Climate change mitigation in forests: Conflict, peacebuilding, and lessons for climate security

There is growing awareness of the link between climate change and security. Most of the climate security debate has focused on the ways that climate change exacerbates geopolitical and state security matters through ‘threat multipliers’, especially in terms of intra-state, inter-group and sub-national conflicts. At the same time, 64 per cent of climate finance was allocated to mitigation and 25 per cent to adaptation between 2013 and 2019 (OECD 2020; OECD 2021). Despite this, the dynamics between climate change mitigation and security remains a less-explored topic. As climate security attracts increasing attention in research and policy, our entry point into reviewing the links between climate change mitigation and security is rooted in studies of conflict and peace in environmental governance. Because forests are a global focus of climate change mitigation, we focus our review on initiatives that directly affect, or are implemented in, forest areas in low- and middle- income countries. Forests have complex governance contexts and are prone to conflict due to histories of colonization and ongoing resource extraction that lead to disputes over who has authority to make decisions, how different actors are compensated, and whose priorities and claims dictate actions in forest areas. CCMIs related to forests are often inserted into these long-standing conflicts. Many of these tensions over rights and resources are located in fragile states and some in armed conflict and post-conflict contexts. Conflict and weak institutional governance are often associated with deforestation but have also been shown to protect forest resources when insurgent forces are compelled to do so. The two guiding questions of the review are: What are the ways in which CCMIs and peace/conflict influence one another? How do different dynamics result in different impacts for people and forests? We also explore CGIAR’s contribution to the literature on peace/conflict and climate change mitigation in forests, and what the future research opportunities might be for CGIAR. The framework we developed for this review considers various types of CCMIs and influences of peace/conflict. We began by defining variables and search parameters from the literature, and followed the contours of an integrative literature review that aims to study complex relations. We reviewed 1,147 publications that addressed climate change mitigation and peace/conflict. The geographic scope spanned Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Then, using filtering protocols, we selected 42 that robustly addressed the relationships between the two. We focused on 18 key case studies and three literature reviews that addressed the focus of the review most and used additional literature as needed. Our key case studies focus mostly on a particular set of programmatic interventions that include payments for ecosystem services (PES) like Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+) and Nature-Based Solutions. We also briefly touch on renewable energy initiatives that have implications for forests. Our review reveals four main dynamics through which CCMIs interact with peace/conflict. The first dynamic relates to access and tenure rights and how these influence the peace/ conflict outcomes of the introduction of CCMIs. There is evidence that well-functioning carbon markets require secure land tenure. As a result, the growing interest in CCMIs, especially REDD+, helped civil society forums to recognize land rights specifically for Indigenous peoples and other local communities. However, many of our case studies show the ways in which the application (and sometimes design) of CCMIs leads to dispossessory and exclusionary effects for marginalized people due to the loss of tenure rights and access, violations of customary land claims, and other disempowerment of customary authorities over forest land and management practices. Some literature suggests that increased tenure security will be a co-benefit of CCMIs; others argue that risks will be reduced only when tenure security precedes their implementation. Further, evidence suggests that collective tenure has a stronger effect on meeting objectives of deforestation initiatives and enhances security by alleviating conflict. The second dynamic captures how the distribution of benefits and burdens associated with CCMIs has implications for peace/conflict and highlights the importance of equity. Carbon emission reduction projects that burden people living in and near forests often promise compensation with new sources of finance and other benefits. However, there are also arguments to say that these mechanisms have failed to overcome the legacy of colonial power dynamics and, in many cases, have reinforced them. Our case studies identify that although there are some cases of CCMIs improving livelihoods, benefit sharing often triggers conflict. The quantity of benefits has been limited, and failing to deliver on anticipated benefits heightens existing tensions or creates new ones. Lack of accountability is a key factor that leads to unfulfilled, reduced, or delayed commitments, exacerbated by high transaction costs and low carbon prices. Some case studies suggest that the type of benefits from a CCMI also matters. Not all communities are incentivized by financial rewards. Many instead prefer tenure security, management rights, and access to forests. Initiatives to protect forests by restricting local people’s access are shown to create new food security concerns that lead to conflict. Loss of livelihoods resulting from changes in access and management rights to forests and changes to land use also create conflict and instability. Costs and benefits accrue differently in time (when and how payments materialize), space (which locations are selected for benefits), and scale (often accruing among international actors or national institutions). Community conflicts over benefit sharing related to inequitable distribution of benefits (especially for marginalized groups, Indigenous peoples, and women) are shown to lead to instability. The uncertain nature of the markets and unstable market relations also present significant risks of uncertainty for CCMI proponents. The third dynamic captures the ways in which new agendas and interests are reshaping forms of governance by introducing external objectives to local levels that involve a new constellation of powerful actors. Implications for peace and conflict centre around clashes between notions of a global public good and local objectives related to livelihoods. In several cases, new agendas and interests resulted in assemblages that undermined Indigenous peoples’ rights and wider human rights. International attention was shown to support local agendas, but it also presents increased vulnerability and exposure for actors who attract international attention that challenges powerful interest groups. Market-based mechanisms for carbon trade, for example, have been closely linked to deepening neo-colonial relations, due to the logics premised on lack of local tenure recognition, inattention to legacies of global inequity, and development systems that favour elites. While international actors gain influence over national and subnational forest-related activities through CCMIs, the power of the central state in forests is often consolidated, leaving less influence for marginalized people. These power shifts have implications for security at national and local levels, driven by international requirements for coherence and upward accountability. An increase in the level of state centralization and involvement is shown in the literature to bring the benefits of subsidization and increased input of capacity, but can also lead to conflict due to the undermining of local autonomy and community institutions. In post-conflict settings, some CCMIs are associated with increased military presence, and elsewhere facilitate ‘land grabbing’. Together, these dynamics are linked with the notion of carbon violence. Some case studies suggest that the need for centralization can also be used as a rationale for, and a means of, strengthening state control and/or other political agendas. Militarization of forest areas is manifested locally but is often related to national and international security agendas. Some cases suggest that conflicts are rooted in the ways in which the objectives of climate change mitigation are being used to further other (non-environmental) agendas, such as militarization and strengthening of the state. Actions in the name of climate change mitigation are shown to be used by political actors to grab power over large swathes of forest land, involving dispossession and the capture of greater benefits. Reforestation initiatives are claiming strengthened state authority, especially when contrasted with blame directed at shifting cultivators through local-scale logging initiatives and fire bans. The fourth dynamic explores how the lack of attention to existing and potential new conflicts accentuates the security context of CCMIs. Cases highlight the lack of attention to conflict mitigation mechanisms in CCMIs. Without ways to deal with conflict, key opportunities are missed to address pre-existing tensions, prevent conflicts, or resolve conflicts. The literature suggests that conflict resolution has traditionally focused on the endpoint rather than on addressing the elements that create the conflict. However, more current approaches to peace have shifted to looking more at the root causes of, and different responses to, conflict. Modes of conflict resolution and peace-building provide opportunities to deepen this type of engagement, whether related to human rights, governance, or targeted socio-economic interventions. Indeed, the environmental peace-building literature has introduced a distinct lens for exploring ways to build common ground and identify areas of collaboration to address complex environmental challenges. More normative, planning and practice-based traditions have also innovated approaches to building local partnerships such as adaptive collaborative management, multi-stakeholder process, and participatory action research. Some authors suggest that peace-building efforts have helped to create conditions favourable to the implementation of CCMIs in conflict-affected areas. Attention to mitigating conflict has taken the form of the development of ‘safeguards’. Strengthening stakeholder engagement, dialogue and inclusive processes were often highlighted in the literature as key elements of peace- building processes. Our findings show that participation was often tokenistic and exclusionary, resulting in further entrenched elite control of natural resources and forest land. The strong critiques of participation and other forms of ‘safeguards’ illustrate the varied ways in which conflict mitigation is considered by different practitioners, policy-makers and scholars. Commodification of nature emerged as a central theme for understanding the linkages between peace/conflict and CCMIs across the case studies. With the onset of external actors attracted to economic benefits from forests, tensions emerge among those with different perspectives on who has the right to benefit from forests and forestlands. New market opportunities have sometimes been shown to offer financial benefits, but much of the literature highlights adverse effects on livelihoods for marginalized people, Indigenous peoples and women. In most cases we reviewed, external market-based interventions tend to magnify power imbalances. Based on our literature review, we found three perspectives on commodification of forests. The first is based in neoliberal logics and assumes conservation can potentially be more profitable than deforestation. A second perspective suggests a more ‘civic’ approach emphasising the need for safeguards for marginalized people. A third perspective is more radical and critical, indicating that interventions deepen neo-colonial relations and facilitate dispossession. The core of this latter critique questions whether green markets can solve a problem that is premised on operating within and expanding capitalist relations in ways that misrepresent local values of the forest. Another theme emerging from the cases in fragile or (post-)conflict contexts is how the design of CCMIs is, in many cases, inappropriate for these contexts. Different forms of fragile states have different security issues and require different responses. Introducing ‘rule of law’ based initiatives in contexts where implementation of the law is weak is challenging, and there are hazards of assuming law will be implemented in fragile state contexts. The report presents recommendations synthesized from the literature and based on our own analysis. Recommendations from the literature we reviewed can be summarized into the following key areas: Integrate a conflict-sensitive approach into CCMIs Design CCMIs for the local context Design CCMIs to be pro-poor and inclusive and to promote the key role of Indigenous peoples Integrate land tenure, access and management rights for marginalized and Indigenous peoples into CCMIs Strengthen existing effective, legitimate, and accountable institutions to better address peace/conflict Enhance governance systems and benefit-sharing schemata toward greater equity, and strengthen transparency and accountability of CCMIs Explicitly integrate gender equity into CCMIs to reduce inequality gaps leading to instability through differential power relations Propose alternatives to neoliberal climate change mitigation solutions Encourage more research on the linkages between climate change mitigation and security. Following more critical perspectives, several authors suggest that mitigation might be better focused on other sectors as CCMIs in forest areas are so problematic, despite their critical role in achieving climate goals. Some view problems associated with CCMIs as solvable, placing high importance on the role of safeguards. Others take a more political ecology approach, suggesting that technical solutions do not always work in the politicized context of forest governance and power dynamics need to be addressed. Lessons can be gleaned from these contradictory perspectives, pointing to the need to address political dynamics to allow a more nuanced exploration of the complexities of CCMIs. Understanding more about the complexity of the interest groups involved can lead to a questioning of the theory of change behind PES and other market-based CCMIs and the tendency within CCMIs to assume that financial incentives can fully and equitably compensate stakeholders for what are often non- financial ‘costs’. Our review suggests a complex relationship between financial rewards and technical solutions which, in many cases, do not directly address the underlying drivers and power dynamics that create insecurity and drive many of the conflicts analysed in this report. A shift towards understanding some of the core issues in relation to the dynamics between peace/conflict and climate change responses could make the importance of conflict-sensitive approaches to climate change more apparent to policy-makers and implementers, leading to reduced instability and increased security at international, national and subnational levels. The rise of interests, studies and policy initiatives aimed at articulating and framing climate security raises concerns that, without careful consideration of these dynamics, they could potentially exacerbate conflict dynamics. This paper will be made publicly available soon. Watch this space for the link.