Ground for peace: Land restoration for international peace and security

For more than three billion people, land is core to their survival, wellbeing, and dignity. However, many are seeing this vital resource disappear before their eyes as between 20–40% of total global land area, as well as 60% of all ecosystem services, are degraded or degrading. As a consequence, competition and disputes over access to and use of land and land-based resources is increasing and becoming a prominent feature in many conflicts. Over the last 60 years, at least 40% of all intrastate conflicts had a link to natural resources, including land. At the same time, conflicts increase the fragility of the institutions, essential services, infrastructure and governance that are critical for strengthening people’s resilience to a changing climate and environment.

These worrying trends have made land and forest degradation in conflict areas an emerging concern for the global community. The growing attention to the interlinkages between climate change, conflict prevention and sustaining peace among researchers and in policy circles, including in the UN Security Council, has contributed to this. There are several ongoing initiatives with a focus on reversing these trends, including the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, which aims to mainstream restoration activities to prevent, halt and reverse degradation across different types of ecosystems between 2021 and 2030.

However, while land and ecosystem restoration have been recognised as key to addressing the climate crisis, less attention has been paid to their promising — yet untapped — potential contribution to international peace and cooperation.

This report aims at filling this gap by setting the political case for land and ecosystem restoration as a powerful route towards international peace and security.

It is set within the context of the Peace Forest Initiative, a UN Convention to Combat Desertification-led initiative launched in 2019 to promote peace through transboundary cooperation on sustainable land management in fragile, conflict-affected and post-conflict regions.

Links between land, ecosystem degradation, and international peace and security

Land and land-based resources can be both drivers and victims of conflict. Conflicts can directly impact land and ecosystems through physical damage from fighting, landmines or fires, or indirectly by accelerating land, ecosystem and resource degradation through the destruction of crops, pastures, and watering systems. They can also increase demand for and put a strain on land-based natural resources, and trigger widespread displacements of populations that have severe consequences on land. Conflict can push people to choose maladaptive coping practices at the expense of land and ecosystem health, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected communities with low resilience.

At the same time, the degradation of land, land-based resources and ecosystems can increase fragility and trigger cascading impacts along the lines of socially constructed vulnerabilities, thus driving conflict and insecurity. This report identifies five key ways in which this can happen.

1. Land and ecosystem degradation expose resource-dependent communities to loss of livelihoods, jobs, and economic opportunities, and can drive an increase in criminal activity.

2. Land and ecosystem degradation drive loss of productive land and increase risk of crop failure, resulting in increasing food prices and exacerbating food insecurity and water scarcity.

3. Land and ecosystem degradation can increase migration and displacement, creating tensions and conflicts between communities.

4. Land and ecosystem degradation in fragile contexts can increase socioeconomic disparities, as well as marginalisation and discrimination of minority and vulnerable groups.

5. Weakened land and natural resources governance structures can escalate conflict, including across borders.

Leveraging land and ecosystem restoration for international peace

There is significant evidence that cooperation over the management of shared natural resources can pave the way for broader political agreements, and even prevent conflicts. Embedding environmental considerations within traditional peace processes, for example, has proven useful to achieve more sustainable outcomes and promote stability. Similarly, environmental peacebuilding can bolster post-conflict recovery by encouraging sustainable resource management. Since natural resources are crucial for economic recovery after war, environmental issues should be handled effectively to ensure sustainable peace.

To date, most of the existing literature exploring the linkages between land, peace and security has looked at shared natural resource management, or on the agriculture and land tenure dimensions of land-related interventions, rather than their restoration aspects. Moreover, the focus has tended to be on how these interventions can be conflict-sensitive, rather than explicitly looking at how they can generate peace outcomes. There has also been limited focus on the cross-border dimension, with land issues being largely understood and addressed within state boundaries, and especially with a focus on local and community level dynamics.

In other words, the following question remains unanswered: How can land and ecosystem restoration initiatives contribute to peace and cooperation outcomes in fragile, conflict and post-conflict transboundary areas?
Building on emerging evidence from transboundary land-based restoration interventions and programmes, this report identifies five key enablers for land restoration initiatives to help promote cooperation between countries, ultimately contributing to building peace and better relations in transboundary post-conflict and fragile contexts.

1. Focus on technical and scientific collaboration to create a neutral ground to address shared land and ecosystem degradation challenges in crossborder areas.

2. Inclusive dialogue must be prioritised in transboundary ecosystem restoration and sustainable land management efforts. Robust stakeholder analysis and mapping are essential tools to this end.

3. Transboundary governance mechanisms. Joint approaches to land and ecosystem restoration can serve as confidence-building mechanisms.

4. Conflict-sensitive approaches to land restoration interventions helps identify proactive ways to build trust and cooperation. A foresight approach is essential to ensure that land and ecosystem interventions do not have unintended negative impacts.

5. Capacity building is needed to leverage land and ecosystem restoration interventions for cooperation and peace, and can in itself be a tool for promoting cooperation and peace by building a common understanding and improving dialogue between parties.

The extent to which land and ecosystem restoration interventions are able to deliver on cooperation and peace outcomes varies depending on the context.

Prevailing social, economic, and political conditions are key determinants. Especially in fragile and conflict-affected or post-conflict settings, the stage of the conflict cycle also significantly affects the type of activities that are feasible and effective.

Moreover, to address conflict drivers such as land rights, water access and management, and exclusion from decision-making, a broad portfolio of landbased restoration interventions is needed. Under the umbrella of a sustainable land management landscape approach, interventions directed at livelihood security, ecosystem and land restoration, protected areas, and climate security can support peace and cooperation outcomes, as well as key synergies with climate and biodiversity goals. As a crosscutting element, investment in land can contribute to the achievement of multiple SDGs, including targets around climate action, biodiversity, water and food.

Financing land and ecosystem restoration

To fully harness the potential of land restoration for cooperation and peace outcomes, adequate finance must be made available and accessible.
Although a variety of funding streams are relevant for peace-positive land restoration initiatives, the overall level of finance for land and ecosystem restoration is inadequate, especially in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. In addition, while funds may include environmental and social safeguards that indirectly benefit peace and security or reduce risks, conflict prevention and peacebuilding are generally not mainstreamed as co-benefits or decision criteria.
Resources specifically for transboundary land restoration projects are also limited, with differing regulations across jurisdictions adding complexity to transboundary projects compared to national ones.

Similarly, there is a gap in finance reaching the local level where it is most needed for contextualised, locally appropriate solutions. Many financing agencies require states or large implementing partners to absorb funds to meet donor and monitoring, evaluation, and learning requirements. However, in some cases, there is a disconnect between national and local realities, particularly in settings with high government turnover. This can mean that funds absorbed at the national level may not reach those who need them most, for example in remote rural areas.

Finally, there have been few attempts at meaningfully engaging the private sector. Involving the private sector could facilitate the shift from short-term relief to income generation and economic development, while fostering innovative solutions to longstanding issues that might be difficult for the public sector alone to resolve.