Cultivating Peace in a Climate Crisis: How Sustainable Land Use Can Heal Both People and Planet

Redacción HC
23/12/2023

The intertwined challenges of climate change and conflict present a daunting global landscape. Often, they fuel a vicious cycle: climate shifts can intensify competition over scarce natural resources, leading to instability and violence, while conflicts themselves can undermine efforts towards climate mitigation and sustainable resource management. In many nations, particularly those emerging from or still grappling with conflict, immense pressure on land and ecosystems results in deforestation and environmental degradation, further contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and diminishing climate resilience.

There's an urgent need for integrated approaches that simultaneously address both climate mitigation and peacebuilding. Interventions focusing solely on one objective risk overlooking crucial synergies or, worse, creating unintended consequences that undermine the other. Sustainable Land Use Systems (SLUS), such as cacao agroforestry, hold immense potential to contribute to both climate mitigation (by sequestering carbon or reducing emissions) and peacebuilding (by diversifying livelihoods and reducing resource competition). Yet, clear frameworks and tools to design, implement, and measure the impact of these interventions to effectively achieve both goals have been notably absent.

A groundbreaking 2023 study published in PLOS Climate, titled "Integrating climate mitigation and environmental peacebuilding objectives through sustainable land use systems: Theory of change and indicators," sought to answer a critical question: How can sustainable land use systems effectively integrate climate change mitigation and environmental peacebuilding objectives, and what are the key mechanisms and indicators to measure their benefits on both fronts, especially in post-conflict settings?

A Dual Approach: Theory of Change and On-the-Ground Indicators

The study adopted an innovative methodological approach centered on developing a Theory of Change (ToC) and a set of indicators to integrate climate mitigation and environmental peacebuilding through SLUS. A Theory of Change is a powerful tool that outlines how and why a particular initiative is expected to work, based on the best available information.

The key methodology involved several rigorous steps:

• Literature Review and Conceptualization: The research began with an extensive review of existing literature on climate mitigation, environmental peacebuilding, sustainable land use, and their intricate connections. This provided a foundation for conceptualizing how SLUS interventions could generate co-benefits across both domains.
• Development of the Theory of Change (ToC): A specific ToC was formulated for SLUS interventions. This framework meticulously details the expected effects of these interventions on both climate mitigation and peacebuilding factors. Crucially, the ToC integrates underlying assumptions about how SLUS contribute to peace and how specific activities address the drivers of conflict and deforestation, incorporating a "do no harm analysis."
• Participatory Design and Contextualization: Two participatory workshops using the "World Café" methodology were conducted in late 2019 in Florencia (Caquetá) and Valledupar (Cesar), Colombia, involving 54 and 30 participants, respectively. These workshops were vital for contextualizing the ToC and its indicators, ensuring their relevance to the local realities of these regions, which are intersections of climate vulnerability and conflict. The study notes that some workshops had to be virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which, while limiting non-verbal interaction, might have also reduced unconscious biases.
• Indicator Development: Based on the ToC and workshop outcomes, specific indicators were identified and developed to measure the expected results of SLUS interventions at both the farm (or "plot") level and along the value chain. These indicators are designed to capture impacts on both climate change mitigation and peacebuilding factors (e.g., socio-economic inclusion, dialogue, and conflict transformation).
• Pilot Testing of Indicators: A pilot test of the indicators was carried out through a household survey (n=929: 429 in Caquetá and 500 in Cesar) to illustrate the implementation of peace-related indicators. This provided initial empirical validation of the indicators' applicability in the field.

Important methodological limitations include that the pilot test was designed to "illustrate" implementation rather than for exhaustive statistical validation of effectiveness. The virtual workshops, though necessary, might have impacted the depth of discussions. The study primarily focuses on a conceptual framework and its initial application in two Colombian departments, which may limit the generalizability of results to other geographical or conflict contexts without careful adaptation. Finally, implementing a Theory of Change is an ongoing process requiring continuous monitoring and adjustment; this study lays the groundwork but does not include long-term outcome evaluation.

Key Discoveries: SLUS as Dual-Benefit Solutions

The core findings of this study lie in the successful development and validation of a conceptual framework (the Theory of Change) and a comprehensive set of indicators. These tools demonstrate how Sustainable Land Use Systems (SLUS) can effectively integrate climate change mitigation with environmental peacebuilding.

The most significant results include:

• SLUS Contributions to Mitigation and Co-benefits: The study clearly illustrates that SLUS, such as cacao agroforestry, hold significant potential for climate change mitigation. Beyond mitigation, these systems offer crucial co-benefits across four key peacebuilding factors:
  • (i) Socio-economic Inclusion: They create employment opportunities and diversify livelihoods, which can reduce inequalities and enhance the economic resilience of communities, particularly in vulnerable areas.
  • (ii) Dialogue and Conflict Transformation: SLUS interventions facilitate negotiations and agreements around the participatory design of land use systems, fostering collaboration and peaceful dispute resolution.
  • (iii) Institutional Strengthening: They support local and community governance structures for resource management, empowering communities to take ownership.
  • (iv) Reconciliation and Environmental Justice: SLUS contribute to the restoration of degraded ecosystems and the reparation of environmental damage linked to past conflicts, serving as a vital pillar of transitional justice.
• Validated Theory of Change: The research successfully formulated a robust and contextualized Theory of Change. This framework precisely describes the mechanisms through which SLUS interventions can generate both climate and peace benefits, drawing insights from both literature review and the participatory workshops in Colombia's Caquetá and Cesar regions.
• Development of Practical Indicators: A practical set of specific indicators was designed and tested. These indicators provide tangible tools to measure the expected outcomes of SLUS interventions at both the farm level and across the value chain, enabling effective monitoring and evaluation of programs integrating both objectives.
• Relevance of Cacao Agroforestry: The explicit mention of cacao agroforestry as a successful SLUS example highlights its concrete potential as a strategy to achieve these multifaceted benefits. This specific example grounds the theoretical framework in a tangible, implementable solution.

The theoretical and conceptual implications of this work are profound. The study advances our understanding of the intersection between climate security and human security. It proposes a framework that moves beyond a mere "coexistence" of objectives, demonstrating how certain interventions can be inherently synergistic, generating true "co-benefits." This challenges the notion that climate mitigation and peacebuilding are separate domains, advocating for an integrated approach where sustainable development, climate action, and conflict resolution mutually reinforce each other. The developed ToC enriches the literature on "environmental peacebuilding" and "climate justice," providing a structured approach for analysis and operation in these complex interfaces.

In comparison with previous studies, which often focused on the impacts of climate change on conflict or the general contribution of peace to sustainability, this research stands out for its practical focus on specific land use systems and the development of a measurable Theory of Change with accompanying indicators. While other research may have theorized about these connections, this study offers a concrete tool for their on-the-ground implementation and evaluation, particularly within post-conflict contexts. It is one of the pioneering efforts to so explicitly integrate climate mitigation with peacebuilding through SLUS interventions using a robust ToC and a comprehensive set of indicators.

Practical Pathways to a Sustainable, Peaceful Future

The findings of this study hold significant practical relevance for policymakers, development agencies, non-governmental organizations, and local communities operating at the intersection of climate action and peacebuilding.

In terms of applications in public policy, the study underscores the crucial need for governmental support for the development and promotion of SLUS. Governments can champion this initiative through:

1. Investments in research and development of SLUS tailored to diverse contexts.
2. Support for farmer training and agricultural extension services to encourage the adoption of these practices.
3. Creation of economic incentives (subsidies, credits, market access) that foster the adoption of sustainable and "peace-friendly" agricultural practices.
4. Integration of environmental peace and climate mitigation objectives into national rural development plans, land use policies, and climate action strategies. The developed framework can serve as a planning and monitoring tool for these policies.
5. Promotion of environmental diplomacy and cross-border cooperation in regions facing shared conflict and climate challenges.

The implications for society are deep. By promoting SLUS, the aim is not only to contribute to the fight against climate change but also to strengthen social cohesion and reduce local sources of conflict. This can lead to:

1. Improved livelihoods for rural communities, especially in conflict-affected areas, by diversifying income sources and making them more resilient to climate impacts.
2. Reduced pressure on natural resources and fewer land disputes, contributing to a more peaceful environment.
3. Empowerment of local communities through participatory solution design and strengthened environmental governance.
4. Building trust and fostering reconciliation in post-conflict settings, as joint environmental restoration and sustainable development activities can create spaces for dialogue and cooperation.

The authors' recommendations, while not detailed in a specific section, are clearly inferred from the study: 1) Encourage investment in SLUS as a dual strategy for climate mitigation and peacebuilding. 2) Apply and adapt the developed Theory of Change and indicators in other contexts of conflict and climate vulnerability. 3) Conduct further research to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of SLUS in different contexts and quantitatively measure their co-benefits on both fronts. 4) Promote intersectoral collaboration among development, peace, agriculture, and environmental actors to implement integrated solutions.

Conclusion: Toward a Climate-Resilient Future

The message of this study is clear: Development doesn’t have to cost the Earth. With smart planning, it is possible to build roads that avoid key habitats, promote industries that regenerate landscapes, and reduce poverty while keeping forests standing.

The framework presented is a practical, flexible tool for aligning national priorities with global environmental goals. As the planet faces twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, such integrative approaches are no longer optional—they’re essential.

Governments, international donors, and civil society must now rise to the challenge: to shape a model of prosperity that doesn't clear-cut the future.

Topics of interest

 Climate Biodiversity