(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Integrating climate mitigation and environmental peacebuilding objectives through sustainable land use systems: Theory of change and indicators [1]

['Héctor Morales Munoz', 'International Center For Tropical Agriculture Ciat', 'Cali', 'Leibniz Centre For Agricultural Landscape Research', 'Zalf E. V', 'Müncheberg', 'Department Of Agricultural Economics', 'Humboldt University Of Berlin', 'Berlin', 'Leigh Martens']

Date: 2023-05

Land is an essential natural resource for climate mitigation and peace. It is commonly connected with sources of GHG emissions and with drivers of (violent) conflict. Therefore, climate mitigation and peacebuilding strategies are co-designing sustainable land-use systems (SLUS) with affected communities to integrate land-based climate mitigation and peacebuilding objectives. SLUS is practiced within agricultural production systems that meet sustainability principles (environmental, social, and economic). Nevertheless, there needs to be more program evaluation frameworks, especially measurable indicators, that integrate these two objectives (achieving peace and climate mitigation). This study aims to develop a methodology and criteria to evaluate the precise mechanisms of SLUS influencing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and drivers of conflict. A mix-method approach was used in two case study regions, Cesar and Caquetá, Colombia, where SLUS strategies where implemented. First, we conducted three workshops, two in-person and one virtual (n = 103). Secondly, we held semi-structured interviews (n = 115) to make an analysis of the conflict. Our research focused on the drivers of land-based emissions and conflict drivers targeted by the SLUS implementation. Lastly, through a household survey (n = 929), we illustrated the impacts of SLUS in peacebuilding at the farm level. Results show that SLUS, such as cocoa agroforestry, can contribute to climate change mitigation and deliver co-benefits in four core factors: (i) socio-economic inclusion by creating jobs and diversifying livelihoods, (ii) dialogue and conflict transformation by allowing negotiations around the participatory design of farms, including conservation agreements, (iii) natural resource governance, and (iv) cooperation by creating knowledge exchange and a community of practice.

Funding: This research was partially funded by Agrilac Resiliente and by Mitigate+: Research for Low Emissions Food Systems. We would like to thank all funders who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund.” It was also funded by the project 18_III_106_COL_A_Sustainable productive strategies. This project is part of the International Climate Initiative (IKI). The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) supports this initiative on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. The views expressed in this paper cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organizations.

Data Availability: The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available because they contain potentially sensitive information that could compromise the privacy of research participants. In addition, the verbal informed consent that participants gave stated that the information provided would not be made public and would be used exclusively for this research purpose. However, if you have any questions regarding the dataset access contact to Martha Vanegas ( [email protected] ) or Augusto Castro ( [email protected] ). The dataset is deposited anonymously in the internal repository of the Alliance Bioversity-CIAT, who is leading the project on which this research is being conducted. All protocols and methods applied within this project were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Alliance Bioversity-CIAT, which complies with international ethical standards. Baseline Survey available at: “Socioeconomic and environmental survey for implementing sustainable cacao systems for forest conservation for climate change mitigation and peacebuilding in Colombia”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/G76RMO Add to Citavi project by DOI, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:nAvkJdpHMnfGnZrcTMYi1g== [fileUNF].

1. Introduction

Land plays a critical role in GHG emissions in the tropics. Article 5 of the Paris agreement stresses the importance to mitigate climate change through land use activities. Drivers of conflict [1] and post-war contexts [2] are also influenced by land use activities. After a peace agreement, the most readily available assets to kick-start post-conflict stabilization and recovery are often natural resources such as land [3]. Therefore, many peacebuilding strategies are targeting the land-use sector and delivering Sustainable Land-Use Systems (SLUS) as a means to provide livelihoods to affected communities [4,5]. SLUS embody various agricultural practices, technologies, and resource management strategies tailored to specific farm and landscape contexts. These systems promote the production food in a sustainable manner. They can store carbon and mitigate risks from natural hazards; offer cultural values; support critical ecological functions such as nutrient and water cycling, filtering, and buffering; and are central to farmers’ economic vitality and survival [6]. Therefore, several efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the tropics target the land-use sector and aim at delivering SLUS as a means to provide alternative livelihoods [7].

The international community and the global governance systems represented by different United Nations agencies have put forward different strategies to separately mitigate the effects of climate change Sustainable Development Goals (SDG13) and build peace and stability in fragile countries (SDG 16) [8,9]. However, climate change and conflict are deeply interconnected in their causes and solutions [10]. For instance, actions to build peace can create the enabling environment for cooperation around climate mitigation and adaptation [7,11]. Meanwhile, climate change adverse effects and climate adaptation and mitigation strategies could be indirect drivers of conflict by increasing food insecurity or restricting land uses, which may also have a multiplier effect augmenting the likelihood of social unrest and violence, especially in agricultural-dependent communities and fragile contexts [12–15].

Efforts to reduce land-based emissions include safeguards oriented to prevent unexpected social, environmental, and development outcomes. Global initiatives have been developed with the aspiration of achieving land-based emissions reductions (Paris Agreement of 2015) and restoring landscapes (Bonn Challenge of 2011). These initiatives include financial mechanisms to reduce land-based emissions, such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+), fostering conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in tropical countries.

However, as countries with the potential for reducing land-based emissions are emerging from or experiencing conflict, such initiatives need to coordinate peacebuilding and mitigation strategies to be successful. An example of theses overlapping challenges is Colombia that have suffered from prolonged conflict and is increasingly becoming a source of land-based GHG emissions [16]. The Colombian government is aware of potential synergies between policies for peacebuilding and policies for climate change mitigation in the land sector [17]. Particularly, because agricultural (including illicit crop cultivation) and cattle ranching activities practiced in conflict-affected areas are important drivers of GHG emissions associated with deforestation and landscape degradation [18]. Although other land-use changes can be a source of GHG emissions, deforestation (i.e. changes from native forests to other land uses) is the single most important source of GHG in Colombia, with 19.2% of total emissions in 2018. The impact of other land-use changes represented less than 1% in the same period [19]. To achieve the reduction of GHG emissions however, will require understanding existing barriers typically present in conflict and post-conflict areas, and peacebuilding measures, such as those related to weak state presence, land-use competitions between legal and non-legal activities and limited access to markets [20,21].

An approach that integrates climate and peace objectives are SLUS. They constitute an entry point to integrate efforts to reduce land-based emissions with those for achieving peacebuilding objectives in areas affected by land-related conflicts, which are the most common type of conflicts in tropical regions [7]. For instance, SLUS can incorporate REDD+ social and environmental safeguards, such as acknowledging the priorities and ownership of local communities, national and local policies for climate mitigation, and a conflict-sensitive approach that enables co-design with local communities [22]. It goes in line with the promotion of natural resource management. Natural resource management refers to managing natural resources such as land, water, soil, plants, and animals [23]. Authors claim that the goal of natural resource management should not be to handle or control only ecosystems but rather, to enhance humans’ interactions with the surrounding environment in a sustainable manner [24,25].

Despite the linkages between land use, carbon emissions and peace there is a lack of program evaluation frameworks that integrate these sectors [26,27]. Attempts have been made within the field of environmental peacebuilding, which integrates similar objectives in the fields of environment, conflict and peace. It is defined as the multiple approaches and pathways by which the management of environmental issues is integrated in and can support conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution and recovery [15]. This field has expanded in the literature, and current debates recognize that monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in environmental peacebuilding is a topic that will help understand when interventions achieve their climate and peace objectives, when they do not, and why. For example, attribution in environmental peacebuilding has been a challenge in matching interventions with outcomes. Some authors emphasize the importance of understanding land-related tensions before external actors implement any effort to improve land sustainability and access to avoid unintended consequences [2]. Other authors argue that potential impacts on peacebuilding should also be assessed in the frame of climate mitigation initiatives as co-benefits beyond merely preventing environmental and social risks [4,28–30]. Therefore, the added value of having programming and evaluation frameworks that integrate climate mitigation and adaptation goals and peacebuilding is that such frameworks can take into account not only the unintended consequences of climate mitigation projects, but they will proactively and consciously take into account peacebuilding activities [4]. Furthermore, how a specific intervention contributes to one another, enhancing their impacts. In the same line, climate change consequences and peacebuilding interventions interact with a broad range of socio-economic, gender and political factors, which integrated environmental peacebuilding interventions can address [31]. Finally, developing more sophisticated, consistent and widespread M&E tools in environmental peacebuilding will provide accountability and learning for beneficiaries, implementers and funders [15].

The underlying dynamics of SLUS and how they can contribute to mitigation and peacebuilding are not well understood. The document aims to develop indicators to monitor whether environmental peacebuilding has been successful. Our main research question is: How is the implementation of SLUS contributing to climate change mitigation and peacebuilding in Caquetá and Cesar, Colombia?”

The subsequent section presents the methodological design. Consequently, the results section consists of both a context and a conflict analysis conducted with SLUS members and stakeholders to determine existing drivers of conflict that can be affected by the interventions. Further, mechanisms for understanding SLUS’s contributions to peacebuilding are presented. Thereafter, we present a set of indicators for measuring the contributions of SLUS to climate mitigation and peacebuilding. The following section discusses the results in light of the existing literature on environmental peacebuilding. The final section concludes and recommends possible uses of the research.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000075

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.