Wednesday, 12 May 2004

THE HAGUE, Netherlands

Recent research suggests that environmental degradation can catalyze violent conflict. But is the opposite also true? Can environmental cooperation foster peace?

The answer is yes, according to a number of participants at the Hague Conference on Environment, Security, and Sustainable Development. Many regions suffering from tensions or simmering conflicts could potentially benefit from peace-building efforts that focus on environmental issues. Environmental cooperation can enhance trust, establish habits of cooperation, forge cooperative bonds between different groups, and create shared benefits, norms, and identities. In such a strategy, environmental cooperation is a tool for building confidence, not the goal itself.

The Peace Palace.

Discussions here at the Peace Palace provided some tangible examples. “Peace parks” in former conflict zones can not only conserve biodiversity, but can help former combatants cohabit contested space, provide new jobs for demobilized soldiers, and create a shared sense of responsibility and identity for nearby residents — if they are set up correctly and involve the local community in their design.

Saleem Ali from the University of Vermont highlighted an ongoing effort to establish a peace park in the Karakoram Range between antagonists India and Pakistan. Nicknamed the K2 peace park because it would contain K2, the second-highest peak in the world, this initiative has gained added momentum with the coming 50th anniversary of the first successful ascent of the mountain.

Two or more countries share rivers in 263 basins around the world. This interdependence, coupled with increasing water scarcity and population growth, leads many politicians and journalists to hail “coming water wars.” The Nile River is often flagged as a prime candidate for armed conflict over water, harkening back to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s threats to bomb upstream Ethiopian hydro-development projects that would decrease flows into downstream Egypt.

Yet cooperation, not conflict, is the real story of transboundary waters. Efforts to move from arguing over water rights to debating water needs, to exploring “shared benefits” among countries and communities, is a transition starting to happen along river basins.

The Nile Basin Initiative is an ongoing high-level government-to-government effort to share benefits up and down the Nile. Facilitated by the World Bank and the U.N. Development Program, this process includes ongoing ministerial negotiations among all 10 “riparians,” or countries in the basin.

There is still considerable work to do, however, said Patricia Kameri-Mbote of the International Environmental Law Center in Nairobi, Kenya. While supportive of the objectives of the Nile Basin Initiative, Kameri-Mbote pointed out the need for better integration of civil-society actors into the process, which has largely been dominated by governments. This stakeholder participation and transparency are necessary for the ultimate sustainability and effectiveness of the NBI enterprise, according to Kameri-Mbote, who also serves as chair of Kenya’s Discourse-Civil Society Engagement on the Nile.

If we flip the environmental security coin, the other side reveals the impact of the military itself on security. How does war damage the environment and how can post-conflict efforts restore or improve the environment?

Pekka Haavisto, chair of the U.N. Environment Program’s new Post-Conflict Assessment Unit, said he is often asked whether people in immediate post-conflict situations can afford to care about the environment. He responds with a definitive yes. Returning refugees have immediate questions about whether they can drink the water and whether the area is contaminated by remnants from munitions. Disseminating this kind of information, and helping establish means to assess and improve conditions, are critical functions this UNEP unit has now provided in Liberia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, among others.