Vast deposits of gold, silver and copper in the Andes Mountains have led to the first outbreaks of violence. In mid November, clashes occurred not among rival gold diggers, but rather between environmentalists and the police in the Chilean capital, Santiago. The conflict arose over gold mining in Pascua-Lama, a region located high in the Andes between Chile and Argentina. The Canadian mining company Barrick Gold Corporation plans to displace three glaciers to facilitate mineral mining. Such a move would have major impacts on the water supply and habitat of several indigenous tribes. Violent clashes took place when protesters attempted to submit a petition containing 18,000 signatures against the company's plans.
The conflict over exploitation rights, which pose a threat to the existence of the indigenous Huascoaltinos community, has been brewing for a long time. In 2001, the company was asked by the Chilean environment ministry to draw up a plan for the glaciers. The Environmental Impact Assessment submitted previously by Barrick had sidestepped this issue. The company has now, as a first step, committed USD 60 million per year for ensuring water quality. A dam is to be constructed to guarantee regular water supply. The Latin American Observatory of Environmental Conflicts (OCLA), an independent watchdog organization, views this conflict as symptomatic of the large number of environmental conflicts in Chile resulting from poor environmental legislation. There are neither any guidelines to ensure adequate participation of civil society in resolving conflicts, nor any mechanisms to minimize the ecological and social impacts of the activities of large corporations. These environmental policy shortcomings may result in gold actually moving mountains (DT).
For more information on this conflict, please see:
Latin American Observatory of Environmental Conflicts (OCLA) (in Spanish) www.ocla.cl
Barrick Gold Corporation in Chile (in Spanish) www.barrick.cl
Inter Press Service Agency (IPS) http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30994
Even without the hurricanes of the last months, the vulnerability of national energy supply would have been a priority on foreign and security policy agendas. Even before the devastation wrought by Katrina and Rita, top level representatives of political establishments recognized the need for a strategic reorientation of energy policy. This was emphasized by the "Oil Shockwave" exercise carried out by former top US officials in energy and security policy. Simulating a crisis cabinet, they examined options available to US policy in a scenario in which oil supply on world markets drops in response to political crises, terrorist strikes, and adverse weather conditions. As the scenario played out, there were insufficient options available to avert massive economic losses. The virtual cabinet urgently recommended developing a long term strategy to regain the capability to respond to such situations.
The contours of such a strategy are the central theme of a recent book edited by Jan H. Kalicki and David L. Goldwyn. A comprehensive analysis of key actors, regions, and strategic demands reveals that it has so far not been possible to develop a long term, integrated energy strategy. This is likely to lead to foreign policy, economic and environmental contradictions, which are likely to escalate with time. A framework to minimize such risks is outlined, which is directed primarily towards the international level. However, national energy policy is also required to find ways to exploit the existing potential for energy conservation. At the foreign policy level, more multilateral cooperation is required to meet the challenge of the rising global energy demand through a collective security system. An international institution, which adequately reflects the global nature of risks by involving countries like China and India, could play a key role in this kind of energy security architecture (DT).
For more information on the "Oil shockwave" scenario please see http://www.secureenergy.org/shockwave_overview.php
For more information on "Energy and Security: Toward a New Foreign Policy Strategy" by Jan H. Kalicki and David L. Goldwyn please see http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title_pages/8957.html
The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM) has published the next two toolkits in their series:
“CMM continues to develop packages of technical assistance in a number of critical focus areas that are related to conflict, including youth, land, local governance, water, natural resources, livelihoods, human rights and gender. These "toolkits" explain the connections between the focus area and conflict and aim to provide USAID missions with access to concrete, practical program options, lessons learned, and information about potential partners, mechanisms and monitoring and evaluation tools for implementing more effective conflict programs.”
This time attention is focussed on the relationship of forests and livelihoods to violent conflict. The 'forests and conflict’ toolkit, together with the 'valuable minerals’ (published earlier) and the 'water’ toolkit (to be published) are intended to highlight the different linkages these natural resources have to violent conflict, taking into account their fundamental differences in term of economic value, availability, and especially physical characteristics. These toolkits therefore present an overview of how the resources are connected to violent conflict on the one hand, and emphasize the possibility of environmental cooperation for trust and peace building on the other. The new toolkit on livelihoods brings together many aspects of the toolkits on natural resources and land. At the same time, it focuses on the vital concept of livelihood in its own right, highlighting the (socio-)economic links to violent conflict (MF).
To download all toolkits and read about the work of USAID’s CMM, please see
The Environment and Security (ENVSEC) initiative’s Advisory Board meeting was held in Bratislava on 29-30 of September 2005. The meeting brought together the ENVSEC national focal points, donors, partner organisations, and other stakeholders. The participants (altogether 108) discussed the progress of the initiative as well as its future work. For each country of concern to ENVSEC, national implementation activities were presented. Transboundary environmental considerations (natural resource management and hazardous risks) and their impact on human security were additionally discussed in parallel theme sessions. For each region, in which ENVSEC is active (Caucasus, Central Asia, South Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe) working groups were held to debate on the latest developments, key projects and issues. For details on these points please refer to the ’Report of the Advisory Board Meeting’ at www.envsec.org.
One central theme of the session on future developments was the issue of growth. The initiative now spans four regions and plans dozens of projects. Some meeting participants were cautious of this fact and pointed to the small and efficient secretariat, which may have difficulties managing a continuously expanding initiative. Rather than becoming an umbrella initiative for all environmental projects in each region, it was suggested that ENVSEC should focus on transboundary environmental issues. An evaluation of ENVSEC programmes would additionally generate important feedback for the further management of the initiative.
Other participants argued to move beyond the boundaries of Europe and include other regions with environment and security problems, such as the African Great Lakes region. However, one of the unique selling points of the initiative, its high political standing through the collaboration with foreign ministries, would be more difficult to achieve in regions beyond OSCE’s mandate.
In the meanwhile, the perspective of the UN Economic Commission for Europe and the Regional Environmental Centre for Eastern Europe joining the initiative was widely advocated. These organisations in particular present possibilities of synergies with ongoing and planned ENVSEC activities. Additionally, the idea of ENVSEC’s potential collaboration with International Funding Institutions was raised for the financing of projects of common interest (MF).
For a full report of the ENVSEC Advisory Board Meeting and other ENVSEC activities, please see: www.envsec.org.
Is access to water a human right? If it is, does an internationally recognized legal framework exist that can be implemented at the national and local level? These questions determined the agenda of the international conference on "Water as a Human Right", which took place from 21 - 22 October 2005. Inaugurating the 5th Forum Global Issues compact on the eve of the conference, then Minister of State Kerstin Mueller stressed that, "If we manage to deal with water - a vital, basic resource - in a more equitable, efficient and sustainable manner, we will simultaneously help resolve several conflicts."
The underlying issue at the conference, jointly organized by the German Foreign Office and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was the "General Comment on the Right to Water" adopted in 2002. The United Nations regards the Comment as a milestone and an official endorsement of the right to water. The precedence of international human rights law over nation states' obligations arising from international economic agreements, as formulated in the Comment, is significant, especially with regard to provision of water for the poor and for future generations.
While the first day of the conference was devoted to the legal ramifications of water being regarded a basic human right, the practical aspects of implementing such a right were discussed extensively on the second day. The debate revolved around the future role of privatization and funding of this "blue gold". Regret was expressed that no representatives from International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the World Bank or the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development were present, who could have contributed substantively to the discussion. One thing is certain, however. The need to resolve the remaining legal grey areas, which became evident during the conference, cannot justify that 1.1 billion people still lack access to clean drinking water. Finding solutions to the global water and sanitation problems as stated in the Millennium Development Goals and reiterated at the UN World Summit in September 2005 calls for immediate action, regardless of the attendant legal issues. (EM)
For more information on the conference, please see here
Nelson Mandela stated: “I know of no political movement, no philosophy, no ideology, which does not agree with the peace parks concept as we see it going into fruition today. It is a concept that can be embraced by all.” Parks for peace—transboundary conservation areas dedicated to the promotion of peace and cooperation—hold great promise and appeal, but have they lived up to this promise? Some say yes, others respectfully disagree with the former South African President’s assertion. A recent day-long conference hosted by the Environmental Change and Security Program explored the rhetoric and reality of peace parks, including their goals and the factors that determine their success or failure. Drawing on future plans and successful projects in southern Africa, Kashmir, and the Korean peninsula, the speakers debated whether peace parks can protect the environment and promote conflict resolution. The International Gorilla Conservation Programme, for example, brings together people in the conflict-ridden countries of Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to work toward a common goal: preserving the mountain gorilla. As a man working in the transboundary area told conference speaker Charles Besançon, "When we come together, we are conservationists. We all care about the mountain gorillas, so it is quite easy for us to get along."
The debate over peace parks and transboundary areas will continue for some time, as discussions on future challenges during the final session indicated. Identifying public outreach as an important area, Dr. Kim said, “You have to have comprehensive outreach programs before you actually set up peace parks programs. Particularly if you want to promote democracy worldwide, the public must be educated.” Another area of debate involved the definition of “peace park” and related terms, such as “transboundary conservation area.” Several attendees commented that the lack of a consistent and agreed-upon typology often leads to confusion and hinders international discussions and legal agreements. In their background paper, Besançon and his co-author Trevor Sandwith propose a typology to help resolve this confusion. (by Alison Williams, Environmental Change and Security Programme, Woodrow Wilson Center)
For more information about the conference (conference report, programme, papers), please see here
Global Transboundary Protected Areas Network http://www.tbpa.net/
Peace Parks Foundation http://www.peaceparks.org/
The International Journal of Environmental Issues published a Call for Papers for a Special Issue on “Environmental conflict and security revisited: Examining multilevel interactions and responses to environmental degradation”
While a plethora of investigation has explored the links between environmental/resource conflict and (in)security, many studies are based on a single level of analysis, privileging the state, the international community, municipal government, non-state actors, or others. The purpose of this call for papers is to revisit, reflect, open, and advance the debate over environmental resources and conflict and to encourage an explicitly multilevel analytic approach. Conflict is defined broadly, to not only include examples of specific human conflict over resources, but also conflicts between policy prescriptions and norms relating to environmental degradation and resource use. Beyond conflicts between social groups over natural resources, we are interested in analyses of conflict between different levels of governance and human agency. Contributions from a wide range of disciplines are encouraged, including but not limited to history, sociology, anthropology, political science, environmental studies, development studies, geography, economics, and natural sciences.
For more information and the programme, please see http://www.inderscience.com/browse/callpaper.php?callID=293
In 2005, the Institute for Development and Peace initiated the project Human Security: Theory and Practice. The project benefits from the members’ previous work on state failure, global governance, smart sanctions and environmental security.
Since the mid 1990s, the human security approach has been promoted by various actors, most prominently by UNDP and the Japanese and Canadian government. Though this concept is relatively well established as a political leitmotif, in the academic world the approach and especially its definition is criticized for being too ambiguous.
The INEF project perceives human security as a challenge to more traditional security concepts within the theories of international relations. The project distinguishes six dimensions of human security which have the potential to existentially threaten the individual’s physical and mental well-being. One goal of the project is to establish an easy manageable way to measure human (in)security through specific thresholds for each dimension. On a national or regional level, these will be based on aggregated data of international organisations. The second goal is to establish a tool for a rapid “bottom-up” assessment of the human security situation at the local level, which can contribute to the formulation of policy strategies. The project is conducted by Tobias Debiel, Sascha Werthes and Annabelle Houdret.
Further information: http://inef.uni-duisburg.de
The viability of collaborative socio-environmental conflict management depends to a large extent on the possibility of overcoming the large power asymmetries existing in Latin America and the Caribbean. This is one of the key results obtained from a programm launched by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC-Canada) and the University for Peace (UPEACE) in Costa Rica in 1999. This program aims to support research about conflict and collaboration (C&C) in natural resource management in Latin America and the Caribbean and has awarded a total of 30 grants to research projects. C&C is supported by an advisory Committee of renowned researchers who provide orientation and select the grantees from a wide array of proposals. UPEACE, IDRC, and UNDP have prepared a comprehensive analysis of the lessons learned in the research process. The projects contribute to a better understanding of the achievements - and limitations - of collaborative natural resource management.
Interestingly, the projects reveal different ways of dealing with conflict resolution. The differences reflect a latent tension in the region between what is collaborative and what is adversarial, as possible ways of resolving socio-environmental conflicts. State stakeholders tend to go with strategies that favor a more efficient, organized, and in some cases, more equitable environmental and territorial management. On the other hand, NGOs, and grassroots organizations, tend to go with strategies that seek greater respect for and attention to local perspectives (DT/UPeace).
Complete information about C&C and all supported projects can be found at: http://www.upeace.org/cyc/
The results have just been published as a book (both in Spanish and English versions), including case studies and research methodologies. Copies can be obtained from UPEACE (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org).
Following the launch of the information portal "Civilian Crisis Prevention - Environment and Resources" (www.krium.de) one year ago, this is the first newsletter on Environ ment, Conflict, and Cooperation published jointly by Adelphi Research and Germanwatch. The partnership is intended to broaden the range of issues covered, turn the spotlight on civilian approaches to preventing and transforming environmental conflicts and integrate this issue in the activities of German and international non-governmental organizations.
The newsletter will appear every two months starting with this edition and provide information on political initiatives, new publications and events. In addition, a series of dialogues and events involving NGOs, government and business representatives on "environment and resource conflicts" and "environmental cooperation and peace building" will be organized jointly with Germanwatch over the next three years in Germany.
The German edition of this newsletter has over 600 subscribers, and this speaks volumes of the level of interest regarding these issues in the country. Germany is not alone in according priority to this issue in its development assistance. Foreign and multilateral donor institutions and implementing organizations are also increasingly focusing on how to integrate approaches for conflict management in projects and programmes on environmental cooperation. In keeping with this trend, the Environment, Conflict, and Cooperation portal and the newsletter will henceforth appear in English as well as in German (www.krium.de). Partners in the environment and development cooperation sector can access information on relevant developments in Germany and the world at www.ecc-platform.org. We plan to gradually expand the platform by adding regional portals, which will be created locally together with other partner organizations. Our objective is to strengthen networking among relevant stakeholders across the world.
We would urge you to inform your partners in other countries that the information at this portal is now also available in English. This information platform is being funded till March 2008 as part of the Federal Environmental Agency's and the Federal Environment Ministry's programme for the promotion of non-profit associations. This will facilitate the long term establishment of an international network.
We would like to thank our readers and members of the Advisory Board for their constructive suggestions which have helped us to develop this information portal over the last 12 months.
The editorial team
Why do changes in our natural environment threaten human security? Does the exploitation of natural resources lead to violent conflict? How can sustainable development and environmental cooperation contribute to stability and peace? These are the key questions of the exhibition "Environment, Conflict and Cooperation". The exhibition visualizes the dramatic impacts of global environmental change. Using the subjects of water, climate, land, forests, and minerals, the exhibition shows the way in which environmental degradation and resource scarcity lead to conflicts and new security threats, but also how environmental cooperation and sustainable development can contribute to peace and stability.
The exhibition was conceived and realized by Adelphi Research, Adelphi Consult, and Weltformat.Design at the initiative of the German Foreign Ministry. Besides the initial opening at the Foreign Ministry in Berlin, the exhibition was shown in Dushanbe (Tajikistan), at the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) in Berne, and (Slovakia) during the Advisory Board meeting of the EnvSec Initiative of UNDP, UNEP, OSCE, and NATO in Bratislava. Next stops include Mainz, Washington and The Hague (DT).
The complete tour dates, visual impressions, and information on booking the exhibition are available at http://www.ecc-exhibition.org/
On the opening of the exhibition in Berne, see
Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) can serve as a tool to resolve disputes over resources property rights. In many situations, unclear property rights and rights on natural resource use lead to local conflicts. In recognition of this problem, the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) promotes FLR as an innovative tool with potential for resolving disputes. FLR is an approach to managing the dynamic and complex interactions between the people, natural resources and competing land-uses that comprise a landscape. It makes use of collaborative approaches to harmonise the different land-use decisions of stakeholders with the aim of restoring ecological integrity and enhancing the development of local communities and national economies. In this, FLR might offer an added value for poverty reduction, local economic growth as well as environmental security.
The links between FLR and environmental security are quite obvious. As forest land is degraded and fragmented, the velocity and rate of site-level run-off increases, soil erosion accelerates, slope stability reduces, and water quality declines. The disasters that grab headlines are therefore not just a consequence of, for example, one particularly heavy rainfall but are symptomatic of a long-term erosion of ecological integrity. FLR can help reverse this trend by increasing not only landscape-level resilience to shocks, but also by enhancing landscape-level adaptability so that both government and local communities are in a better position to respond to such shocks. As the ITTO emphasizes in it latest newsletter, convincing policymakers of the value of FLR is important not only for the success of restoration initiatives, but also for continous support for forestry activities in general. The ITTO underlines the importance of convincing governments of the real value of forests and the need to restore degraded forest landscapes - otherwise the cut back of forest department budgets is likely to continue (DT).
For the ITTO newsletter "Tropical Forest Update", see http://www.itto.or.jp/live/PageDisplayHandler?pageId=243
Read more about forests and the problem of illegal logging at
See also "Civil Society Mobilises against Illegal Forest Exploitation" in "The Post" (Bureau/Cameroon) as of September 29 at http://allafrica.com/stories/200509300224.html
Environmental income is the key for human security and economic empowerment of the rural poor. This is one of the main results of the report “World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor: Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty” recently published by the World Resources Institute (Washington, D.C). Harvests from forests, fisheries, and farm fields are a primary source of rural income, and a fall-back when other sources of employment falter. Hence, ecosystems are not only a survival mechanism but in particular also an asset to create wealth for the poor. Based on case studies, the report points out that the current debate about aid debt relief and trade reform is only one side of the coin. Additionally, to combat the roots of poverty an increased focus on local natural resources is needed. Poverty reduction programs often fail to recognize the link between environment and livelihoods. "The time has come to reverse the course of worsening diseases, depleted natural resources, political instability, inequality, and the social corrosion of angry generations that have no means to rise out of poverty," Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), commented the publication of the report.
The report further underlines the importance of governance factors for sustainable ecosystem management. Good governance ensures adequate representation, access to information, and public participation. Moreover, the provision of tenure rights is another key aspect for increasing human security and regional stability. The poor often lack legal rights to ecosystems and are excluded from decisions about ecosystem management. Without addressing these failures through changes in governance, there is little chance of using the economic potential of ecosystems to reduce rural poverty. This report shows again the need to stop dealing with environment and development as separate policy areas. The promises of an integrated approach are illustrated by a huge number of concrete examples (DT).
The report is available at http://population.wri.org/worldresources2005-pub-4073.html
For more information about the work of the World Resources Institute, see http://www.wri.org/
Water experts from around the world found themselves at a crossroads at the annual World Water Week in Stockholm in August. Eight of the workshops and one high-level panel discussion focused on hard versus soft solutions for the billions of people without adequate access to water and sanitation services – or, as the conference organizers put it, “to dam or not to dam”. The majority of speakers and participants chose the road marked “large-scale infrastructure,” leaving “soft solutions” to the world’s water crises mostly unexplored. Big money for big projects was announced, the social and environmental costs associated with dam building were hardly ever mentioned. As Jamal Saghir, the World Bank’s water and energy director, put it: “If Kenya wants our money for large-scale infrastructure, no problem.”
And yes, not only Kenya wanted the World Bank’s money for dams. Ministers from several African countries made a point to say it wasn't the Bank pushing them toward expensive dams, but that they had chosen this development path of their own free will. The strategies they announced were based on big infrastructure, to divert water from one region of the country to another, or to feed regional power grids that are yet to be developed. Sunita Narain from the Centre of Science and Development in New Delhi, India, and the winner of this year's Stockholm Water Prize, promoted a soft solution to water scarcity: rain-water harvesting. But she remained an exotic outlaw, an NGO poster child: She explained how more and more houses in Indian cities collect rainwater on their rooftops and how villages in Rajastan are blooming thanks to hand-made rainwater storages. And she stressed that small-scale, decentralised solutions are much cheaper and can be scaled up as finances allow.
Interestingly enough, even the financial argument did not seem to carry much weight with the institutions present in Stockholm, such as African governments, the World Bank and the World Water Council. Soft solutions were discussed as if they were a mere add-on, something civil society should deal with. It was therefore somehow appropriate that the World Water Week featured a poster exhibition for NGOs to showcase their small-scale success stories, whereas the World Bank’s approach was discussed in the main conference hall. Before the start of the conference, the organizers claimed: “Diversity will be on display at the 2005 World Water Week in Stockholm”. New and diverse strategies to solve water-related development issues and increase poor people’s access to water and sanitation were indeed on display. Anders Berntell, representing the organizers, called for a “people-centred approach to dam building”. He called for the application of the World Commission on Dams guidelines to ensure that the interests of the poor are at the centre of water development. Yet, his calls remained unanswered by representatives from governments and the development-aid industry. They appeared more interested in looking at posters of people (Ann Kathrin Schneider, International Rivers Network).
For more information on the world water week, see http://www.worldwaterweek.org
Further information on the International Rivers Network could be obtained at http://www.irn.org/