idea behind this is that environmental cooperation initiatives can have great potential as peacemaking tools. As such, cooperative efforts to manage natural resources can be used to transform insecurities and create more peaceful relations between parties in dispute.
The workshop started with two presentations by Fleur Monasso (Red Cross Climate Center) and Marloes Bakker (Co-operative Programme on Water and Climate (CPWC). Ms. Monasso started with a general introduction on climate change before pointing out some developments in the field of early warning and early action. To increase sustainability, it was encouraged to get the local population actively involved and foster new partnerships. Ms. Monasso concluded by underlining that disaster preparedness and response capabilities should be improved. To this effect it was suggested to integrate climate risk management into policies of the different organisations and agencies.
In her presentation, Ms. Bakker explored the relationship between water and conflict. It was noted that water often has an indirect role in, most notably, intrastate conflicts and that scarcity of resources and water are likely to heighten the vulnerability of a population. The extent to which a population is, in the end, affected by environmental change will depend on the pre-existing level of vulnerability. From this perspective environmental peacebuilding can be a tool to decrease the level of vulnerability. This consists of the pro-active exploitation of these environmental problems to heighten the sense of group security. As such it should focus on: increasing mutual trust; fostering collective identities; and reducing uncertainties. This could result in the initiation of dialogue and the promotion of sustainable development amongst disputing parties.
After the presentations, the brainstorm session started and a lively debate evolved amongst participants. Topics that were touched upon included: how to get environmental change higher on the political agenda; how to define environmental change; how to collect and make better use of data on climate change; and how to understand and apply environmental peacebuilding. A valid point of discussion was if environmental change constitutes a security threat or not. A majority thought it is a security threat, but doubted if short term policy implementation will treat it as such. Throughout the debate, knowledge and information sharing and linking were seen as important. It became clear that it is difficult to frame the correlation between environment and conflict as analyses are often based on assumptions and cannot be proven empirically. Therefore, researchers hesitate giving their opinion out of fear of losing their credibility. As a consequence, it is hard to get the subject on the agenda, to create more political goodwill or to formulate policy recommendations. To respond to this situation, it was suggested that more studies be carried out to assess climate change risk. The intention should be to improve disaster preparedness and, ultimately, to create the political will to give more salience to the issue.
The discussion witnessed the confirmation that climate change and the exacerbation of environmental problems function as threat multipliers, but are never the sole cause of conflict. Nevertheless, declining access to resources could lead to violence or could cause people to move en masse (“environmental refugees”). An increasing number of floods and droughts can produce drawbacks in economic conditions and reduce employment opportunities. Especially in countries with high unemployment amongst young men, who are vulnerable for recruitment to armed groups, conflict can arise.
At the end of the debate, participants came up with a range of ideas and propositions. Some mentioned climate centres located in the most vulnerable areas as vital. This would increase the available data and could create an early warning system. It was said, however, that data would make little difference as long as political considerations ensured that these data are underestimated or neglected. The brainstorm session ended with the remark that fighting environmental change is fighting symptoms and not causes. Yet, it is possible that, in urgent situations and when interests collide, cooperation and dialogue could occur amongst disputing parties. It was suggested that in this respect the start of European integration could inspire future projects that aim at tackling the effects of environmental change.