This chapter first appeared in Assessing and Restoring Natural Resources in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, edited by D. Jensen and S. Lonergan. It is one of 6 edited books on Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and Natural Resource Management (for more information, see www.environmentalpeacebuilding.org). The full book can be ordered from Routledge at http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781849712347/. © 2012. Environmental Law Institute and United Nations Environment Programme. Environment and peacebuilding in war-torn societies: Lessons from the UN Environment Programme’s experience with post-conflict assessment Ken Conca and Jennifer Wallace a a American University, University of Maryland Online publication date: May 2013 Suggested citation: K. Conca, J. Wallace. 2012. Environment and peacebuilding in war-torn societies: Lessons from the UN Environment Programme’s experience with post-conflict assessment. In Assessing and Restoring Natural Resources in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, ed. D. Jensen and S. Lonergan. London: Earthscan. Terms of use: This chapter may be used free of charge for educational and non-commercial purposes. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) only, and do not necessarily represent those of the sponsoring organizations. The UN Environment Programme and post-conflict assessment 63 Environment and peacebuilding in war-torn societies: Lessons from the UN Environment Programme’s experience with post-conflict assessment Ken Conca and Jennifer Wallace The environment is not usually viewed as the most important problem in war-torn societies.1 Humanitarian relief, security, economic reconstruction, and political reconciliation all command attention as urgent priorities. Yet violent conflict does extraordinary damage to the environment on which people depend for their health and livelihoods; human insecurities in such settings have a strong, immediate ecological component as people struggle for clean water, sanitation, food, and fuel in a context of conflict-ravaged infrastructure, lost livelihoods, and disrupted institu- tions. Over time, more diffuse but equally important environmental challenges emerge: establishing systems of environmental governance, managing pressures on the resource base, creating administrative capacity, dealing with environmental effects of recovery, and finding sustainable trajectories for reconstruction. The scholarly debate over whether environmental degradation causes violent conflict is ongoing. But as the chapter shows, a growing body of scholarly litera- ture and case documentation indicates that the failure to respond to environmental needs of war-torn societies may greatly complicate the difficult tasks of peace- building. At worst, tensions triggered by environmental problems or contested access to natural resources may lead to renewed violent conflict; more generally, failure to meet basic environmental needs undercuts reconciliation, political institu tionalization, and economic reconstruction. In the short run, failure to respond to environmental challenges can deepen human suffering and increase vulnerability to natural disasters. In the long run, it may threaten the effective Ken Conca is professor of international relations in the School of International Service at American University, where he directs the Global Environmental Politics program. Jennifer Wallace is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland and an affiliate of the Harrison Program on the Future Global Agenda. This chapter is an updated version of an article that appeared in October 2009 in Global Governance 15 (4) and has been reprinted with permission. 1 The chapter uses the term war-torn instead of the more common post-conflict, which suggests a neat dichotomy between war and peace that rarely exists in the wake of civil conflict. See de Zeeuw (2001). 64 Assessing and restoring natural resources in post-conflict peacebuilding functioning of the governmental, economic, and societal institutions necessary for sustained peace. Along with challenges may come opportunities. An emergent strand of schol- arship argues that shared environmental challenges may create peacebuilding opportunities: providing an agenda of shared interests, promoting confidence building, deepening intergroup ties, and fostering the complex task of (re)constructing shared identities. Peace in this context can be thought of as a continuum ranging from the absence of violent conflict to, in its most robust form, the unimagineability of violent conflict (Conca 2002). Peacebuilding, in turn, involves creating the conditions for positive and sustained movement along this continuum.2 The UN Secretary-General’s 2006 progress report on preventing armed conflict stressed both preventive and peacebuilding environmental initiatives. Environmental degradation is flagged as a “risk factor” for violent conflict; environmental pro- tection is identified as a peacebuilding tool “by promoting dialogue around shared resources and enabling opposing groups to focus on common problems” (UNGA 2006, 10). Indeed in the 2010 Progress Report of the Secretary-General on Peace building in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls upon member states and the United Nations system “to make questions of natural resource allocation, ownership and access an integral part of peacebuilding strategies” (UNSG 2010, 12). Recognizing these connections, the international community’s interest in the environmental dimensions of conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction has grown. The United Nations Peacebuilding Commission lists building the foundation for sustainable development in its mandate. The need to address the management of natural resources is included within the European Commission’s Stability Instrument for conflict-affected countries and fragile states. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has created a Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch (PCDMB), which has conducted assessments in eighteen war-torn countries and regions at the time of this writing.3 Addressing the environ- mental dimensions of conflicts and disasters is also one of UNEP’s six priorities over the period 2010–2013. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have also engaged the issue; a November 2005 meeting hosted by World Wildlife Fund- U.S. included roughly twenty human rights, conservation, development, and conflict-resolution NGOs (Pendzich 2005). Yet little is known about the potential role of environmental initiatives in peacebuilding. This chapter seeks to narrow the gap in understanding by drawing lessons from the experiences of UNEP. Through 2010, beginning with Kosovo in 1999, UNEP has conducted assessments in Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Georgia, Lebanon, Liberia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 2 On different conceptualizations of peacebuilding, see Haugerudbraaten (1998). 3 As of May 2012, UNEP has completed a total of twenty assessments. The UN Environment Programme and post-conflict assessment 65 Notes: 1. Post-conflict operations in UN member states are set in bold. 2. At the time of UNEP’s respective assessments, Kosovo was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY); the Palestinian territories were known as the occupied Palestinian territories; Serbia (also formerly part of FRY) was known as the country of Serbia and Montenegro; and South Sudan was not yet an inde- pendent country. Rwanda, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, and the occupied Palestinian territories (see table 1).4 UNEP’s assessments have been of three main types: rapid appraisals of environmental conditions following conflict, detailed evaluations that approach a national state-of-the-environment report, and issue-specific interventions on targeted questions such as toxic waste, oil spills, human displacement, or depleted uranium weaponry.5 Although the assessments vary considerably in depth and focus, UNEP’s experience offers a unique look at environmental conditions in societies emerging from periods of violent conflict. The goal of the chapter is to use the experience to identify conflict-induced environmental challenges and entry points for environmental initiatives in peacebuilding. In doing so, the chapter 4 UNEP’s assessment in Kosovo was undertaken as a joint initiative with the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS). UNCHS was the predecessor of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, commonly known as UN-HABITAT. 5 For another perspective on UNEP’s post-conflict assessments, see David Jensen, “Evaluating the Impact of UNEP’s Post-Conflict Environmental Assessments,” in this book. 66 Assessing and restoring natural resources in post-conflict peacebuilding Table 1. Activities of UNEP’s Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch, 1999–2010 Country/territory Principal issues identified Afghanistan • Land degradation; water availability; illegal forest harvesting and grazing; urban waste, wastewater and sanitation. Albania • Industrial hot spots, environmental impacts of refugees, institutional capacities for environmental management. Bosnia and Herzegovina • Depleted uranium weaponry. Central African Republic • Role of natural resources in conflict and peacebuilding, land conflicts, illegal mining and deforestation, institutional capacities for environmental management. Democratic Republic • Mineral concessions, hazardous wastes, deforestation,