The recent COP16 held in Cali, Colombia, between October 21 and November 1, 2024, had as its motto “Peace with Nature”. The intention was to address the relationship between biodiversity conservation and peace building, avoiding antagonizing between the two concepts and overcoming a solely rational approach that excludes the links we have with nature — food and water supply, medicine, spiritual connection, among others — and makes invisible our total dependence on it for our survival.
Based on its motto, COP16 brought to the debate on biodiversity conservation discussions and reflections, still under construction, which have been addressed by the field of study called “environmental peace building”. This refers to the integration of environmental management in conflict resolution or transformation processes. The development of environmental peace building studies has revealed gaps in knowledge for understanding and designing strategies that address the complex relationship between peace and nature, namely: overcoming the vision of nature from a purely economic perspective; recognizing the inequalities and power relations that give rise to conflicts; the impact of peace building strategies on ecosystems; and measuring the effectiveness of these processes.
Thus, discussions on peace, the environment, and conflict have established that conflicts have systemic and structural causes. That is why the need to understand their origin and to understand the role of nature in these contexts. Only in this way can strategies be designed and implemented to de-escalate violence and transform society-nature relationships at different levels (interpersonal, community, institutional).
The aforementioned elements are key to contributing to the achievement of the goals established in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), as they draw attention to the impossibility of making progress in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity without simultaneously addressing the social inequities that generate conflicts, opening effective spaces for participation and broadening the vision of what we consider to be nature.
COP16 opened a door to continue thinking about how to design and implement strategies that integrate peace and nature and bring other sectors into the discussion. For which it is necessary to recognize the lessons learned from the experiences we have had so far.
In Colombia, the reflections that have been generated in the framework of the implementation of the Peace Agreement, still in progress, and as a result of the current peace dialogues, have shown the relevant role that nature can play in the framework of the processes of reparation, truth and non-repetition; and in the generation of economic conditions for the reincorporation of former combatants and victims of the conflict. As well as the damages that nature has suffered as a result of the armed conflict.
An example of this was the process of return to the territory of the Resguardo Yaguara II community, accompanied by the Humboldt Institute, which indicated that the process of building peace with nature requires innovative approaches, focused on the coexistence of people and nature, in peace. Another is the recognition of natural entities (territories or rivers) as victims of the conflict within the framework of the transitional justice processes carried out by the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia (JEP) and the generation of bioproducts or sustainable tourism enterprises by ex-combatants.
These experiences have shown the need to harmonize the different environmental agreements and generate intersectoral articulations. For example, the Escazú Agreement, which is a tool to achieve the goals established in the MGB, seeks to guarantee access to information, effective participation, access to justice and the recognition and protection of human rights defenders in environmental matters. Without the guarantee of these access rights, it is impossible to de-escalate violence, build peace and think of other ways of relating with nature that result in the conservation of biodiversity while guaranteeing the lives of those who protect it.
Colombia’s experience in the search for peace shows that it is essential to recognize the interdependence between people and nature, build trust between actors in conflict and heal the social fabric. All of the above implies establishing collaborative ties among multiple actors, based on dialogue among diverse knowledge systems. In this context, facilitating access to information becomes a key tool for equitable participation in decision-making, thus reducing historical asymmetries.
In short, “Peace with Nature” requires a flexible approach that avoids the trap of strict conservation that excludes people and exacerbates socio-environmental conflicts. It is a matter of establishing effective cooperation between the State and communities, based on trust, respect, and recognition of diversity. Recalling the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, such as ownership and results-oriented management, is vital to charting a joint course that promotes environmental peace and a sustainable and harmonious vision of the future.
*Text produced jointly with the Inter-American Research Institute on Global Changes (IAI). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of their organizations.
Machine translation proofread by Janaína da Silva.
Autor
Biologist. Master of Business Administration. Currently, she is the Director of Knowledge at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Biological Resources Research. Her research interests are climate change, biodiversity conservation, gender and human development.
Sociologist. Master in territorial planning and environmental management. Specialist in environmental law. Scientific collaborator at the Colombian-German Institute for Peace-CAPAZ. Her research interests are the transformation of socio-environmental conflicts, environmental law and the science-policy interface.
